“Jeffersonian America”

John Fea’s Virtual Office Hours: U.S. History Survey Edition – Episode 18

Transcript

00:03
welcome history 141 students John Filion
00:06
here for the virtual office hours this
00:09
is your weekly update on lectures and
00:13
all things u.s. survey to 1865 our
00:17
trusted producer megan p.m. is here with
00:21
us as usual by the way if you haven’t
00:24
watched all of episode 17 go to the end
00:27
and you’ll see Megan and her Napoleon
00:31
costume for Halloween I think I even put
00:34
that on the blog too if someone can
00:36
follow the way of improvement leto but
00:39
today we’re coming up on an exam so I
00:42
want to do one more office hour just to
00:43
cover the last two lectures in class
00:47
where we’ve been talking about
00:48
Jeffersonian America and one of the
00:52
things are several things that I want
00:55
you to think about as we think about our
00:57
man here Thomas Jefferson I’m going to
01:00
be playing around with these Pez
01:02
dispensers a little bit today remember
01:05
Jefferson really sees his election in
01:08
1800 as it almost a second revolution
01:11
the revolution of 1800 he disagrees with
01:15
many of the policies of the Federalists
01:19
presidents and go back and look at my
01:21
fabulous one versus fabulous two bonus
01:24
track that we did last week just to make
01:27
sure you know what I’m talking about
01:28
when I refer to these Federalists but
01:30
here they are Washington and John Adams
01:32
we don’t have Alexander Hamilton because
01:34
he wasn’t a president intends doesn’t
01:35
make that Alexander Hamilton dispenser
01:39
although if anyone out there finds an
01:40
Alexander Hamilton dispenser or any
01:43
other founders for that matter send him
01:45
along and we’ll add him to the group but
01:47
obviously Jefferson does not like the
01:49
way in which the 1790s went and he is
01:53
really sees his presidency as a sort of
01:56
new birth of Liberty we’re at the
01:57
Enlightenment Liberty moving forward you
02:00
know going against the tyranny of the
02:02
Federalists right that George George the
02:05
third it’s not George the third this
02:07
time is George Washington
02:09
and the whiskey rebellion and their
02:10
vision for America of course Jefferson’s
02:12
vision much more area much more
02:15
spreading out via land much more
02:17
concerned about the common farmer so
02:20
he’s elected in 1800 and we spent some
02:22
time talking about his administration we
02:25
talked about his first term in which the
02:27
Louisiana territory Lisa Hanna purchase
02:30
is really the pinnacle of that first
02:32
term when you think about the Louisiana
02:35
territory don’t just think about it as a
02:36
huge land mass right that’s certainly
02:39
the basic stuff that you need to know
02:41
but think about the meaning of that
02:43
think about the political meaning of it
02:46
right Jefferson is wants to spread the
02:49
country westward he wants to establish
02:53
in many ways places in the west where
02:56
more and more common people are going to
02:58
go and get access to land land equals
03:01
independence land equals the American
03:03
dream so it’s the purchase of Louisiana
03:07
fits very well into his political vision
03:10
for the country and of course the
03:12
Federalists don’t like this at all
03:14
because they’re worried that well what
03:16
are you gonna do you’re gonna
03:17
Jefferson’s going to establish all these
03:19
new states out in Louisiana they’re
03:21
going to be you know they’re not going
03:23
to like the Federalists in these new
03:25
states and we’re going to basically you
03:26
know disappear from the face of the
03:28
political landscape and of course that’s
03:30
pretty much what happens so the
03:32
Federalists are very much aware this is
03:34
this is in the works also realize the
03:38
constitutional debates over over the
03:41
Louisiana Purchase and I think I made a
03:43
quick comment in class that here in
03:45
these very early years and it’s always
03:47
it’s not much like we have it today
people use the Constitution interpret
the Constitution either loosely or
strictly to basically get what they want
out of the Constitution and Jefferson
clearly is doing this when he when he
takes a very loose interpretation of the
of the Constitution saying i think the
Constitution doesn’t forbid me from
buying this territory as a president so
I can do it
04:14
so you have the Louisiana territory talk
04:16
a little bit about Lewis and Clark some
04:19
of the things associated with their
04:20
mission a mission force both scientific
04:23
exploration and the declaration of
04:25
political power or sovereignty one is
04:28
fairly successful to scientific the
04:30
political announcement to these Indian
04:33
tribes that America now owns this land
04:35
and that one doesn’t go go as well as
04:37
Jefferson would like but go back and
04:40
look at you know some of the things we
04:41
said about that expedition we talked a
04:43
little bit about Sacagawea and the way
04:46
she’s been portrayed in American culture
04:49
the second term for Jefferson not so
04:52
good foreign policy problems he finds
04:56
himself again in a situation in which
04:58
the europe is not respecting the neutral
05:03
rights of the Americans Britain
05:06
especially as impressing American ships
05:09
and I think to Jefferson’s credit and
05:12
again we can debate this but I don’t
05:15
want you to perceive Jefferson to sort
05:16
of be a wimp on this I tend to see him
05:20
more is trying to come up with a
05:22
peaceful solution to stop the
05:24
impressment of ship so the United States
05:26
doesn’t have to go to war unfortunately
05:28
the result is the embargo act of 1807
05:30
which becomes another disaster for the
05:33
United States and especially hurts the
05:35
common people in the common farmers who
05:37
tend to vote for Jefferson so understand
05:40
why the Embargo Act fails understands
05:43
jeffers this is Jefferson’s major
05:45
attempt to to deal with these problems
05:48
of impressment in the seas and
05:52
especially in and around the Caribbean
05:53
and the West Indies so by the time
05:56
Jefferson leaves office remember when I
05:58
said he doesn’t even list the presidency
06:01
as one of his major accomplishments on
06:03
his tombstone he says I wrote the
06:06
Declaration of Independence I founded
06:07
the University of Virginia I wrote the
06:09
Virginia statute of liberty licious
06:11
Liberty but he never quite saw his
06:12
presidency as one of his great achieve
06:15
greatest achievements i should say in
06:16
life so Jefferson successor where is he
06:21
here James Madison he comes on the scene
06:24
in 18
06:25
1808 he had 1809 he has to basically
06:30
deal with all the problems that
06:31
Jefferson left him and really now has to
06:35
deal with this what you know this kind
06:37
of perfect storm leading to war one you
06:41
had these young congressman Calhoun
06:44
Webster clay the Warhawks who are saying
06:49
enough of this we need to assert
06:50
ourselves we need to go to war with
06:52
Britain until they stop a crema and
06:54
pressing our ships and until they start
06:57
respecting our neutral rights you have
07:00
to come sit and the Prophet incident out
07:02
on the frontier where there’s rumors
07:05
that to come say is actually working for
07:07
the British and then you have of course
07:09
the third the impressment of British
07:11
ships this storm this threefold stole
07:14
these three storms sort of coming
07:16
together leads the United States into
07:18
war and after the exam are actually on
07:21
Friday we’ll talk a little bit more this
07:24
week will actually talk a little bit
07:25
more about the consequences and the
07:28
implications of the war of 1812 and how
07:30
that shapes what’s going to what’s going
07:32
to happen in the future so hopefully
07:36
you’ll do well in the exam go go look at
07:40
your notes about the office hours and so
07:42
forth you know prepare well and if you I
07:47
always say this if you don’t believe in
07:51
luck i should say good luck and if you
07:53
don’t believe in luck may God
07:54
providentially give you the grades you
07:56
deserve this exam and i will see you on
07:59
Monday

