2012

US Elections 2012: "Election Analysis"

November 7, 2012

On the day after the U.S. presidential elections, November 7, the HCA hosted a panel discussion analyzing the outcome of the debate. The HCA’s own specialists, Dr. Mausbach, Dr. Thunert, and Dr. Endler were joined by Dr. Robert Gerald Livingston, founding director of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies in Washington, D.C. The panel explained why this particular election was unique and assessed the constituency and the challenges the Obama administration will face.

This year’s election was special for several reasons. The amount of money spent in the campaign was astronomical on both sides. Another new feature was the professional use of personal data in voter targeting, for instance via social media such as Facebook and Twitter. The candidates’ wives were both very active in campaigning and are both popular. Never before have the media checked facts so meticulously. In the analysis of the constituency of both parties it was evident that Democrats and Republicans targeted very different groups: Mitt Romney was mainly the candidate of choice for whites, elderly people, and men. Mostly his voters came from the suburbs. He also did very well with members of the U.S. military. Barack Obama was elected by 18 to 40 year-olds, women, Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Jews. The panel agreed that the most important factor for Obama’s victory was demographics. The Democrats have adjusted to the growth of minorities in the American population, while the Republicans are now predominantly a party for white men.

Of course, many factors contributed to Obama’s winning the election: Obama’s fight against terrorism and the death of Bin Laden were popular, and his winding-down of both wars the U.S. is currently involved in also contributed to this popularity. While voters were generally not content with the economic situation, there appears to be a general acceptance that the current economic crisis was caused by George W. Bush. The experts outlined the future challenges President Obama is facing after his election victory: The financial cliff is one of the most pressing issues which needs to be addressed by the reelected president. As the Republican majority in Congress will make negotiation and cooperation a necessity, some of the experts see potential for political gridlock. The economy, tax reform and immigration are further pressing matters. Concerning foreign policy, Obama will have to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, find the best way to constructively deal with the rise of China, handle Iran’s nuclear power aspirations, and push for more progress in Russia’s nuclear arms reductions. After the panel discussion, the experts were open to questions from their audience.

US Elections 2012: "Countdown für Obama – Die USA vor den Präsidentschaftswahlen"

October 30, 2012

With the presidential elections just around the corner, the HCA held another panel discussion on October 30, this time on the topic: “Countdown für Obama – Die USA vor den Präsidentschaftswahlen.” Professor Berg, Dr. Thunert, and Dr. Endler were the HCA specialists this time. This event’s special feature was a Skype connection to three other specialists, one in Washington, D.C., one in Iowa, and one in California, who were interviewed about the current events of the presidential campaign.

Dr. Thunert gave a short introduction explaining the electoral system of the U.S. and the importance of the so-called swing states. All states, except for Nebraska and Maine, have the winner-takes-all system, meaning that the entire state goes to the candidate with the majority of the votes. Each state has electors, the number of which depends on the population size of the state. These electors form the Electoral College. As soon as one candidate has won 270 votes of the Electoral College, he is president-elect. In the improbable but technically possible case that both candidates gain exactly 269 votes, the House of Representatives elects the president but the Senate elects the vice president. In this hypothetical scenario, it would have been possible for Mitt Romney to become president while Joe Biden had stayed on as vice president, since Republicans were bound to keep control of the House whereas Democrats were likely to continue dominating the Senate.

After this introduction Professor Berg posted a few questions to the first Skype participant, Dr. Markus Pindur, correspondent of “Deutschlandfunk” in Washington D.C. Professor Berg asked Dr. Pindur for his opinion on the fairness of the upcoming election in the light of “election reforms” in some Republican states designed to keep young voters, Hispanics, and blacks from casting their ballots. Dr. Pindur confirmed that there have been debates on constraining early voting in Florida, for instance. A “compromise” has been struck: The last Sunday before the election on November 6, early voting will not be possible. This would affect “Souls to the Polls,” black church groups who vote together on Sunday after worshipping. African Americans traditionally vote Democratic.

Dr. Endler interviewed the second guest via Skype, HCA Ph.D. candidate Styles Sass, who was located in the swing state of Iowa. Mr. Sass explained that the impact of the ongoing hurricane Sandy would be hard to predict. However, Mitt Romney’s campaign might lose momentum while Obama has had the opportunity to exhibit leadership qualities in trying times. President Obama has already been praised for his reaction to the critical situation. After President Bush’s poor handling of hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, expectations are high that Obama will rise to the occasion.

