Jim From an Anne Applebaum 2020 The Atlantic article I was led to Jim Thomson’s 1968 article: WHY VIETNAM? AN AUTOPSY.
I found it fascinating and spot on. It also reflected what I had experienced as a Foreign Service Officer (Congo-1960-1966, Chile 1966-1969).
There is in government (and elsewhere) long-rooted beliefs that obstruct serious re-thinking. I knew Jim during his Vietnam days and we spoke frankly, even when he was in the White House, which made us rather unique.
In his article, Jim spoke of the ‘past knowledge/convictions’ that underlay our Vietnam policy.
These included:
1) Vietnam was part of a domino theory: lose it to the ‘commies,’ and the toppling could sweep East Asia and, perhaps, into India and Japan;
2) The Chinese under Mao were relentless in expanding into Vietnam and elsewhere [OOPHS, historically China and Vietnam had been fervent enemies;]
3) Those experts with boots on the ground in post-WW II East Asia had been almost all removed or demoted because they had been too cosy with Ho, Mao, and other ‘baddies’;
4) Many top Washington officials were pre-conditioned and, officially, refused to acknowledge that there was a civil war in Vietnam;
5) On occasion there was a prominent ‘dove’ on Vietnam, with George Ball being the most publicized.
Under Secretary Ball was ‘useful’ to demonstrate that Johnson/McNamara/Rusk were open to dissent. In fact, Ball and other dissenters were given short shrift;
6) There was little boots-on-the-ground insight, since many of the Foreign Service Officers serving in Vietnam were French speakers with a European mind set.
Jim cooly (in retrospect) analyzed what I, as a Vietnam outsider, was experiencing and that we were discussing. In Congo our embassy Foreign Service Officers were sitting on their duffs reading Belgian papers. With a White House/State mandate—unprecedented—I went back to Congo (M-16, .45)to operate aloNE in rebel infested Congo and ultimately co-authored the Action Memo that Secretary Rusk had carried to President Johnson.
Such sleight of hand was impossible on Vietnam. As an outsider, a reader of Robert Shaplen and Bernard Fall, and the target of Pentagon advice that we employ Vietnamese-type ‘strategic villages’ in Congo, I concluded that there was ‘no light at the end of the tunnel.’ Twice I refused ‘invitations’ for our Saigon ambassador to join him. In 1966, Jim returned to Cambridge.
I encountered the same ‘old boy’ thinking when I chose to go to Chile as Political Officer. My professional background was the Middle East and Africa. I took a month to read into Latin America and, especially, Chile.
The Chilean desk officer, who had served in Chile during President Frei’s election, told me one thing was certain: Christian Democrat Radomiro Tomic would be elected president in 1970. I responded: One thing was certain—Tomic didn’t have a chance in the 1970 elections.
Professionals with fresh eyes often sense change that a long-timer would miss. [I was guilty of this in Congo in the early months of 1964.]
JIM’S OBSERVATIONS ABOUT MIND SETS ON VIETNAM IN THE 60S ARE EQUALLY VALID TODAY.
HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN PRESIDENT BIDEN’S WRONG HEADED POLICY REGARDING ISRAEL’S UNCONSCIONABLE KILLINGS AND DESTRUCTION IN GAZA?
Alright, this post finally convinced me to pony up & pay the freight. I was in high school when I heard Carter's speech & didn't know thing one about William James (or you!), but I dimly got the gist of the moral equivalent line. I discovered James five or so years later. What a great & sane writer. I urge everyone here, if they haven't, to read his Will to Believe essay. I found Barzun's Stroll not long after & actually remember being surprised by his dis of Carter, but I probably nodded along, not knowing any better. I hope I registered his snottiness though. Otherwise, I agree, it's a really good read. I also highly recommend Robert Richardson's "William James: In the Maestrom. of American Modernism." And yes, the McLuhan scene in Annie's an all-timer. Big fan of yours.
Jim True confession—you were my first association with William James. I was familiar with Marshall McLuhan, Alvin Toffler, and Daniel Boorstin (whose historical relevance to present day is astonishing).
