Alvarez, Renzo G.

BSMT-1A

SALONGA, Jovito R.
Senate President Jovito R. Salonga was born just over two decades after the Philippines declared its
independence, when stories about the revolution against Spain and the struggles against American
colonizers remained fresh and alive. In his youth, Jovito, called Jovy (and fondly in his later years, Ka
Jovy), was inspired by speeches that talked of sovereignty and independence for his country. These
ideals pushed him to study law despite the family’s poor means.

He was a senior in law school at the University of the Philippines (UP) when World War II erupted in
1942. His studies interrupted, he supported the anti-Japanese resistance and was captured in April
1942, tortured, and incarcerated at Fort Santiago in Manila. He was later moved to the New Bilibid
Prison in Muntinlupa to serve a sentence of 15 years in hard labor. Japanese authorities released him
in 1943, granting him pardon on the occasion of Japan’s founding day (Kigen Setsu).

Ka Jovy took the bar in 1944 and with a grade of 95.3%, topped it together with another Filipino legal
luminary, Jose W. Diokno. Ka Jovy then returned to UP to complete his LL.B in 1946. He took his
masters’ degree at Harvard University and his doctorate degree at Yale University. (His thesis on
international law was awarded the Ambrose Gherini Prize.) Yale offered him a teaching post but he
turned it down intending to return to his country to help in its post-war rebuilding.

While in the States, he married Lydia Busuego with whom he would have four children.

Back in the Philippines, Ka Jovy started a law practice and also taught law at the Lyceum of the
Philippines and the Far Eastern University. He was appointed dean of the College of Law of Far
Eastern University in 1956. He wrote law books, particularly on corporate law and international law.
He gained a name as one of the country’s most brilliant lawyers as well as a reputation as a strong
advocate of Philippine sovereignty (as against US puppetry).

Later in life Ka Jovy would write:

“Independence, like freedom, is never granted. It is always asserted and affirmed. Its defense is an
everyday endeavor—sometimes in the field of battle, oftentimes in the contest of conflicting wills and
ideas. It is a daily struggle that may never end—for as long as we live.” (Ka Jovy R. Salonga, The
Senate that Said No.)
Ka Jovy entered politics in 1960, running for Congress to represent the second district of Rizal under
the Liberal Party (LP). His opponents were from the Sumulong and the Rodriguez clans, the
province’s two political dynasties. But Ka Jovy showed himself a champion orator. He won a big
victory in the November 1961 elections.

In Congress, he was appointed chair of the Committee on Good Government, where he investigated
cases of government corruption. He was also appointed head of a government delegation to
negotiate the Philippine petition against Malaysia’s expropriation of North Borneo.
After his term as congressman, Ka Jovy ran as senator in 1965, still under the LP banner, and ending
up as topnotcher among all senatorial candidates. In this same election, Ferdinand Marcos, running
under the Nacionalista Party, won on his first term as president.

Ka Jovy’s first run-in with Marcos happened when he served as chief lawyer for fellow LP senator
Benigno Aquino Jr., whom President Marcos had sued for running as senator below the legal age
limit. But with Ka Jovy as legal counsel, Aquino won his case before the Commission on Elections,
the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the Supreme Court.

Ka Jovy also exposed several irregularities in the Marcos administration, earning him the media tag
the “nation’s fiscalizer.” Among these exposés was an anomalous contract (called the Benguet-
Bahamas deal) that involved Marcos cronies.

Ka Jovy ran again for senator in 1971. In August, at the LP’s proclamation rally at Manila’s famous
Plaza Miranda, two grenades exploded near the stage, and injured many LP members. Ka Jovy was
so critically wounded he was expected to die. Fortunately he survived, but it left him with a damaged
eye, impaired hearing, and tiny pieces of shrapnel all over his body. The upside of this was that Ka
Jovy again won and topped the senatorial elections. Ka Jovy became known for his crusade for good
government, unrelenting criticism of the Marcos administration, and opposition to Philippine
involvement in the Vietnam War.