In the third interview, Dr. Thunert spoke to Professor Andrea Römmele, who is currently based in California. She explained that, as California is not a swing state, presidential political campaigning has all but seized. Professor Römmele commented on the role of the media in the election. She criticized the TV debates’ focus on who said what instead of discussing actual content. Also, she pointed out the lack of fact-checking on the side of the media, especially for the TV debates, claiming that the impressions the audience had after the debate stuck, regardless whether the politicians had told the truth or not. In their concluding remarks, the HCA specialists agreed that foreign policy will play a minor role in the election, that the economy will be the key topic and that the race was too close to call.

US Elections 2012: "Debate"

October 23, 2012

In the spirit of election campaigning and presidential debates in the USA, the HCA hosted a political debate with representatives of the Republicans Abroad and the Democrats Abroad, Phil Zeni and Dennis O’Donohue, respectively, on October 23. Each participant gave an opening statement and then answered the questions posed by the moderators of the debate, Dr. Anja Schüler and Dr. Martin Thunert from the HCA. In his opening statement, the Republican participant, Phil Zeni, explained why, in his eyes, President Obama did not deserve a second term in office: A still rather anemic economy and high unemployment rate were his main concerns. He further made the case that the Republican candidate Mitt Romney wanted to give Americans government support without making them dependent.

In contrast, Dennis O’Donohue stressed that today’s Republican Party was comprised of extremists, who “wage war on women” as they categorically oppose abortion and restrict other reproductive rights, which especially young women claim for themselves. Mr. O’Donohue went on to say that cooperation between the parties was necessary and Mr. Obama was willing to collaborate but his attempts were being blocked by the Republicans. The first question by the moderators was “How will your candidate reduce national debt?” Mr. Zeni answered that Mitt Romney would check all programs and diminish federal spending wherever possible. He would also reduce the unemployment rate as employees are able to pay taxes, which would help the economy. Mr. Zeni accused President Obama of inflating the size of the government and driving its costs up. Mr. O’Donohue, on the other hand, argued that Obama was ending both extremely costly wars and had already reduced the deficit. Asked for their view on the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Zeni responded that, while healthcare was an important issue, people generally felt that government control as exercised in “Obamacare” was undesirable. He noted that Romney would make healthcare a state issue so that states could ensure individually that their chronically ill and poor were insured.

Mr. O’Donohue contradicted his opponent and explained that the Affordable Care Act put restrictions on insurance companies, not on citizens. He elucidated that before Obamacare, it was possible for insurers to cancel coverage because of an illness. Obamacare made this illegal and thus protected American citizens. Mr. Zeni and Mr. O’Donohue answered further questions on energy independence and foreign policy in the spirit of their respective parties before the floor was opened for debate and questions from the audience. Predictably, a fairly heated discussion ensued among guests and participants alike.

Matthew A. Sutton: "Is Obama the Antichrist? The Rise of American Fundamentalist Anti-Liberalism"

 

October 18, 2012

For the opening event of the 12th Baden-Württemberg Seminar lecture series the HCA welcomed Matthew A. Sutton from Washington State University and University College Dublin. Professor Sutton is a historian focusing on religious history, particularly on 20th century conservative Protestantism and its links to politics.

Professor Sutton’s at the HCA was entitled “Is Obama the Antichrist? The Rise of American Fundamentalist Anti-Liberalism”. In the light of the approaching elections in November, he explained the apocalyptic world view held by no small number of American evangelists and its link to American politics. Many evangelists believe that the end of the world is approaching and that a new Millennium is near. However, before this new age can begin, the Antichrist will rise and reign. Evangelists also believe that the coming of the Antichrist will be announced by a series of signs such as moral decline, people turning away from faith, the emergence of powerful empires in Rome, Russia and the Far East, war or rumors of war, and the “Rapture,” in which Christians will be taken from earth and sent to Heaven. A further and very important sign is that God will bestow the Jews to Palestine. Throughout the ages, evangelicals have been searching for signs, believing that the end of the earth is imminent. World War I was seen as a sign due to the British capture of Jerusalem in 1917 and the promise to return it to the Jews. Evangelicals even saw Hitler as a tool of God driving the Jews back into Palestine. This does not mean that evangelicals condoned Hitler’s actions; they interpreted them as another sign. The restoration of Rome, and the rise of the Soviet Union and Japan in the 1930s appeared to be signs as well.

