WIP Home | Events | Links | APL '22 , '23, '24
Danielle Allen, Talking to Strangers. A book about citizenship. "A core citizenly responsibility is to prove ourselves trustworthy to fellow citizens."
Robert Caro, Master of the Senate. A book about legislative power. "I cannot conceive of a better book about Capitol Hill," Ron Chernow (author of the biography that inspired the play, Hamilton)
Complete and discuss (Sunday night at 9 p.m.) a weekly reading assignment.
Weekly blue-book reflections on the reading; DUE AT 9 P.M. SUNDAY.
Attend screenings of 2-3 related films. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington; Turn Every Page; All the Way
Keep a WIP diary on your work in Congress and time in DC on a Google doc you will share with me.
Contribute to the Instagram. Extra credit: other WIP Promotions (e.g. Exonian, Congressional offices, esp. in IL, CT, NJ, VT, CT, ME)
Share photos I might post on the website
Responsibilities related to the weekly alumni seminar: Each of you will be assigned a presenter. The job: Correspond; develop questions and focus; prep the other interns (an article to read?); write a thank-you note.
Grade: Attendance at films and Sunday discussion; Meeting deadlines for above jobs; blue book reflections; WIP diary; attendance (BE ON TIME) at and participation in the alumnus seminars.
March 30. Daniel Allen: The first paragraph on page 161 & the Prologue and pp. 3-24. In one of the blue books I will give you, write responses to the following prompts:
Prologue: According to Allen, what is the greatest threat to Democracy? What are the 3 bad options facing people in such a failing system, and how can we fix things?
Chapter 1: What does the photograph on page 4 (fig. 1) illustrate, according to Allen?
Chapter 2: What is citizenship (in a democracy)?
April 6. Allen, Chapters 3 & 4. Write in your bluebook about some or all of these things:
Any epiphanies you got about the nature of democratic citizenship.
How politics is a heroic activity.
The conflict between sovereignty and sacrifice ("powerless sovereigns").
What does the Biblical Jeptha story teach us about democratic citizenship.
How the NYT headlines illustrate Allen's point about sacrifice (43-44).
How do we deal with the anger of the losers? why would they agree to submit themselves to the state? (Consider J6).
April 13.
We're skipping the middle section, "Why We Have Bad Habits." Here are my takeaways from those chapters:
In chapter 5, "Imperfect Democracy," she argues that philosophers of democracy and the social contract theory, Allen argues, advanced the misguided idea that citizens could come to perfect agreement on the "common good," if only they would deliberate properly, based on universalizing principles rather than self interests and if they based their arguments on pure facts and reason rather than emotion. They focused on methods aimed at production of knowledge rather than trust.
Chapter 6: In "Imperfect People" Allen argues against the effort to define a "people" with one will. Thinkers like Hobbs saw repression of individual self interest in deference to the will of "the people" as a duty of citizenship. How, she asks, can a multitude of individuals with separate interests have just one will and act as a unit? Doing so leads to festering resentments and corrodes the bonds between citizens and their institutions and among the citizens.
Chapter 7. "Imperfect Pearls/Imperfect Ideals." Theorists have aspired to perfect democratic polity--consensus and oneness--but in reality, democracy never achieves perfect consensus, so we should aspire to imperfect wholeness. This means striving for maximal agreement and satisfactory treatment of residual disagreement. Losers in democratic processes (elections, etc.) need to be convinced that arguing is worth while so they don't resort to civil war. And winners need to avoid arrogance and contempt.
In Section 3, DO READ:
Chapter 8. "Beyond Invisible Citizens," just the full paragraph on p. 111 and the full paragraphs on p. 118.
Chapter 9. "Brotherhood, Love, and Political Friendship," The whole thing.
Chapter 10. "Rhetoric, a Good Thing," just the bulleted lists on 157-158.
Chapter 11. "Epilogue: Powerful Citizens," 161-163, and the only full paragraph on 165.
As you read and reflect, consider:
The difference between rivalrous and equitable self interest.
How friendship could be a model for citizenship.
How might we heed Allen's call to find and cultivate cultural habits that enhance security and improve the quality of our interactions among citizens?
How might you work to transform the institutions you are (or will be) part of? (As an example, Allen includes in the Epiloque, a letter she wrote to the University of Chicago proposing "boundary-crossing policies" that would improve relations between the university and the surrounding neighborhood--175-184).
April 14, 8:00: Film: "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"
April 20. Caro, The Introduction, and pp. 3-23. As ALWAYS write your weekly reflection on the reading and give it to me in the class.
Caro's book offers more information about life and democracy in the jim crow South. Do Allen's theories help us make sense of the these stories? How do they add to the Little Rock Story?
What makes this book a work of "literature"?