When Marcos launched his dictatorship in 1972 and closed down Congress, Ka Jovy lost his job in
the Senate but resolutely refused to cooperate with the Marcos regime. He and his law partners,
Sedfrey Ordoñez and Pedro L. Yap, turned their energies towards providing free legal assistance to
the host of political prisoners that had swelled the Marcos jails. Aquino Jr., his fellow senator, had
then become the country’s most well-known political prisoner, and once again in need of his help.

Corazon Aquino recalled those days:

“Again we turned to Jovy for his legal expertise and for his invaluable support. Of course, we were
well aware of Jovy’s tremendous sacrifice in defending Ninoy and other human rights victims.”
(Salonga memoirs)

With Cosmopolitan Church pastor Cirilo Rigos, Ka Jovy started a ministry that worked for the release
of political prisoners and for giving their families financial aid. The ministry won the release of almost
90 prisoners in five years. (Bueza 2016)

Ka Jovy himself was arrested in October 1980 and detained at Fort Bonifacio on suspicion he was
part of a conspiracy to kill Marcos. Ka Jovy’s arrest was met with outrage locally and abroad, so
Marcos released him but slapped him a charge of subversion.

The Salonga family left the country and took residence in Hawaii, and later in California where a
Marcos opposition was growing fast. Salonga’s family met that of Benigno Aquino Jr., by then also
released. The Aquino family was then also living in exile in Boston, Massachussetts.

Senator Aquino Jr.’s assassination in 1983 at Manila’s airport tarmac shook Ka Jovy. He and his
family decided to return after a four-year exile to join what had become a vigorous national opposition
to the Marcos regime. Ka Jovy became a well-known and much-respected opposition leader. But
instead of pursuing a planned candidacy for vice-president in the snap presidential elections of
February 1986, he gave his full support to the candidates in Corazon Aquino’s presidential bid.
(source: Ramon Magsaysay citation)

When the Marcos dictatorship was dismantled in 1986, the administration of Corazon Aquino
appointed Ka Jovy as chair of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), and
tasked it to recover the wealth stolen by the Marcoses and their cronies. Under Ka Jovy’s leadership,
the PCGG gave relentless pursuit of these ill-gotten wealth.

Ka Jovy again ran as a senator for the third time during the 1987 elections, under the coalition party
Laban. Again, he was the electorate’s chosen number one. His legislative acts reflect his life-long
dedication to honest service in government, namely, the State Scholarship Law, the Disclosure of
Interest Act, the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and the Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder.

He was elected Senate President during this third term, a term remembered most for its decision in
September 1991 to reject a new R.P.-U.S. Bases Treaty. The decision effectively ended nearly a
century of American military bases’ presence in the Philippines. The Senate’s stance put it smack
against President Aquino’s own public support for a treaty renewal. Ka Jovy’s memorable words as
he banged the gavel that signaled the treaty’s end were: “(T)he treaty is defeated.”

This Senate decision had a heavy political cost on Ka Jovy. He was “ousted” as Senate President not
long after. And the business community, which favored the retention of the US bases, withdrew its
support for his presidential bid. In 1992, Ka Jovy ran for president, and lost.

After this, Ka Jovy left national politics. He shifted his attention to civil society, launching three
organizations, namely the Kilosbayan (people participation in governance), Bantay
Katarungan (monitoring the justice system), and the Bantayog ng mga Bayani Foundation (a
memorial to honor the nation’s martyrs and heroes during the Marcos dictatorship). He resumed
teaching and became a frequent speaker in forums, still keeping a critical but inspiring view of
Philippine society.
He was a prolific writer. Among the most recent books he wrote were: The Senate that said no: a
four-year record of the first post-EDSA Senate (1995), Presidential plunder: The quest for the Marcos
ill-gotten wealth (2000), A journey of struggle and hope: The memoir of Jovito R. Salonga (2001), The
intangibles that make a nation great (2003), and Presidential plunder 2: Erap, the crime of plunder
and other offenses (2008).
He continued to receive awards. In 1988, he was given an honorary degree by the Arizona State
University, the Ramon Magsaysay Award for government service in 2007 (for “the exemplary integrity
and substance of his long public career in service to democracy and good government in the
Philippines,” and in 1990, by UP a Doctor of Laws degree, honoris causa, (“for his brilliant career
as an eminent political figure… for his unwavering, courageous stand against injustice, oppression,
and dictatorship … and for his sterling personal qualities of decency, humility, industry and
moderation”).
As he grew more frail with age, Ka Jovy nevertheless stayed alert about national events and
continued to give sharp and well-thought-out commentaries about them. He also continued to provide
inspiration to the Filipino youth. In another speech in 1964, he discussed how to discern education in
a person:

“Is he the man who has read a lot? Partly yes, because his reading is serious and discriminate and
uplifting. Is he the man who remembers many facts and events? Partly yes, because the training of
memory is a wholesome discipline that requires effort and application and because one cannot make
a sound judgement without respect for remembered facts. Is the educated man, then, one who
because of his skill is able to provide for himself and his family? Partly yes, since education should
teach us how to make a living. But there is one thing we should always remember and it is this — that
far more important than the making of a living, is a living of life — a good life, a meaningful life, an
abundant life.

The educated man lives this kind of a life, because he has opened the windows of his mind to great
thoughts and ennobling ideas; because he is not imprisoned by the printed page, but chooses to
make a relentless, rigorous analysis and evaluation of everything he reads; because he is less
interested in the accumulation of degrees than in the stimulation of his mind and the cultivation of a
generous spirit; because his interest is less in knowing who is right but more importantly, in discerning
what is right and defending it with all the resources at his command; because he can express himself
clearly and logically, with precision and grace; because he is not awed by authority, but is humble
enough to recognize that his best judgment is imperfect and may well be tainted by error or pride;
because he has a deep reverence for the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, as a
creature of God; because he has a healthy sense of values, a breadth of outlook and the depth of
compassion which a purposeful education generates; because whenever he talks about good
government he is prepared and willing to sacrifice himself for it; and because he lives a life of
relevance to the world in which we live, a sharing in the problems of his time and doing whatever he
can with intelligence and fairness and understanding.”

On his death, the Philippine Supreme Court released a message that said in part: “He was an
intellectual mentor and role model to many generations of lawyers through his courage and integrity.
The Court recognizes his contribution to the shaping of modern jurisprudence in basic human rights
and fundamental civil liberties especially during martial law and after the restoration of democracy.”

Fellow human rights lawyer and senator, Joker P. Arroyo, said of Ka Jovy: “Some people make
history, others write it. But there is a rare handful who, in writing — and in speaking — make history.
These are the ones who illuminate the issues, and in so doing move men to answer them with noble
actions… In our country there was Claro M. Recto. But if you consider the wealth of historical events
surrounding a particular personality who shaped and even generated these events by his words, Ka
Jovy Salonga stands virtually alone.”
Despite his growing infirmity, Ka Jovy refused to grow old. In another 2007 speech, he cited this
quotation:

“Youth is not entirely a time of life; it is a state of mind. It is not wholly a matter of ripe cheeks, red lips
or supple knees. It is a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions, a
freshness of the springs of life.

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals.
Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul. Worry, doubt, self-distrust, fear
and despair — these are the long, long wires that bow the head and turn the growing spirit back to
dust.

You are as young as your faith, as old as your doubt; as young as your self-confidence, as old as
your fear; as young as your hope, as old as your despair. In the central place of your heart, there is a
recording chamber; so long as it receives messages of beauty, hope, cheer and courage, so long are
you young. When the wires are all down and your heart is covered with the snow of pessimism and
the ice of cynicism, then — and then only — are you grown old.”
Ka Jovy is today considered one of the country’s statesmen. He would never grow old. #

Born on June 22, 1920 in Pasig, Rizal

Died on March 10, 2016, in Quezon City

Parents Bernardina Reyes and Esteban Salonga

Spouse Lydia Busuego

Siblings Five brothers

Children Patricia, Victoria Regina, Ricardo, Esteban Fernando, and Eduardo

Education College of Law, University of the Philippines

Citation in the 2007 Ramon Magsaysay Foundation Award

Jovito Salonga’s long life began only twenty-two years after the onset of American rule in the
Philippines. His youth was a time of national hope and longing for independence. These things
shaped him, alongside his family’s deep Christian convictions and the hardships of their daily life.
When he was twelve, a speech by the independence-champion Manuel Roxas in his hometown
stirred him to dream of a life in law and in public life.