Today, fundamentalist evangelicals are also searching for signs of the rise of the Antichrist. 2012 brought no shortage of international turmoil and distrust of government. For example, in the eyes of evangelicals, the Obama administration is not supporting Israel sufficiently. While Professor Sutton made clear that most evangelicals do not believe that Barack Obama is actually the Antichrist, there is a sentiment that he might be setting the scene for the Devil. The belief that a violent end of the world is imminent has shaped evangelical voting behavior and will impact the election in 2012. After his lecture Dr. Sutton opened the floor for questions from his large and eager audience.

"The American Presidency" (HCA Book Launch)

 

October 16, 2012

On October 16, the HCA celebrated the publication of the book The American Presidency: Multidisciplinary Perspectives edited by Wilfried Mausbach, Dietmar Schloss and Martin Thunert. As a special guest the HCA welcomed Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson, Deputy Director of the German Historical Institute in Washington, D.C., one of the contributors to the volume.

The book is a collection of essays stemming from the Annual Meeting of the German Association for American Studies in Heidelberg in 2008. The essays characterize the American presidency from the different perspectives of varying academic fields such as political science, history, or cultural studies. While some contributions focus on events or individual presidents, others deal with the importance of fictional presidential literature or movies such as Air Force One, or with presidential rhetoric.

The editors of the book each introduced parts of the work and explained how the volume came together. Britta Waldschmidt-Nelson gave a short presentation on “How White is the White House? American Presidents and the Politics of Race.” Taking presidents Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson and Johnson as case studies, she clarified that Abraham Lincoln, for example, indeed ended slavery but was in fact aiming at its containment rather than abolition.

After introducing the book and giving examples of its variety of topics, the panel fielded questions from the audience.

US Elections 2012: "What Role Will Religion Play?"

July 24, 2012

On Tuesday, July 24, the HCA hosted a panel discussion on the topic “US Elections 2012 – What Role Will Religion Play?” The participants of the discussion were two visiting lecturers at the HCA, Professor Kirsten Fischer from the University of Minnesota, and Professor Charles Postel, from San Francisco State University, as well as Daniel Silliman, assistant professor at the HCA, and Bryce Taylor, a Mormon MA student at the HCA. The event was moderated by Professor Jan Stievermann, who holds the chair for History of Christianity in the USA at the HCA and at the Faculty for Theology at the University of Heidelberg.

The participants discussed the vexed issue of the role of religion in November’s presidential elections. They explained to the highly engaged audience that the rhetoric of American elections seems very much shaped by religious issues. However, how significant will religion really be? A good deal of the panel discussion dealt with the religious affiliation of the presidential candidates and the historical significance of religion for the American political landscape.

By origin, the Republicans are a protestant party. Currently they are endeavoring to give their party an ecumenical appearance. Republican leaders repeatedly stress the Judeo-Christian world view of their party, which encompasses all groups of both monotheistic religions. Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, represents this image of the conservative party. The Democrats, on the other hand, stand for religious tolerance and open-mindedness. After all, President Obama publically endorsed equality for homosexual couples – which cost him and his party the support of many religiously active conservative voters.

Professor Postel, an expert on American populist movements, emphasized that Republican “Christian Nationalism” is not to be underestimated, as it defines itself in contrast to Islamic groups. The participants of the panel agreed that the goal of the Republicans was not so much to convince voters of Romney’s qualities, but rather to ensure that Obama does not win a second term. Professor Postel explained that this was attempted by creating fear of a president called Barack Hussein Obama: A president who is a “secret Muslim,” a “black immigrant,” who did not grow up in America, who has Muslim ancestors and who is allegedly secretly appeasing the radical Islamic archenemy.

Despite the discussion’s focus on the relation between religion and the presidential campaign, the participants made it clear that other factors such as ethnic background, race and gender had a big impact on voters’ decision on Election Day. The panelists also explained the direct link between religion and age. The younger the voters, the less religiously active they are. Additionally, increasingly liberal young people are starting to leave their church communities. The debate also showed that ethnic minorities tend to vote for the Democrats.