Your point about the importance of historical context to understanding moods and trends is spot on. For example, Machiavelli is best remembered for THE PRINCE. In fact, for me his most significant political insights were in DISCOURSES IN LIVY.
He noted that, over time, a prince (or his progeny) would become more interested in preserving a dynasty than in serving the interests of his people. Machiavelli favored a republican form of government ruled by citizens elected in a well-educated society with a major urban base. (He made passing reference to this study in THE PRINCE.)
I would also reference Charlie Peters and his HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS. Plus la change, plus la meme chose—BUT WORSE.
Regarding all the current bloviating about the Constitution, I urge people to read MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA and THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.
As one in his ‘late middle age,’ I find that there are patterns in history that permit a three-dimensional insight into present day situations. History may not repeat itself, but, as in mystery novels, there are only a limited number of scenarios. It behooves us all to be aware of this, even if we are not familiar with William James.
A fascinating episode from your WH experience, Jim, but I must admit that I do not remember reading William James in the original and still cringe a bit at the application of the warrior ethos to non-martial contexts (read: "War on Drugs", "SJW", etc.). The imagery of carnage is never really masked by the pomp and circumstance of the ranks marching to the beat of the drums whatever the overriding theme may be... but that's my take on it and "The Moral Equivalence of War" does resonate in terms of sacrifice for a greater good whether I like it or not...
That said, my initial reaction to your post (after a chuckle over the McCluhan scene) was a vague recall of something controversial vis à vis Barzun that I experienced when living in France in the later 90's. I do not remember reading his work myself, but a bit of research [see below] reminded me of his defense of Pierre Laval as a well-intended protector of France during the Vichy regime. The only problem is that, as Robert Paxton explained in the 70's and 80's to the chagrin of many in the Hexagon, Laval and others had a very narrow (ie, fascistic) definition of what it was to be French in the early 20th century that facilitated their collaboration with the Nazis. It may be true that Laval defended some long-assimilated French Jews against Hitlerian hatred, though that's not my recollection, so I'll have to get my hands on Barzun's book to investigate.
Another irony is that Barzun and Paxton were teaching at Columbia at the same time, but I have not yet found a published work by Paxton about his more senior colleague. And to be fair, the article to which I reference is not a denunciation of Barzun for his life's work as much as it is a contrast of the monkish existence of the pure intellectual without much introspection at play versus the messy burdens, certainties and contradictions that the rest of us carry in our heads as we slog through the stages of our corporeal existence.
When there is no war available, men longing for a life lived fully awake turn to other adventures (climbing 8.000 m high mountains; racing 300 hp strong motorcycles). All kinds of sports. Gambling. Crime.
Maybe it's the prospect of losing, of paying a high price, that gets the juices flowing.
Maybe that's why nations start to play with authoritarian concepts when every day life just goes to smoothly. Maybe it's not crisis that fuels cries for a strong man, but boredom.
Jim, your column always is interesting and thought provoking.
Jim, you had me at "You know nothing of my work." One of my all-time favorite Woody Allen scenes, and good to see someone braving the black list to admire one of his earlier, funny movies.
Jim, most salamanders are beautiful. Those Japanese salamanders are truly spectacular! So if you're getting ads for Japanese salamanders you should take it as a major compliment. I know a lot of people who know salamanders, including one who made a seminal discovery of a new species that caused a large chunk of land in Central America to become conservation land.
The Carly ad--maybe the opposite. Carleton Sneed was the goofy younger sister of the beautiful Clara Sneed, Carleton, who walked around school like she was trying to blend in with the nearest wall. I didn't know they were sisters--I'd arrived at Gunn High School as a senior, parents were on sabbatical. One day, I was hanging around with some guys. One of them mentioned the relationship of the two Sneeds. I protested that they were not sisters. "Well, they have the same last name!" Yes, I had to admit that they did, now that he mentioned it, but I still couldn't believe they were related. I did a bit of investigating, and he turned out to be right. Decades later, I was on the phone with the woman who had been my girlfriend that year. "Guess who we went to high school with?" she said. Well, I didn't know, so she told me. I was shocked.
And like your brother, I never knew you wrote that speech--although I guess I have more of an excuse. Damn cool!