Seizing on this ambition, he rose through public schools to the College of Law at the University of the
Philippines. When war overtook his studies, Salonga quickly ran afoul of the new Japanese
authorities. He was tortured and jailed and released after nearly a year. Amid dearth and uncertainty,
he crammed for the bar examinations and, in 1944, earned the highest score.

At war’s end, Salonga embraced Philippine independence but denounced “parity rights” and other
compromising ties to the United States. He topped off his legal education with graduate degrees from
Harvard and Yale universities and then plunged headlong into the life of his new nation.

Salonga established himself as a sought-after lawyer and an influential legal scholar and educator. In
1961, the Liberal Party tapped him for a successful run for Congress in his home province of Rizal.
Four years later, he outpolled all other candidates for the Senate-a feat he repeated twice. He built
his reputation as a crusader for clean government and public education. As a staunch nationalist, he
opposed Philippine complicity in the Vietnam War and other acts of “puppetry.” And he so persistently
exposed the troubling anomalies of President Ferdinand Marcos that the Philippines Free Press
named him the “Nation’s Fiscalizer.”

The bomb that crippled him at a political rally in 1971, Salonga says, led him to a second, “borrowed
life.” He opposed martial law from the start, defending opponents of the Marcos dictatorship and
working tirelessly for the succor and release of political prisoners and for the democratic opposition.
In 1980, he himself was jailed without charges and then released. Four years in exile followed.

Yet he never lost hope. In 1985, Salonga returned home to revitalize his political party and confront
the dictatorship. Putting aside personal ambition, he withdrew his candidacy for vice president in the
snap elections of February 1986 and threw himself heart-and-soul into Corazon Aquino’s presidential
campaign and the People Power Revolution.

Afterwards, Salonga initiated the new government’s legal efforts to reclaim wealth stolen by the
Marcoses. In 1987, voters returned him to the Senate. There, he authored new laws protecting the
state from plunder, military coups, and corrupt officials and, in 1991 as Senate president, triumphantly
led his colleagues in ejecting American military bases from the Philippines.

Salonga returned to private life the following year, having made a hotly contested but disappointing
bid for the presidency. But through his NGOs, Bantay Katarungan (Sentinel of Justice) and
Kilosbayan (People’s Action), he has sustained his principled interventions in the affairs of the nation
up till now.

Salonga relishes the point-and-counterpoint of democratic politics. But to Salonga politics is not a
game. There is a right and a wrong. Democracy is right. Social justice is right. The rule of law, honest
and competent government, compassion for the poor, pride in country-all are right.

To be sure, these are the familiar mantras of Philippine politics. But to Salonga they are a creed. His
rare moral authority stems from a simple fact: he practices what he preaches.

Today, at eighty-seven, Salonga urges young people to seek happiness in service. More important in
life than wealth is meaning. We will find it, he says, if we live “by what we know to be true and good.”

In electing Jovito Salonga to receive the 2007 Ramon Magsaysay Award for Government Service, the
board of trustees recognizes the exemplary integrity and substance of his long public career in
service to democracy and good government in the Philippines.
Alvarez, Renzo G.