It cannot be denied that the religious affiliation of the candidates is of great public interest. The presidential candidates are downright “tested” by the media. John Kerry failed to convince the press and the voters in 2008 that he was still a good Catholic despite being pro-choice. Bryce Taylor is positive that an atheist candidate would not stand a chance in American presidential elections due to the immense importance of religion in the public’s eye.

Despite the fact that the of the campaigns are religiously charged, the experts agreed that the coming election will be decided mainly on economic issues – and the candidates will have to lay open their tax returns at least as much as their church affiliation.

After the panel discussion the participants answered the numerous questions of the audience, which led to a lively debate on values and morals and their connection to religion in the United States.

Karsten Senkbeil: "Ideology in American Sports: A Corpus-Assisted Discourse Study" (HCA Book Launch)

 

July 3, 2012

The summer term’s book launches concluded on July 3, when Karsten Senkbeil introduced his book Ideology in American Sports: A Corpus-Assisted Discourse Study in the HCA Atrium. Karsten Senkbeil was one of the first doctoral students to complete his Ph.D. studies at the Heidelberg Center for American Studies. His book analyses the cultural impact of sports on the American identity. The talk commenced with the statement that “sports and academia are brothers – they both teach us something.”

Karsten Senkbeil emphasized that American football and basketball were both invented at American colleges, which explains the strong tie between sports and academia still persisting today. He also explained the role of sports in Western post-industrial societies by their “secure boredom”; sports act as a stage for spectacles of dense emotions, epic stories of success and failure, and “good” and “evil.” He illustrated this role using the example of American football, highlighting a specific train of thought covered in one chapter of his book: violence and physical roughness in American football. Scholars often assume that American Football is a highly rationalized game of war where the goal is territorial gain. It has been highly technologized and is thus an industrial and rather violent game.

Karsten Senkbeil, however, disagrees with this claim. He explained that sport anthropologists recognize a continuum of different kinds of violence: On one end of the spectrum there is cool, rationally used violence, which is the pure form of state controlled violence. This kind of violence is usually understood as necessary evil for a higher good and associated with “humane warfare.” On the other end, there is affective, highly charged violence, which is exercised for fun and play, such as in football. This “fun” kind of violence is also associated with “violence voyeurism,” for instance in movies. As the violence displayed in football is affective and of the “fun” kind, the sport can hardly be considered as rationalized modern warfare.

But then, what is it? To answer this question, Karsten Senkbeil went back in American history to the frontier and to the development of “civilized behavior” as explained by Norbert Elias, which forbids violence or expressions of strong emotions in public. In the twenty first century, there is no frontier. Hence, sports have taken its place. In sports some rules of civilization do not apply and violence is condoned. The players style themselves into modern wanderers who venture beyond the frontier into the wild. In this sense, sports represent a pocket of de-civilization. After the presentation of this chapter from his book, Dr. Senkbeil answered the questions of his keen audience and engaged in a lively discussion on violence and the phenomenon of hooliganism. 

Hans Vaget: "Der Gesegnete: Thomas Manns FDR" (HCA Book Launch)

 

June 12, 2012

On June 12, the HCA welcomed Hans Vaget, the Helen & Laura Shedd Professor Emeritus of German Studies at Smith College. Professor Dieter Borchmeyer from the German Department of Heidelberg University introduced his American colleague, whose book he called a “great epic,” which combined all the hallmarks of a great academic work with a dramatic narrative. Professor Vaget then shared some of the insights from his acclaimed Thomas Mann, der Amerikaner with the audience in the HCA Atrium.

His talk “Der Gesegnete: Thomas Manns FDR” dealt with Thomas Mann’s perception of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom Mann met in person several times. Thomas Mann idolized FDR and considered him “blessed.” Although Mann was also at times critical of FDR he always avoided public derision in order not to diminish FDR’s appeal. Mann deemed Roosevelt an exceptional politician and he worshipped him as he worshipped Napoleon or Bismarck. Thomas Mann had the opportunity to meet FDR three times. On the second occasion, Mann was shocked by the state of Roosevelt’s health. Yet Thomas Mann greatly admired FDR’s political genius and noted that his strength did not seem to be hampered by his impairments.

Mann gave three reasons for his admiration of Roosevelt. Firstly, he was fascinated by FDR’s sense of duty to engage in politics. Also, for Mann FDR symbolized freedom and progress. Thomas Mann simply admired FDR’s charisma. When Roosevelt died unexpectedly in 1945, shortly before the allied victory over Nazi Germany, Mann was so shaken that he interrupted his literary work on Dr. Faustus. Mann regarded FDR as a “shining light in the battle against Fascism” and as an artist among mere politicians. To Thomas Mann Hitler was the enemy of mankind and Roosevelt was his natural and conscious opponent. After the presentation of the book, Professor Vaget engaged in a lively debate with his audience.