Jim--I'm looking forward to whatever you will write after your William James reading. I love James but I didn't know his Moral Equivalent of War book in 1977. I saw the speech on TV and think I got your intended meaning. The words "moral equivalent" sharply change and refocus the framing implied by the word "war." To me it described an urgent national problem requiring focused collective action and investment over a long period of time. Just how to accomplish this did seem a bit vague. I agree that the speech could have had a follow-up sentence or two starting, "By this I mean...." Barzun could be rather off-the-cuff in his judgments, perhaps because he wrote so much.
I remember hearing that phrase and saying to myself, “but what does that mean?” Being a business major, the only James brothers with whom I was familiar were Jesse and Frank.
"Big fan, big fan." Been reading and appreciating your stuff for almost 50 years. But I'm gonna cut across the grain a little here. This is one of the few pieces I've ever read by you where I make it to the middle and I'm thinking: "What's the point he's making? And what about this is important to me?" Interesting in a wonky sort of way. But you having an axe to grind with Barzun maybe doesn't really count among the topics about which we would do well to be enlightened. IMHO, anyway.
Jacques Barzun once said that whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball, and wrote extensively on the glorious of Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe mysteries, so he deserves a pass on some other things. But it's interesting. He taught history but was not, per se, an American historian. And when you do American history in particular, you are taught--or at least, by one of Barzun's fellow Columbia historians, my adviser Eric Foner--to get into the archives and get it right. Tsk, tsk, indeed.
I was feeling somewhat forgiving of Barzun over his misjudgment, assuming that if he had heard what you had to say he would apologize. But "curse of the half-educated"? What a pompous fool.
Jim From an Anne Applebaum 2020 The Atlantic article I was led to Jim Thomson’s 1968 article: WHY VIETNAM? AN AUTOPSY.
I found it fascinating and spot on. It also reflected what I had experienced as a Foreign Service Officer (Congo-1960-1966, Chile 1966-1969).
There is in government (and elsewhere) long-rooted beliefs that obstruct serious re-thinking. I knew Jim during his Vietnam days and we spoke frankly, even when he was in the White House, which made us rather unique.
In his article, Jim spoke of the ‘past knowledge/convictions’ that underlay our Vietnam policy.
These included:
1) Vietnam was part of a domino theory: lose it to the ‘commies,’ and the toppling could sweep East Asia and, perhaps, into India and Japan;
2) The Chinese under Mao were relentless in expanding into Vietnam and elsewhere [OOPHS, historically China and Vietnam had been fervent enemies;]
3) Those experts with boots on the ground in post-WW II East Asia had been almost all removed or demoted because they had been too cosy with Ho, Mao, and other ‘baddies’;
4) Many top Washington officials were pre-conditioned and, officially, refused to acknowledge that there was a civil war in Vietnam;
5) On occasion there was a prominent ‘dove’ on Vietnam, with George Ball being the most publicized.
Under Secretary Ball was ‘useful’ to demonstrate that Johnson/McNamara/Rusk were open to dissent. In fact, Ball and other dissenters were given short shrift;
6) There was little boots-on-the-ground insight, since many of the Foreign Service Officers serving in Vietnam were French speakers with a European mind set.
Jim cooly (in retrospect) analyzed what I, as a Vietnam outsider, was experiencing and that we were discussing. In Congo our embassy Foreign Service Officers were sitting on their duffs reading Belgian papers. With a White House/State mandate—unprecedented—I went back to Congo (M-16, .45)to operate aloNE in rebel infested Congo and ultimately co-authored the Action Memo that Secretary Rusk had carried to President Johnson.
Such sleight of hand was impossible on Vietnam. As an outsider, a reader of Robert Shaplen and Bernard Fall, and the target of Pentagon advice that we employ Vietnamese-type ‘strategic villages’ in Congo, I concluded that there was ‘no light at the end of the tunnel.’ Twice I refused ‘invitations’ for our Saigon ambassador to join him. In 1966, Jim returned to Cambridge.
I encountered the same ‘old boy’ thinking when I chose to go to Chile as Political Officer. My professional background was the Middle East and Africa. I took a month to read into Latin America and, especially, Chile.