BSMT-1A

“The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It”
The American Political Tradition and The Men Who Made It is the story of the major social and
political figures in American history that shaped the institutions and practices of the United States. It
was written by one of the most important American historians in the twentieth century, Richard
Hofstadter. The book covers the period of American history ranging from the American Revolution to
the end of World War II. It has twelve chapters, each of which focuses on a single great man, or, less
frequently, a small group of minor characters. It is the purpose of the book to focus on character
portraits, to illustrate the history, ideas, temperament and principles of the 'great figures' of American
political history and the way in which their actions and thought affected the United States history.
The book is divided into twelve chapters. The first chapter covers the Founding Fathers and the
second focuses specifically on Thomas Jefferson. Chapter three follows up with an analysis of
Andrew Jackson, and chapter four on the South Carolina Senator, Vice-President and philosopher of
Southern decentralism, John C. Calhoun. Chapter five discusses Abraham Lincoln and chapter six a
prominent abolitionist named Wendell Phillips. Chapter seven centers on the late nineteenth century,
particularly on the political figures during the so-called Gilded Age. The next chapter focuses on the
iconoclastic orator and presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. The final four chapters discuss
Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt respectively.
Several themes pervade the book. First, Hofstadter focuses on these differing figures' contrasting
views on the relationship between government and the economy. Earlier figures sought to preserve
economic liberty from the state and big business, while later figures tended to prefer a larger
government, and believed in restricting economic liberty for the sake of the poor and the control of big
business interests. Another constant theme of the book is the differing and evolving concepts of
democratic life particular to each period. The American Founders were hostile to democracy, whereas
Jefferson and Jackson strongly supported it. Calhoun opposed it and Lincoln defended it. A final
theme of the book is Hofstadter's penchant for painting realistic and balanced pictures of the major
characters in American politics. He argues that Lincoln was largely indifferent to slavery, that
Theodore Roosevelt never met a war he didn't like and that FDR was a political opportunist with few
political principles. Overall, the book presents a coherent story about the evolution of American
political and economic institutions along side a narrative about the most important figures in American
history. Hofstadter combines an analysis of ideas with a psychological analysis of those who
implemented them.
Chapter 1, The Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism Summary and Analysis
Hofstadter begins his history of the American political tradition with the Founding Fathers. He is
focused to consider not so much what happened during this period of time but on the ideas that
shaped governance and policy. He begins by arguing that the Constitution was based on the
Founders' particular conception of the person. They believed that most men were evil, self-interested
and that they could not be changed, or at least not easily. The Constitution, in one way, was founded
on experience, from the observations the Founders made about the prevalence of tyranny across the
globe and history. Hofstadter argues that this attitude about human nature was largely ubiquitous
among the Founders.
The Founders had a mixed attitude towards democracy, as well. Hofstadter notes that democratic...

Chapter 2, Thomas Jefferson: the Aristocrat as Democrat Summary and Analysis

Chapter II concerns the life, politics and temperament of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson is an important
figure, not only for his historic role in shaping American political institutions, but because he contained
many of the foundational American ideals within his own thought, even those that we think are in
tension with one another.
Hofstadter begins by emphasizing that Jefferson has a certain mythology that surrounds him, much of
which is simple nonsense. Jefferson has his flaws and complexities, unlike the worshipful attitude of
many historians. He did not, for instance, revolutionize social life in Virginia but made some important
but modest reforms. He did secure freedom of religion by disestablishing the Anglican Church in
Virginia as well. Jefferson was an enormous proponent of the agrarian mode of economic life. He...

Chapter 3, Andrew Jackson and the Rise of Liberal Capitalism Summary and Analysis
Andrew Jackson is often depicted as a wild man and populist opponent of aristocratic privilege. There
is some truth to this, but Andrew Jackson was an aristocrat in Tennessee. Elite classes in the frontier
were successful businessmen and lawyers who often were as rough around the edges as anyone
else. The only form of social hierarchy among whites was in terms of accomplishment. Andrew
Jackson grew up in this milieu, quickly moving up the social ladder. And while he may have felt
alienated from Northeastern elites, he had his own kind of aristocratic demeanor.
Andrew Jackson's fame came primarily from his military victory at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815,
but for a long time he languished in quasi-obscurity due to enormous debts he accumulated...

Chapter 4, John C. Calhoun: The Marx of the Master Class Summary and Analysis
John C. Calhoun was a senator from South Carolina and Andrew Jackson's vice-president who later
had to resign. He possessed an abstract intellect and a mind built for philosophy. He represented the
thought of the Southern minority that sought to preserve the slave economy and extend it throughout
the union. He was also a strong federalist, developing in detail the idea of nullification of federal laws
and the idea of rule by concurrent majorities (where the federal government would be run by the
major votes of major regional interests).
Calhoun had no real childhood to speak of and was not close to his parents. He was secretary of war
in Monroe's second term. Calhoun was not a personable man, yet this was not...