Manfred Berg and Simon Wendt: "Globalizing Lynching History: Vigilantism and Extralegal Punishment from an International Perspective" (HCA Book Launch)

 

May 31, 2012

In the summer semester 2012, the HCA continued a format introduced a year earlier. Students, faculty and the Heidelberg public were invited to celebrate the publications of HCA associates. The series HCA book launches started on May 31, when Professor Dr. Manfred Berg, the Curt Engelhorn Professor of American History at Heidelberg University and Jun.-Prof. Dr. Simon Wendt of Goethe University Frankfurt presented their book Globalizing Lynching History: Vigilantism and Extralegal Punishment from an International Perspective. This book came out of a conference held at the Heidelberg Center for American Studies two years earlier, where twenty-five scholars from ten countries had gathered to discuss extralegal violence in its different forms from an international perspective. The conference volume compiles thirteen essays on lynching and vigilantism around the world. Both Professors Berg and Wendt are experts on the phenomenon of lynching in America.

Introducing the book, Professor Berg explained that the aim of the conference was to place the American lynching experience in a different perspective. In order to do so, a comparative method was applied: The authors looked for cautious generalizations that could be drawn from the individual case studies. Also, the question of the travel of the phenomenon as well as the terminology of lynching was addressed. The origin of the term “lynching” is originally American, but it was adopted by many other languages such as German, Spanish, French, and Italian mainly because nationals from these countries were lynched. The U.S. in particular has a history of mob violence towards foreign nationals. Chinese, Mexicans, and Italians were among the victims. Often lynching was considered “necessary” in order to control black “crime,” particularly the alleged rape of white women by black men. Lynching is often regarded to be a solely American phenomenon that is tied to racism. However, the point of the book is to show that this idea of negative American exceptionalism is too narrow and does not do the phenomenon as a whole justice. Ethnologists have, for example, researched vigilantism in Latin America and Africa. Professors Berg and Wendt made clear that it was not their aim to diminish the importance of racism or to belittle the suffering of blacks in America. Their goal was to show that collective violence is very common world-wide and always has been. Professor Berg defined lynching as a form of extralegal punishment perpetrated by a mob claiming to represent the will of the larger community. People feel they have a right to act if the justice system does not work properly. Hence they take the law into their own hands and exercise popular justice.

There are different theories as to why people commit lynching. The frontier theory states that if the state monopoly of justice does not yet exist, like in the “Wild West,” communal justice is seen as the first step towards law and order. In the weak state or failed state hypothesis, lynching is used as a form of self-defense of the unprotected. The conference and the book show that there is no negative American exceptionalism concerning lynching. However, there are specific components of U.S. lynching that do not apply elsewhere: Lynching as an instrument of racism did and does not exist outside the United States, not even in other white settler communities such as Australia and South Africa. Only in the U.S. is there a positive connotation of collective justice and a strong tradition of popular sovereignty and grassroots democracy as well as a weak concept of state monopoly of legitimate violence. Also, there is a high toleration of private violence such as legitimate self-defense. After the presentation a lively debate with the audience developed on lynching and its connection to the death penalty.

Bonnie Anderson: "Ernestine Rose as International Citizen"

May 29, 2012

The HCA’s Baden-Württemberg Seminar continued on Thursday, May 29, when Bonnie Anderson shared her research on freethinker Ernestine Louise Rose with a sizeable audience. Bonnie Anderson is Professor Emerita at Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York. She co-authored two books with Judith Zissner: A History of Their Own: Women in Europe from Prehistory to Present, published in 1988, and Women in Early Modern and Modern Europe. In 2000, Professor Anderson also published Joyous Greetings: The First International Women’s Movement, 1830-1860. Currently, she is working on a biography of Ernestine Rose.

