John Quincy Adams: A great statesman in his own right

Note: John Quincy Adams was the last of four presidents from the "Democratic-Republican Party." Not to be confused with modern Democrats or Republicans, it dissolved during Adams' first term. When Mr. Adams was later defeated by Andrew Jackson in the 1820s, John Quincy Adams instead became part of the "National Republican Party," a party that has since dissolved. Specifically, it dissolved back in 1834.

He was the first son of a president to be elected president himself, and the only one until George W. Bush - more than a century later. Out of the first twelve presidents, he was one of only two who never owned a slave (the other being his father). And like his father, he negotiated a peace treaty with Britain that ended a major war - with his father's treaty ending the Revolutionary War, and his own treaty ending the War of 1812, nearly thirty years later.

Growing up in his father's shadow

The man was John Quincy Adams; and although he grew up in the shadow of his father, he had an accomplished life in his own right. One might think that he was only elected president because of his father being president, or because he had a similar name to his father John Adams; but this is only a part of the story. He also had great experience as a diplomat, fluency in several languages (ancient and modern), and a native intelligence not unlike his father's. He was underestimated by his political enemies, much as George W. Bush was; and was a much better president than he's often given credit for.

Why I want to read philosophy in other languages

It is well-known among my friends that I am a foreign language buff. Some of my friends also know that I am a philosophy buff as well. These things might seem to be totally separate from each other, and to some degree they really are. But there is one way I'd like to combine them, which is to read some philosophy written in French, German, or Greek without the aid of translation. Why would anyone want to do this, you may be wondering? This post attempts to explain it.

A review of “Liberty! The American Revolution” and “The Revolution”

"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states."

"In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

- The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776)

It was the most successful revolution in history (and the most underrated), but one in which the winning side lost almost every battle that it fought. It was a war with dramatic battles and military campaigns, but whose greatest revolution was in political thinking and good government. And it was a war with larger-than-life heroes who were immortalized in statues and monuments; but it was won by the tireless efforts of ordinary people, without whose efforts the war would surely have been lost.

John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

The war was a desperate one, and the Americans came pretty close to losing it ...

The American Revolution it created became the most powerful nation in the world, but was one of the weakest nations for most of its early history. Indeed, it would never have won its independence at all without the help of foreign powers (especially France), and the war was a desperate one whose outcome was not the inevitable victory that it is often painted to be. The Americans could very well have lost that war, and the country as we know it would never have existed: the world would have been a very different place.

Why we allied with Soviet Russia during World War II, and then fought against it later on

"The Government of the German Reich and The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics[,] desirous of strengthening the cause of peace between Germany and the U.S.S.R., and proceeding from the fundamental provisions of the Neutrality Agreement concluded in April, 1926 between Germany and the U.S.S.R., have reached the following Agreement: Article I. Both High Contracting Parties obligate themselves to desist from any act of violence, any aggressive action, and any attack on each other, either individually or jointly with other Powers."

- Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact (also known as the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact"), 23 August 1939 - a pact which was quickly broken in 1941, when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union

It's often cited as one of the great ironies of history - that the United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II, and then enemies during the Cold War. Why is this?

We were fighting against a greater enemy during World War II, which was Nazi Germany

The answer is long and a bit complicated, but essentially it boils down to this: We in America allied with Soviet Russia during World War II to fight against a greater enemy (Nazi Germany) that had actually declared war on us, when Soviet Russia had not. Later on, we watched with horror as the poor countries of Eastern Europe were passed from one dictator (Hitler) to another (Joseph Stalin), and reluctantly realized that the Soviet Union could be every bit as threatening as Nazi Germany had been. Thus, we fought hard to prevent its expansion into any further territory.

Adolf Hitler

Joseph Stalin

The common theme in our dealings with the Russians was America's national interest

These ideas might seem incompatible: Allying with the Russians during one five-year period, and being enemies with them for more than forty years after that. Yet the alliance and the later conflict both had a common theme in them, which was America's national interest. It was served by an alliance of necessity during World War II, and an opposition of equal necessity during the Cold War period.

Russian Revolution of 1917

Why I majored in marketing

This post expands upon a story from a previous blog post, linked to here.

A review of PBS's movie "George H. W. Bush"

"My opponent won't rule out raising taxes. But I will. And the Congress will push me to raise taxes and I'll say no. And they'll push, and I'll say no, and they'll push again, and I'll say, to them, 'Read my lips: no new taxes.' "

- Presidential nominee George H. W. Bush, in a speech at the Republican National Convention on 18 August 1988

George H. W. Bush

Surprisingly sympathetic

PBS made a three-hour documentary about the life of the first Bush president, George H. W. Bush (not to be confused with his similarly-named former-president son). The film was surprisingly sympathetic to him, perhaps because his moderate economics were more agreeable to the liberal PBS filmmakers than the conservative economics of his predecessor Ronald Reagan, or his son George W. Bush.

US fighter wing during Desert Storm, 1991

What history can tell us about economics

I've had a number of people tell me over the years that with my interest in history, I should have been a history teacher. Thus, it's often surprising for them to hear that I majored in business instead. I also got a certificate in economics, which might likewise seem very different from history. And it's quite true that economics and history are two very different majors. But there is actually some overlap between the subjects - more than you might think - and so your average economics class has more history content than one might suppose.

What is the overlap between history and economics?

What is the overlap between these things? In short, there are two main areas where they intersect: the history of economics, and the economics of history. The history of economics is the history of economic thought - or the history of the social science of economics, and how people have attempted to find answers to important questions about economics. It has roots going back far before Adam Smith, but the modern social science of economics began with this great individual's magnum opus in 1776 - a book called "The Wealth of Nations." It is one of the great books of history (up there with Isaac Newton's Principia), and it has had an enormous influence on the way that people think about economics. (Here's my blog post about it, if you're interested.)

Adam Smith

The economics of history is about historical case studies in economic policy

The economics of history, on the other hand, is about the various economic problems that societies have faced; and their various attempts to find solutions to these problems. History is rife with economic case studies that show us which policies work and which ones don't. A good economist tries to learn from these lessons of economic history. I have talked about the history of economics in a number of posts, so I will instead focus this post on the economics of history - about the economic case studies that my classes have talked about, and about what history has to offer us in the way of practical experience with economic policy.