How Women Can Escape the Likability Trap

Powerful women know how to flip feminine stereotypes to their advantage.

There has been a lot of talk recently in the political arena about the likability trap for women: Women who behave in authoritative ways risk being disliked as insufferable prima donnas, pedantic schoolmarms or witchy women.

What you haven’t heard about much is the way successful women overcome this form of gender bias. I have interviewed about 200 women over the years in my research on gender and the workplace, and they all employ a similar set of strategies for escaping the likability trap. One former chief executive described hers this way: “I’m warm Ms. Mother 95 percent of the time, so that the 5 percent of the time when I need to be tough, I can be.” She embraced a stereotype that typically holds women back — the office mom — but flipped it around, using its momentum to propel herself forward. I call it gender judo.

Why do women need to do this? Even as women have moved into traditionally male domains, feminine mandates remain. More than 40 years of research by social scientists have shown that Americans define the good woman as helpful, modest and nice. In other words, as focused on her family and community, rather than working in her own self-interest. Meanwhile, the ideal man is defined as direct, assertive, competitive and ambitious.

This version of masculinity maps perfectly onto what we expect from leaders, in business and politics. Women in leadership need to display these “masculine” qualities, but when they do they risk being seen as bad women, and also as bad people. So savvy women learn that they must often do a masculine thing (which establishes their competence) in a feminine way (to defuse backlash).

Other research finds that women make a similar finesse while negotiating. Women who negotiate as hard as men do tend to be disliked as overly demanding. So they use “softeners” in conversation. (“It wasn’t clear to me whether this salary offer represents the top of the pay range.”) When Sheryl Sandberg negotiated for what no doubt was an outlandishly high compensation package at Facebook, she told Mark Zuckerberg: “Of course you realize that you’re hiring me to run your deal teams, so you want me to be a good negotiator. This is the only time you and I will ever be on opposite sides of the table.” She turned a salary negotiation (competitive and ambitious) into a touching testimony of team loyalty.

Isn’t this all a bit revolting? Here’s what works for men negotiating for a higher salary: I have another offer, and I need you to match it. Why should women have to do something different?

They shouldn’t.

When women embrace feminine stereotypes like the office mom, they reinforce both the descriptive stereotype that women are naturally nurturing and communal, and the prescriptive stereotype that they should be. But sometimes what women need to do to survive and thrive in the world is exactly the opposite of what they need to do to change it.

For women who want to master this strategy, the first step is to behave as assertively as comes naturally and see what happens. If you find your effectiveness jeopardized because you being yourself triggers dislike, then you need to decide whether overcoming the backlash is worth the sacrifice.