In her lecture at the HCA, Professor Anderson introduced Ernestine Rose as a freethinker, a feminist and a key figure in the women’s rights movement in nineteenth-century America. Born in Poland to a Rabbi and his wife in 1810, Ernestine Rose was a rebel from childhood. She rejected her religious upbringing and broke with Judaism at the age of twelve. Her mother died three years later, leaving her some money; her father engaged her with a man she did not wish to marry. The marriage contract designed by her father stated that, in case of her refusal, all her inheritance would be disbursed to her fiancé. Ernestine Rose went to court, pleaded her own case – and won. She left her father and went to Berlin.

Professor Anderson described Rose as a true international: She travelled Europe extensively, lived in Berlin and moved to England, where she got married. Later, she and her husband moved to America, where she worked for women’s rights. Ernestine Rose did not approve of her contemporaries’ attempts to classify her by country of origin or by religion. In Rose’s eyes, humanity connected people more than anything – certainly more than nationality. During her time in England, Ernestine Rose joined the Owenite Socialism movement. The Owenites welcomed women, allowed them to speak publically – a rarity at this time –, and embraced inclusion and internationality, both of which Ernestine Rose stood for. According to Professor Anderson, several instances in Ernestine Rose’s life suggest that part of her enjoyed being an outsider and a ‘misfit.’

While Ernestine Rose is most famous for her engagement in the women’s movement and her captivating public speeches, the trait that set her apart most from her contemporary society was her work as a freethinker. In the nineteenth century, being a freethinker meant a public commitment to atheism, which was considered blasphemy and was thus illegal.  For a woman to come out as an atheist was even more shocking. Ernestine Rose spoke publically for the freethinker movement and formed many international bonds and friendships. Unfortunately, she also inadvertently alienated some of her feminist connections.

Professor Anderson theorized about the reasons that Ernestine Rose was forgotten, despite her sizeable influence on the feminist movement in the United States: She left the country and thus the focus of feminist historians, and she was a freethinker, which was deemed absolutely unacceptable at the time.

After the lecture, Professor Anderson answered the questions of her audience, which sparked a lively debate on the women’s movement in general and Rose’s role in particular. 

Karen Offen: "The French Connection: Building a Transatlantic Women’s Network, 1888-1893"

 

May 15, 2012

On May 15, 2012, the HCA continued the Baden-Württemberg Seminar with a lecture by Dr. Karen Offen, a historian at Stanford University, who focuses on the history of Europe, especially France, and the history of feminism. Dr. Offen’s lecture looked at two women and their international fight for women’s rights: May Wright Sewall and Bertha Honoré Palmer. Both were active members of the International Council of Women (ICW), the first women’s organization to operate internationally. Its intention was to create an international forum for women to discuss women’s rights issues but also greater issues of humanity.

In 1888, woman leaders representing over 50 women’s organizations from 9 countries met in Washington, D.C. Both May Wright Sewall and Bertha Honoré Palmer had strong ties to French women, as they both lived in France for a period of time. They aimed at utilizing the World Exhibition in Chicago in 1893 to promote women’s rights. Sewell and Palmer were anxious to also include French women, as they had the notion of a sister-nationhood with France. May Wright Sewall, who had always supported women’s suffrage, became president of the ICW in 1899. She was a visionary who promoted the idea that there should be national councils of women, each sending spokeswomen to the international level. She wanted to promote internationality among women.

The ICW turned out thousands of publications in English and French. Today, the International Council of women holds consultative status with the United Nations, which is the highest possible accreditation for an NGO. 

Neil Sheehan: "A Unique Gift to Truth and Freedom: The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States"

May 10, 2012

On May 10 Neil Sheehan gave a lecture on the importance of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and its importance for the freedom of journalism.  Neil Sheehan is a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and author. During the Vietnam War Sheehan reported from the war zone. His war correspondence attracted the interest of the New York Times, where Sheehan started working. In 1971, a source leaked confidential papers to Sheehan. The documents, later known as the Pentagon Papers, concerned the US involvement in South Asia from 1945. The Times published Sheehan’s coverage of the report, including parts of the classified documents, and the Nixon administration tried and failed to acquire an injunction. The Supreme Court ruled that the publishing of said classified papers was in the interest of the public. Sheehan’s publications, which were protected by the First Amendment, won the Pulitzer Prize.

In his lecture Neil Sheehan pointed out that the First Amendment to the American Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press, made US reporters the “freest journalists in the freest country” and thus gave them the duty to look for important truths.  Neil Sheehan recounted the events that lead to the publishing of the Pentagon Papers and gave an emotional account of how his editor at the New York Times, A.M. Rosenthal had been willing to risk his entire career to publish the Pentagon Papers because he felt the people had the right to know. Neil Sheehan quoted him: “These papers belong to the American people. They have paid for them in the blood of their sons.”

