Kaspari Lab alum Natalie Clay will be joining the Biology faculty of Louisiana Tech University this September. Good going Natalie, and Go Bulldogs!
Debby and I had a lovely hike along the South Canadian River with pals Susan Dragoo (Debby’s writing partner on the Oklahoma Today piece on Nuttall) and Tim Ryan. These scenes are about 10 minutes from Campus.
Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
I’ve known both quotes for a while, but as I just now looked them up, I discovered they have the same source, Otto Von Bismarck, Chancellor of the German Empire, 1871-1890.
I’ve been thinking a lot about politics these days. I recognize my political skills can best quantified with a negative (or imaginary) number. I also think that academics are often charmingly naive about what it takes to make and pass policy, or, at its most basic, convince people of something that they are predisposed to disbelieve.
Last night I was going through the big stack of magazines that accumulated while Debby and I were on sabbatical in Copenhagen. I came across an amazingly concise primer on what it takes to run for office, by Michael Ignatieff, in a recent New Republic . By all means, go read it. I have shamelessly quoted some of his elegant turns of phrase (e.g., “you’re right to get a hearing as the person you are”). But it is better in the original.
None-the-less, here are the lessons I learned, digested and modified by an ecologists intellectual microbiome.
So next time you are talking to a politician, of whatever stripe, note that they have a skill set, and a constitution, likely very different from your own. At the same time, if you want to get something done, in a committee, in a faculty meeting, at the city council, bear in mind Ignatieff’s wise council on the relative importance of facts vs standing, and growing a thick skin. And recall the nickname of one of the more influential legislators of the past century: Hubert Humphrey, the happy warrior.
I have always been fascinated by the civil war biography, and find Catton’s treatment of this part of U.S. Grant’s generalship both infinitely readable and as quotable as the General himself. Catton in the 1940’s and 50’s rehabilitated Grant from an undeserved reputation as a drunkard and a brute. He portrays Grant–like Lincoln, his fellow westerner and greatest protector–as someone who manuvered through the politics of the civil war (and isn’t civil war the ultimate political dustup?) via a combination of tenacity, clarity, and supreme self-knowledge. Grant was a “hard war man”, acknowledging that war was a bloody business that was only won by fighting. His battlefield directions, often written from horseback on a notepad he kept in his right front pocket, were the model of clean, understandable prose.
Speaking of which, here is Catton’s quote from a General Schofield “Grant was very far from being a modest man, as the word modest is generally understood. His just self-esteem was as far above modesty as it was above flattery … He knew his own merits as well as anybody, and he new his own imperfections. When his attention was called to a mistake he had committed he would see and admit it with a smile, which expressed the exact opposite of that feeling which most men are apt to show under like circumstances … His absolute confidence in his own judgement upon any subject which he had mastered added to his accurate estimate of his own ability.