Charlie Rose

writersblock25  12/03/2010 04:59 PM Report

Wills obviously know his stuff, but he is a little stilted at times. Personally, I am more impressed when Rose's interviewees use thought experiments to make points instead of reverting to historical minutiae like Wills does.

Emile  03/07/2010 09:59 PM Report

Gary Wills is a liberal historian. I don't think he'd deny that. Nevertheless I don't think he is an ideologue. President Eissenhower mentioned the "military industrial complex in 1960. The fact that the US has become a military and corporate dictatorship is not a new idea. The fact that this implies the failure if not the loss of our democracy is witnessed to by the corruption that is part of how business is done in Washington. It might take the collapse of corporate capitalism to bring about real change and a return to democratic rule.

dkantz  02/20/2010 07:52 PM Report

Now that you have introduced me to the development of nuclear weaponry as the starting point for the rearrangment of reality beneath the umbrella of the US Constitution, it seems so perfectly obvious. Why didn't I think of that?

And you made me notice how our society became militarized starting in the 1980s so that now, when the president arrives on an aircraft, motorcade, or whatever, people salute him.

Thanks to both Garry Wills and Charlie Rose for this profound and revealing conversation.

doodahdaze  02/16/2010 11:50 AM Report

erichwwk @ 02/16/2010 09:32 AM

Your comparison is a weak analogy and results as total nonsense. An astronomer makes his best effort. This 'historian' makes no effort to understand all aspects of the phenomenon he is critiquing. If he is that intellectually lazy then he should stick to just reporting the facts, as a real historian is supposed to do. And stop trying to represent his biased and limited opinion as fact.

And just what is, 'social engineering'? Sounds like a perfect profession for ego-maniacs; if they can pull it off. Perhaps with the use of nanotechnology and some genetic engineering you'll achieve your goals. Whatever they may be.

erichwwk  02/16/2010 09:32 AM Report

It seems to me that previous commenters are not very familiar with the Manhattan Project. Garry Wills is a historian, an observer. Watching a process, looking for patterns, and reporting on what one SEES, is not invalidated by not participating directly in that process. Would "doodahdaze" reject the observations of an astronomer on the grounds that he was never a star?

As someone who was born into this culture shortly before the Trinity test , and switched from nuclear engineering to social engineering, I would say that Garry Wills has scored a direct hit into how the US lost its democracy. I suggest those who doubt this, invest a bit more effort into understanding the role of secrecy and information in empowering individuals in the process of obtaining rights to common property.

REMant  02/15/2010 05:12 PM Report

This has been the subject of many good recent books, but the question is as old as the country. You can consult Maclay's diary of the Washington administration, and Adams' history of the whole Federalist period. It is repeated again and again during the Jackson, Lincoln, McKinley, Wilson, FDR, and Johnson and Reagan admins. But being against the president is also viewed as being against the American optimistic ethic and likely to be viewed as politically incorrect. Tocqueville spoke to this. IMHO, we have long been a monarchy, with its supporting democratic cast, the aristocracy by which republican virtue is supported being nearly extinct. What propelled this change I believe has been the process which transferred wealth from those who actually earn it to those who create debt to use as money. This was done in response to the emergence of new more virtuous societies, such as the US a century ago, and China today, in an attempt to maintain their standard of living. It is a cyclical thing as the Greeks knew and the idea that it is progress or that new economies or world orders are being created is chimerical.

charlizecourriers  02/15/2010 03:50 PM Report

If it takes a 'stuffed suit' to finally convince Rose that his political "transference" to Obama has severely damaged his objectivity, so be it. What is the cure, now?

doodahdaze  02/13/2010 04:07 PM Report

This guy is a typical 'ineffectual' critic who has no real world experience at doing a real job that involves the coordination of other people. His criticisms are unfounded based on all other things remaining the same in the fantasy perfect world of his mind that has no tangible basis with the ambiguous nature of the day to day reality underpinnings of space-time continuum. But he can write books and make a living while flattering himself. He reminds me of that Ferguson character.