Neil Sheehan was very critical of the media landscape during the Bush administration, blaming the media for forgetting their true duty. He appealed to today’s journalists to remember that their duty was not to aid the government in its self-promotion but that their duty was to the public. “Take nothing for granted! Question, question, question! Dig deeper!” Neil Sheehan demanded.

In the predictably engaging discussion with his very impressed audience, Neil Sheehan explained that he believed in publishing classified information if it was in the public’s interest – under the condition that the sources remained protected and the publication of the material would not endanger people’s lives. Therefore he criticized WikiLeaks as “terribly irresponsible” for publishing their sources. After a lively discussion, the audience was invited to the HCA’s garden for a reception. 

William Chafe: "The Politics of the Personal"

May 3, 2012

On May 3 the HCA’s Baden-Württemberg Seminar continued with a contribution by Professor William Chafe, the Alice Mary Baldwin Professor of History at Duke University. Professor Chafe is a distinguished scholar in the field of gender history. Professor William Chafe is the former president of the Organization of American Historians, the recipient of numerous fellowships and the founder and former Academic Director of the Duke UNC Center for Research on Women. He has published twelve books, and his latest volume entitled Bill and Hillary, the Politics of the Personal is going to be appear this September.  

In the lecture Professor Chafe posed the question whether the personality of political leaders had an impact on their policies. Introducing three case studies, namely John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Bill and Hillary Clinton, he came to a very clear conclusion: Yes, the personal circumstances and the character of leaders do play an important role in their politics.

Describing the example of John F. Kennedy, Professor Chafe argued that Kennedy’s military experience in World War II shaped him as a person but also had an impact on the way Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis: According to Professor Chafe, Kennedy’s personal dislike for the unnecessary shedding of blood and his mistrust of military judgment since his own deployment caused the president to resist the military’s advice to bomb the missiles in Cuba. Thus Kennedy’s personal convictions drastically shaped the outcome of the crisis, Professor Chafe stated. Concerning Richard Nixon, Professor Chafe elucidated how Nixon’s distrustful nature and his profound ambition combined with his insecurities shaped his presidency and were therefore relevant for his politics.

Yet Professor Chafe made his most compelling case about Bill and Hillary Clinton. Describing both their professional careers and their love lives, Professor Chafe pointed out to his eager audience the intersection of politics and the personal. Professor Chafe described the instances in which Hillary Clinton saved her husband’s political career – which also perpetuated her own – by standing by him in the face of his many alleged affairs and openly demonstrating a strong marriage. Hillary was an equal partner in the politics of her husband and always occupied crucial political positions during his presidency. Professor Chafe maintained that the personal chemistry between Hillary and Bill Clinton shaped every single decision made in the White House during his presidency. Thus, the professor concluded, in the case of these two, the personal is the political.

After the lecture Professor Chafe answered the many questions posed by his fascinated audience.

Philip Kitcher: "Rethinking Social Values: The Enduring Significance of John Dewey"

April 19, 2012

The Baden-Württemberg Seminar continued on April 19, 2012, with a lecture by Professor Philip Kitcher, entitled “Rethinking Social Values: The Enduring Significance of Dewey’s Project.” Philip Kitcher is John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, specializing in the philosophy of science, bioethics, and pragmatism. In his lecture, Professor Kitcher focused on the ideas of John Dewey and William James, both American philosophers and psychologists who are deemed crucial for the philosophy of pragmatism. Professor Kitcher defined pragmatism as the desire to investigate the world and wanting to find out as much information as possible to help the greater good in the time that we have. This must be a cooperative endeavor of sciences so the outcome is actually significant for the greater good. Hence, a social division of labor of scientists is necessary.

According to Professor Kitcher, William James was interested in the significance of questions but not in their meaning. However, John Dewey connected philosophical questions to social issues. He wanted philosophy to have an impact on reality. For Dewey, the role of philosophy was to facilitate social conversation. It was the goal of philosophy to make proposals that advance the common good through solving the problems of the time. Professor Kitcher remarked that today’s debate on climate change showed that there was an enormous failure of embedding science in democratic systems. There was no strong connection between scientific findings and actual policies and science was not being used for the greater good. Professor Kitcher argued that the system for inquiry was distorted by economic institutions. He also argued that not only was science more or less ignored in the political process, it was also under pressure itself because education was pressured by economic institutions.