The Chilean desk officer, who had served in Chile during President Frei’s election, told me one thing was certain: Christian Democrat Radomiro Tomic would be elected president in 1970. I responded: One thing was certain—Tomic didn’t have a chance in the 1970 elections.
Professionals with fresh eyes often sense change that a long-timer would miss. [I was guilty of this in Congo in the early months of 1964.]
JIM’S OBSERVATIONS ABOUT MIND SETS ON VIETNAM IN THE 60S ARE EQUALLY VALID TODAY.
HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN PRESIDENT BIDEN’S WRONG HEADED POLICY REGARDING ISRAEL’S UNCONSCIONABLE KILLINGS AND DESTRUCTION IN GAZA?
Alright, this post finally convinced me to pony up & pay the freight. I was in high school when I heard Carter's speech & didn't know thing one about William James (or you!), but I dimly got the gist of the moral equivalent line. I discovered James five or so years later. What a great & sane writer. I urge everyone here, if they haven't, to read his Will to Believe essay. I found Barzun's Stroll not long after & actually remember being surprised by his dis of Carter, but I probably nodded along, not knowing any better. I hope I registered his snottiness though. Otherwise, I agree, it's a really good read. I also highly recommend Robert Richardson's "William James: In the Maestrom. of American Modernism." And yes, the McLuhan scene in Annie's an all-timer. Big fan of yours.
Jim True confession—you were my first association with William James. I was familiar with Marshall McLuhan, Alvin Toffler, and Daniel Boorstin (whose historical relevance to present day is astonishing).
Your point about the importance of historical context to understanding moods and trends is spot on. For example, Machiavelli is best remembered for THE PRINCE. In fact, for me his most significant political insights were in DISCOURSES IN LIVY.
He noted that, over time, a prince (or his progeny) would become more interested in preserving a dynasty than in serving the interests of his people. Machiavelli favored a republican form of government ruled by citizens elected in a well-educated society with a major urban base. (He made passing reference to this study in THE PRINCE.)
I would also reference Charlie Peters and his HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS. Plus la change, plus la meme chose—BUT WORSE.
Regarding all the current bloviating about the Constitution, I urge people to read MIRACLE AT PHILADELPHIA and THE FEDERALIST PAPERS.
As one in his ‘late middle age,’ I find that there are patterns in history that permit a three-dimensional insight into present day situations. History may not repeat itself, but, as in mystery novels, there are only a limited number of scenarios. It behooves us all to be aware of this, even if we are not familiar with William James.
A fascinating episode from your WH experience, Jim, but I must admit that I do not remember reading William James in the original and still cringe a bit at the application of the warrior ethos to non-martial contexts (read: "War on Drugs", "SJW", etc.). The imagery of carnage is never really masked by the pomp and circumstance of the ranks marching to the beat of the drums whatever the overriding theme may be... but that's my take on it and "The Moral Equivalence of War" does resonate in terms of sacrifice for a greater good whether I like it or not...
That said, my initial reaction to your post (after a chuckle over the McCluhan scene) was a vague recall of something controversial vis à vis Barzun that I experienced when living in France in the later 90's. I do not remember reading his work myself, but a bit of research [see below] reminded me of his defense of Pierre Laval as a well-intended protector of France during the Vichy regime. The only problem is that, as Robert Paxton explained in the 70's and 80's to the chagrin of many in the Hexagon, Laval and others had a very narrow (ie, fascistic) definition of what it was to be French in the early 20th century that facilitated their collaboration with the Nazis. It may be true that Laval defended some long-assimilated French Jews against Hitlerian hatred, though that's not my recollection, so I'll have to get my hands on Barzun's book to investigate.
Another irony is that Barzun and Paxton were teaching at Columbia at the same time, but I have not yet found a published work by Paxton about his more senior colleague. And to be fair, the article to which I reference is not a denunciation of Barzun for his life's work as much as it is a contrast of the monkish existence of the pure intellectual without much introspection at play versus the messy burdens, certainties and contradictions that the rest of us carry in our heads as we slog through the stages of our corporeal existence.
ref: https://www.salon.com/2000/08/07/barzun/
When there is no war available, men longing for a life lived fully awake turn to other adventures (climbing 8.000 m high mountains; racing 300 hp strong motorcycles). All kinds of sports. Gambling. Crime.