Chapter 5, Abraham Lincoln and the Self-Made Myth Summary and Analysis
Hofstadter begins by repeating the high adulation that American culture and American historians have
given to Lincoln. Americans have elevated Lincoln to the status of a religious figure. But it is arguable
that this is a myth and that Lincoln was always the consummate politician, a moderate conservative,
and only incidentally interested in the deep moral question of slavery. Lincoln grew up in Kentucky
and hated his chores. He was rather lazy and preferred to give stump speeches. He read primarily in
order to hone his speech-giving skills, which is why he preferred to read aloud. Apparently Lincoln
had great political ambitions and talents, rising from obscurity at age twenty-four to speaker of the
house in Illinois four years later. Politically, Lincoln was a moderate Whig, meaning that he...
Chapter 6, Wendell Phillips: the Patrician as Agitator Summary and Analysis
Wendell Phillips is relatively unknown in comparison with the other figures in the book. He was one of
the most famous members of the abolitionist movement, next to William Lloyd Garrison. He was an
organizer and agitator against slavery. He saw his role as an agitator as buttressing republican
institutions and preventing people from becoming indifferent. Phillips believed strongly in moral
progress and that the end of slavery was inevitable. He also gave a likeable and sensible face to the
abolitionist movement, in contrast to Garrison. He helped to gain the abolitionist movement
legitimacy. Phillips and his wife were wealthy, so they were able to devote themselves full time to
advocating the abolition of slavery. However, agitation was dangerous and Phillips was constantly
followed by mobs.
Abolitionism was not...
Chapter 7, The Spoilsmen: An Age of Cynicism Summary and Analysis
Chapter 7 concerns the "Gilded Age" or late nineteenth century capitalism. Between Appomattox and
Theodore Roosevelt, there were few great political figures. Instead, economic growth spurred forward
and politics became largely irrelevant. Americans colonized the entire continent, built railroads across
the country and the United States became an industrialized nation, perhaps the most economically
powerful country in the world, save Britain. Men accumulated massive sums of wealth, beyond what
anyone had ever seen in private hands. Politics became corrupt and largely reflected the attempts of
the great entrepreneurs to secure private benefits for themselves at the expense of the market
economy. This and other abuses led to some backlash, but the backlash would not successfully
organize until nearly the end of the century.
The business barons based the justification for...
Chapter 8, William Jennings Bryan: The Democrat as Revivalist Summary and Analysis
William Jennings Bryan was never president, but was one of the most important figures in American
history for the role he played in leading and embodying Populist sentiment in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. He combined many distinct views - support for inflation through 'free silver',
free trade, anti-imperialism, nationalization of the railroads and banning the teaching of evolution -
and had no distinct political principles for tying them together. Instead, his powerful speaking voice
and role in popular American religion gave him a platform which he used primarily to be heard and
not to bring about positive political change.
Bryan's constituents were the farming people of the West and South. He somewhat represented
those who survived Reconstruction in the South. They were often in...
Chapter 9, Theodore Roosevelt: The Conservative as Progressive Summary and Analysis
Hofstadter characterizes American culture in the late nineteenth century as rough, individualistic and
obsessed with material gain. The cultural elites had no place to go - they couldn't compete with self-
made entrepreneurs and politics was considered a corrupt career path. Theodore Roosevelt entered
politics to restore virtue to political office, the martial virtues in particular. Roosevelt was disgusted by
commercial spirit and wanted to imbue the United States' people with a 'fighting edge'. However, he
hated the mob, along with hating business interests.
Roosevelt had an unusual, unstable and obsessive personality. He was never relaxed, and was
always on the move. He was obsessed with hunting, politics, oratory, and war. He wrote copiously.
He believed that the Spanish-American War would produce a martial spirit in the country and give...
Chapter 10, Woodrow Wilson: The Conservative as Liberal Summary and Analysis
Woodrow Wilson grew up the son of a Presbyterian minister and a Presbyterian minister's daughter.
They taught young Woodrow to see political life as the process of bringing about the Kingdom of God
on earth. For Wilson, politics became his method of spreading "spiritual enlightenment" and urging
the country to public service. As a child and as an adult, Wilson had a strong need for affection and
adulation. Politics gave him the affection he never received in private. Wilson was raised in the South
and was, deep down, a Southern traditionalist. But he came to admire English intellectual ideas. He
looked up to a variety of important British statesmen. In the beginning of his career he "stood far
closer to Edmund Burke than to Thomas Jefferson." He hated revolutionary...