If it is, try doing something masculine in a feminine way. Think of femininity as a tool kit, and choose something that feels authentic to you. But don’t choose deference. One study found that women who used a submissive conversational style, apologizing and hedging, just undercut themselves.

The most common anti-backlash strategy I found in the women I interviewed was to mix authoritativeness and warmth. “I got feedback I was intimidating, so I would make sure that I got to know people, and before a meeting I would share something personal to make myself more approachable,” one woman, who is now a chief executive, told me.

Some women use metaphors to recode behavior that is coded as masculine. A woman responsible for winning new clients at a major consulting firm, where rainmakers were called “hunters,” told me she rejected that label. “I always said: ‘No, no, no, I’m a gardener. I grow things,’” she told me. Just another dame who loves to nurture.

Another tried-and-true move is what anthropologists call gender display. “For me, it’s pink lipstick,” one woman told me. She is the lone female member of the board of a public company.

In the most sophisticated form of this strategy, powerful women create an entirely new narrative, softening their hard-driving personas by highlighting that they are also communal, selfless mothers. A brilliant recent example is M.J. Hegar’s 2018 congressional campaign video. In it, a battered door — all that’s left of the helicopter she was shot down in while on an Air Force rescue mission — is tucked behind her dining table, where she sits contentedly with her family.

This is all a lot of hard work, and it’s work that men don’t have to do. Men, to be successful, just need to master and display masculine-coded traits; women, to be successful, need to master both those and some version of feminine-coded traits that do not undercut their perceived competence or authenticity. That’s a lot trickier.

What’s the solution? Organizations have to be vigilant about challenging the biases that force women to do this in the first place. The workplace is often structured in ways that reward behavior that’s considered socially appropriate in white men but socially inappropriate in women and people of color. This provides an invisible escalator for white men.

The goal is not to empower women to be as emotionally tone deaf and grabby as men are sometimes encouraged to be. Instead, we should work to make sure that both men and women are rewarded for displaying empathy or a willingness to put the common good above self-interest. These qualities have long been undervalued in work and in political life because they have been coded as feminine, and the world needs much more of them.

Tony Schwartz: The Truth About Trump | Oxford Union Q&A

Announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination back in June 2015, Donald Trump stated “We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal’ “. Tony Schwartz was the ghostwriter of the book Trump calls ‘his proudest achievement’. Schwartz has been vocal about his regrets in working on the piece, but, having worked intimately with Trump, provides a fascinating perspective into the personality and idiosyncrasies of the Republican nominee

 

3 Distinctive Trump Traits:

  1. Utter disregard for the truth & lack of conscience
  2. Guided by immediate self interest
  3. Inability to admit he was wrong

Trump Strength:

  • Persevering. Aggressive in pursuit of Goals
  • Manipulating the Media to get Attention

 

Time for Netanyahu to Go

Israel’s prime minister increasingly resembles America’s 37th president.

When the final chapter on Benjamin Netanyahu’s political life is written — and it may be a long time from now — he is likely to go down as the Richard Nixon of Israel: politically cunning, strategically canny, toxically flawed.

The flaws came further to light on Thursday when Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit announced that he would indict the prime minister on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. Netanyahu called the inquiry “a witch hunt” and accused Mandelblit of being “weak,” sounding (surely not by coincidence) just like Donald Trump on the subject of Jeff Sessions and the Russia investigation.

Israeli law allows Netanyahu to contest the indictment through a hearing, a process that could take as long as a year. He has no intention of resigning and hopes to win a fifth term when elections are held on April 9.

Perhaps he will. He shouldn’t.

That’s not because Netanyahu is necessarily guilty, or guilty of much. Previous Israeli leaders, including Yitzhak Rabin, have been subject to legal inquests that hinge on relatively trivial crimes. The charges against Netanyahu — the most serious of which involves the claim that he helped a businessman obtain favorable regulatory decisions in exchange for positive media coverage — are still far from conclusive.

Netanyahu’s solution has been to scrounge for votes on the farther — and farthest — right. A few of those votes will come from Otzma Yehudit (or “Jewish Power”), a racist party descended from Rabbi Meir Kahane’s outlawed Kach Party. Its leader, Michael Ben-Ari, was denied a United States visa because Washington rightly considers Kach a terrorist organization. If Netanyahu manages to cobble together a ruling coalition, Ben-Ari could become a power broker within it.

That alone is reason enough to want to see Netanyahu given the boot. Add to the list his

Netanyahu is a man for whom no moral consideration comes before political interest and whose chief political interest is himself. He is a cynic wrapped in an ideology inside a scheme.

Nor is the blight simply moral. Jews the world over face a swelling and increasingly deadly tide of anti-Semitism, while Zionism has become a dirty word in left-wing circles. To have an Israeli prime minister lend credence to the slur that Zionism is a form of racism by prospectively bringing undoubted racists into his coalition is simply unforgivable. It emboldens the progressive assault on Israel. It leaves its defenders embarrassed and perplexed.

Most seriously, it weakens a central element in the defense of Israel and the Jews: moral self-confidence. Anti-Israel slanders may abound, but they will do little to hurt the state if a majority of Israelis understand they have no serious foundation in truth. Netanyahu’s behavior jeopardizes that confidence.