After his lecture Professor Kitcher opened the floor for debate. He asserted that today, philosophy was irrelevant for the society of the USA. However, he added, there was a small modern movement bringing up Dewey’s core ideas again. But for Professor Kitcher’s taste, this movement was not taking Dewey’s ideas far enough.

Lisa McGirr: "Evangelicals and U.S. Politics in the Twentieth-Century"

April 17, 2012

On April 17 HCA’s Baden-Württemberg Seminar commenced with a lecture entitled “Evangelicals and U.S. Politics in the Twentieth-Century” by Professor Lisa McGirr. Lisa McGirr is a professor of history at Harvard University and specializes in American History of the twentieth century.

Professor McGirr is the author of the book Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right, winner of the New England Historical Book Award. To her eager audience, she introduced a topic that is historical and yet of great current interest, particularly in regard to the upcoming presidential election this November: The linkage of the Evangelicals with American politics. Professor McGirr defined Evangelicals as a very heterogeneous group of Protestants who take the Bible literally.

The historian elucidated that today’s connection between this particular religious group and US politics did not exist before the nineteenth century and that it was ultimately a result of the national prohibition in the twentieth century. Prohibition as specified in the 18th amendment to the US Constitution, meant a strict ban on alcohol. This political decision was due to the political engagement of the temperance movement of the Evangelicals. They attempted to enforce their goal of the salvation of the people’s souls by the means of temperance as a ‘grassroots organization.’ However, this constitutional amendment brought violence and lawlessness in its wake and hence more moderate Protestants distanced themselves from it.

Ever since prohibition, Evangelicals have had some influence on American politics, acting as a ‘moral authority.’ Today the morals and evangelical world view manifest themselves in the Republican Party in particular. Although Professor McGirr does not attribute phenomena such as the Tea Party Movement solely to the impact of Evangelicals, it is a contributing factor, as the movement would not have been possible without a base of fundamentalist Christians.

Professor McGirr called upon her audience and the general public to be aware of the importance of religion and moral views in politics. After her lecture the guests got involved in a heated debate about the implications of a connection between Evangelicals and US politics.

Exhibition: "Cold War Politics: Melvin J. Lasky – New York, Berlin, London"

March 22 to April 26, 2012

Once more, the entrance way of the HCA and the atrium served as an exhibition space. From March 22 to April 26, an exhibition told the life story of Melvin Lasky, one of the preeminent personas of the cultural Cold War. Few American journalists were as well known in Western Europe as the extremely well-read and well-connected Lasky. And few were as controversial. Born in New York in 1920 and raised in the Bronx, the son of Polish Jews was an ardent Trotskyist who turned into a fervent anti-communist and “culture warrior” after 1945. Lasky’s biography impressively reflects the big ideological disputes of the twentieth century.
Curated by Maren Roth and Charlotte Lerg, both of the Lasky Center for Transatlantic Studies at the University of Munich, the exhibit recounted Lasky’s life, a “tale of three cities”: New York – Berlin – London.

Its first part documented Lasky’s early years in New York, his education at City College, the University of Michigan, and Columbia University and his work for the New Leader in New York, where he was editor from 1942–1943. After serving in World War II as a combat historian for the 7th Army, Lasky remained in Berlin, where he worked for American military governor Lucius D. Clay. Soon after, Lasky received Marshall Plan funding to create the German-language journal Der Monat, one of the most influential monthlies of the young Federal Republic, appealing to socially progressive but anti-communist intellectuals. Contributors included, among others, George Orwell, Hannah Arendt, Thomas Mann, Heinrich Böll, Max Frisch, T. S. Eliot, Saul Bellow, and Richard Löwenthal.

The exhibition impressively detailed Lasky’s extensive networks, which he built and maintained as the editor of Der Monat and as the founder of the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) at a 1950 conference in West Berlin, both partially financed by the CIA. In 1953, Lasky also became editor of the Encounter, in many respects a British version of the Monat. He moved to London in the late 1950s and remained a sharp intellectual and a busy networker until the end of the Cold War, when he returned to Berlin for good. The numerous visitors of this exhibition on “cold war politics” certainly left with new insights on the cultural aspects of the Cold War.