Chapter 11, Herbert Hoover and the Crisis of American Individualism Summary and Analysis
Herbert Hoover rose to prominence in the aftermath of World War I. He was the only person to have
his status elevated as a result of the war. He helped to run the American Relief Administration, which
was regarded as a success at holding the European economies together after the war. Hoover had
great experience in the relevant areas, having undertaken numerous major construction projects
between 1899 and 1911. But after World War I, a mere decade later, Hoover's reputation as a great
businessman and humanitarian was destroyed.
Indeed Hoover had great business and managerial talents. But Hofstadter argued that he was
handicapped by his laissez-faire liberal philosophy, which tied him to a past and seemingly irrelevant
age. Hofstadter discusses how he studied engineering and geology at...

Chapter 12, Franklin D. Roosevelt: The Patrician as Opportunist Summary and Analysis
Hofstadter sees Franklin Roosevelt as one of the most important personalities in history. He
expressed the American "popular temper" perfectly, and arguably completely changed the world. The
New Deal, argues Hofstadter, was more of a temperament than a philosophy. It reflected Roosevelt's
conviction that he could do no wrong and that even if he did mess up, he would continue to
experiment until he succeeded. He was not a man of great learning and did not care much for the
vagaries of policy. He was no master planner, but was largely a political opportunist who made the
most of what history provided him. He was raised in a rich, upper crust New York City family. He
entered law school as most men of elite American classes did...

Reaction

The title of this book is a touch misleading - what Hofstadter actually put together was twelve essays
on American politicians - all but one of whom held office - who were present during various
instrumental periods in American history, and endeavored to leap astride the coursers of public and
political momentum and seek to direct the unruly and unpredictable beasts back towards the beaten
path. Completed in 1947 when the author was but thirty - it's a young man's book he acknowledges in
the preface - the essays were penned in reaction to Hofstadter's frustration with the Progressive
historians of the preceding generations, and their combined tendency to both transpose current
partisan ideologies into their interpretations of former American leaders and to view all previous
problems and shifts through the prism of class warfare. Hofstadter himself had come to the
conclusion that the dominant theme in American federal politics - from Washington to FDR and no
matter the party in power - was a cautious and steadying process of ensuring the primacy of private
property through compromises centred around the United States's unique incarnation of Lockean-
tinged republican capitalism. (That Hofstadter's analysis was the correct one is borne out by the
actions of the Obama administration: despite the shrill cries of Socialist! and Communist! that peal
forth from the throbbing cynosure of demagoguery, the Democratic Chief Executive has strayed little
from that consistently straight path of propping up, and solidifying, the structures of wealth that
dominate the country.) So powerfully, astutely, and brilliantly did Hofstadter make his case that within
years his analyses became the Consensus of his generation of historians, though before a decade
had passed from the publication of The American Political Tradition the author himself was
questioning his comfort with some of this Consensus erected upon his mid-century views.

Hofstadter would be one of my favorite American historians if only by virtue of his wonderful literary
ability: combine such graceful writing with his astute, witty, probing, and occasionally caustic
elucidations, and he definitely occupies the uppermost tier. As a Canadian, I consider myself
reasonably well-read in the history of my beloved-but-enigmatic cousins to the south; yet Hofstadter's
ofttimes counterintuitive takes on great personalities and events always opens me to a new
appreciation, even of familiar tropes. In especial, he presents superb essays upon some of the littler
known political figures from both the nineteenth century - John C. Calhoun, Wendell Phillips, James
G. Blaine, and William Jennings Bryan - and the twentieth in Herbert Hoover. Surrounding these
lesser lights are excellent insights into their more famous brethren - Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln,
Wilson, and the Two Roosevelts. Aware of their subject's faults, alert to their apocryphal burnishing,
and yet commiserative to the immense difficulties and contradictions they were forced to attend to -
from foundational struggles to the Second World War - each essay moves swiftly and sagely through
personal histories and the political winds that buffeted each man from their own unique genesis in
popular thought.

Title: The American Political Tradition and the Men who Made it

Author: Richard Hofstadter

Date: August 1989

Publisher: Vintage Books