Maybe it's the prospect of losing, of paying a high price, that gets the juices flowing.
Maybe that's why nations start to play with authoritarian concepts when every day life just goes to smoothly. Maybe it's not crisis that fuels cries for a strong man, but boredom.
Jim, your column always is interesting and thought provoking.
(And I never had heard of William James before)
Just curious ( and possibly half-educated)- What was the Moynihan usage that Barzun referred to as being "correct"?
Jim, you had me at "You know nothing of my work." One of my all-time favorite Woody Allen scenes, and good to see someone braving the black list to admire one of his earlier, funny movies.
I stumbled upon “The Varieties of Religious Experience “ in my early twenties and it was a revelation.
I expect that you may have uttered some mild epithet when you came upon Barzun’s misreading of your speech for President Carter. I love that you wished for your own Marshall McLuhan a la “Annie Hall,” which is surely one of the most satisfying (& surprising) comeuppances in cinema history. I just found an interview with the actor who played the bloviating man in line. https://mcluhangalaxy.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/the-movie-theatre-blowhard-from-annie-hall-finally-gets-his-say/#jp-carousel-8906
Jim, most salamanders are beautiful. Those Japanese salamanders are truly spectacular! So if you're getting ads for Japanese salamanders you should take it as a major compliment. I know a lot of people who know salamanders, including one who made a seminal discovery of a new species that caused a large chunk of land in Central America to become conservation land.
The Carly ad--maybe the opposite. Carleton Sneed was the goofy younger sister of the beautiful Clara Sneed, Carleton, who walked around school like she was trying to blend in with the nearest wall. I didn't know they were sisters--I'd arrived at Gunn High School as a senior, parents were on sabbatical. One day, I was hanging around with some guys. One of them mentioned the relationship of the two Sneeds. I protested that they were not sisters. "Well, they have the same last name!" Yes, I had to admit that they did, now that he mentioned it, but I still couldn't believe they were related. I did a bit of investigating, and he turned out to be right. Decades later, I was on the phone with the woman who had been my girlfriend that year. "Guess who we went to high school with?" she said. Well, I didn't know, so she told me. I was shocked.
And like your brother, I never knew you wrote that speech--although I guess I have more of an excuse. Damn cool!
Brilliant. A piece for the historians. I never knew my brother wrote that speech. Now I know!
It is too bad that you didn't have the opportunity to sit down and have a beer or three with Barzun. I would love to have been a fly on the wall...
Jim--I'm looking forward to whatever you will write after your William James reading. I love James but I didn't know his Moral Equivalent of War book in 1977. I saw the speech on TV and think I got your intended meaning. The words "moral equivalent" sharply change and refocus the framing implied by the word "war." To me it described an urgent national problem requiring focused collective action and investment over a long period of time. Just how to accomplish this did seem a bit vague. I agree that the speech could have had a follow-up sentence or two starting, "By this I mean...." Barzun could be rather off-the-cuff in his judgments, perhaps because he wrote so much.
I remember hearing that phrase and saying to myself, “but what does that mean?” Being a business major, the only James brothers with whom I was familiar were Jesse and Frank.
"Big fan, big fan." Been reading and appreciating your stuff for almost 50 years. But I'm gonna cut across the grain a little here. This is one of the few pieces I've ever read by you where I make it to the middle and I'm thinking: "What's the point he's making? And what about this is important to me?" Interesting in a wonky sort of way. But you having an axe to grind with Barzun maybe doesn't really count among the topics about which we would do well to be enlightened. IMHO, anyway.
Jacques Barzun once said that whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball, and wrote extensively on the glorious of Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe mysteries, so he deserves a pass on some other things. But it's interesting. He taught history but was not, per se, an American historian. And when you do American history in particular, you are taught--or at least, by one of Barzun's fellow Columbia historians, my adviser Eric Foner--to get into the archives and get it right. Tsk, tsk, indeed.
I was feeling somewhat forgiving of Barzun over his misjudgment, assuming that if he had heard what you had to say he would apologize. But "curse of the half-educated"? What a pompous fool.
The curse of the over-educated.