What kind of a person is LBJ and how does he wield "legislative power"? Is he a sympathetic character?
Could you use anything from Caro's history of the Senate in your capitol tours?
Should we abolish the Senate?
Thursday, April 24, 8:00: Film: "Turn Every Page."
April 27. Caro, 30-32, 49, 50-52, 65-66, 175-186, 194-198, & Chapter 8 (202-222).
How did the Senate Change from the golden era to the Gilded Age and beyond?
What kind of a person was Richard Russell? How did he wield power?
Examine the relationship between LBJ and Russell. Was it a friendship?
In case you want more: For you House interns: 110-113 is about his years in the House. Chapter 5 gives us some interesting character development. Treatment of his staff: 125-131.
April 28. Midterm grades.
May 4. Caro, "No Choice," 350-366; and "Gettysburg," 463-487. (37)
Instead of the Sunday night meeting and the blue-book journals, I'm giving you a collaborative project to make a readers' guide, which will help you follow the action in upcoming readings. Here's the task:
Find and record the name, party affiliation, state, and ideology (liberal/conservative) of as many senators as possible in upcoming readings. For example, on p. 608 in next week's reading you'll encounter quite a number of senators names. You can find others by skimming ahead or looking in the index and you are welcome to use the internet or even AI to find the necessary information. Make sure you sign your name to certify you participated in the project and did your fair share. Enter your data here.
May 11. Caro, 598-609; and 740-743; 754-760 and 832 (top) to 835 (middle) and "The Working Up," 886-894; and "Hell's Canyon," 895-902. (38).
The previous week's reading goes over the history of Senate leadership. The majority leader never had much power until LBJ took it over. Power was lodged in the committee chairs. It also explains how Dick Russell's run for the presidency in 1952 failed and led him to put his hopes for a Southern president on LBJ.
Personal ambition vs. duty, national interest and justice. Does LBJ's balancing of these aims suggest moral failing or sound pragmatic political calculation. Does it matter? (598-609)
What does the Longoria affair (740-743; 754-760) reveal about Johnson? Is his quest for power a moral shortcoming or good politics?
Why is LBJ's orientation to Senate liberals changing (832-835)? Explain his calculus.
What do we learn about leader Johnson's methods and how he made that position powerful? (886-902).
May 18. Caro, On Filibuster, Rule 22, and cloture, 92-94; "You Do It," 902-911; and "Yeas and Nays," 944-967. (34)
Though Angelina identified 16 Senators, her list didn't include some of the most important Senators in Caro's story. There were 96 Senators in 1957! So the rest of you still have time to get those points.
The rest of Chapter 39 (that you didn't read) shows how LBJ got Part III taken out of the bill.
Post script to the cloture story: In 1975 the cloture vote was changed from 2/3 (67 votes) to 60 votes. Why doesn't the House have a filibuster? Does the Senate filibuster prevent tyranny of the majority or turn the US into an oligarchy--what a recent book called tyranny of the minority.
Things to notice/think about as you read and write in your blue books:
"Moral complications" (947)
Introvert Ben Cohen's role.
How many steps did LBJ have to get the bill through to get it enacted? Which step(s) had it gotten through as of the start of chapter 39?
LBJ's legislative talents/abilities.
"Common ground" (944).
The right of trial by jury. Injunctions. Civil v. criminal.
Key turning points/maneuvers in the process?
Taft-Hartley.
The politics of lying, civility, compromise.
Counting votes.
May 25. Caro, "Yeas and Nays," 967-989, "Omens," 990-998, 1001-1003 (31).
Is Caro engaging in retrospective reasoning when he argues that the 1957 bill matters so much? (That is, since a meaningful bill passed in 1964, the "virginity" argument must be correct").
Why does Caro put some much emphasis on Frank Church's role?
Why is there not more support for abolishing the filibuster?
Did LBJ hoodwink Dick Russell?
The bill had little actual impact. Is that the fault of the bill or Eisenhower's lack of enforcement? Why did the Eisenhower administration (and Nixon) support civil rights?
Final grade:
A= at least 47 points
A- =at least 37 points
B+ =at least 31 points
Extra credit points:
Read and discuss with me an article in the red book (no more than 2 students per article): 2-5 points;
Write a reflection on your WIP experience worthy of putting on the website as a testimonial (note, this was a "program expectation"), 1-3 points
Gather the best photographs of the trip and put them into a drop-box folder shared with me, 1-5
Add to Senate spreadsheet: 1-5*
Write your thank-you notes: -2-2*
*Angelina put 16 names in the Senate spreadsheet, but left out some of the key players in the civil rights bill. This really isn't extra credit; it was an assignment you didn't do. That goes for the thank you note. I'm inclined to take OFF points when those things not done at all.