Podcast appearances and mentions of henry cabot lodge

This episode with be an enlightening interview with Laurence Jurdem, Ph.D., adjunct professor at Fordham College, who pubished a fascinating and well reserached book detailing the friendship between Teddy Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge. You will hear of the enduring relationship between two men - who were very different characters in history, but in actuality had many things in common. Here is a great review of "The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Change American History"from Publishers Weekly:"This fascinating study reveals a new perspective on both Roosevelt and Lodge, and the impact of friendships on the course of events. Jurdem ably navigates the huge cache of letters exchagned between the two --- some 2,500 in all --- to tell a story rich with personal detail."The book can be purchased through Amazon at this link.Website: https://peoplehiddeninhistory.comDirect linkWebsite with all Podcast Episodes/All PlatformsContact PageTwitter(X)/Instagram: @phihpod

The diplomat and politician represented his home state of Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate, and went on to take diplomatic positions under six U.S. Presidents.

Year(s) Discussed: 1850-1924 US presidential history is filled with notable friendships and partnerships, and arguably one of the most impactful was that between President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. In this episode, I am joined by Laurence Jurdem, author of The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History, to discuss these two fascinating figures and their respective roles in shaping the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century. More information can be found at https://www.presidenciespodcast.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Evoking the political intrigue of the Gilded Age, Laurence Jurdem's book The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History (Simon and Schuster, 2023) chronicles the extraordinary thirty-five-year friendship between President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. Theodore Roosevelt was a uniquely gifted figure. A man of great intellect and physicality, the New York patrician captured the imagination of the American people with his engaging personality and determination to give all citizens regardless of race, color, or creed the opportunity to achieve the American dream. While Roosevelt employed his abilities to rise from unknown New York legislator to become the youngest man ever to assume the presidency in 1901, that rapid success would not have occurred without the assistance of the powerful New Englander, Henry Cabot Lodge. Eight years older than Roosevelt, from a prominent Massachusetts family, Lodge, was one of the most calculating, combative politicians of his age. From 1884 to 1919 Lodge and Roosevelt encouraged one another to mine the greatness that lay within each of them. As both men climbed the ladders of power, Lodge, focused on dominating the political landscape of Massachusetts, served as the future president's confidant and mentor, advising him on political strategy while helping him obtain positions in government that would eventually lead to the White House. Despite the love and respect that existed between the two men, their relationship eventually came under strain. Following Roosevelt's ascension to the presidency, T. R.'s desire to expand the social safety net--while attempting to broaden the appeal of the Republican Party--clashed with his older friend's more conservative, partisan point of view. Those tensions finally culminated in 1912. Lodge's refusal to support the former president's independent bid for a third presidential term led to a political break-up that was only repaired by each man's hatred for the policies of Woodrow Wilson. Despite their political disagreements, Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge remained devoted friends until the Rough Rider took his final breath on January 6, 1919. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Evoking the political intrigue of the Gilded Age, Laurence Jurdem's book The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History (Simon and Schuster, 2023) chronicles the extraordinary thirty-five-year friendship between President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. Theodore Roosevelt was a uniquely gifted figure. A man of great intellect and physicality, the New York patrician captured the imagination of the American people with his engaging personality and determination to give all citizens regardless of race, color, or creed the opportunity to achieve the American dream. While Roosevelt employed his abilities to rise from unknown New York legislator to become the youngest man ever to assume the presidency in 1901, that rapid success would not have occurred without the assistance of the powerful New Englander, Henry Cabot Lodge. Eight years older than Roosevelt, from a prominent Massachusetts family, Lodge, was one of the most calculating, combative politicians of his age. From 1884 to 1919 Lodge and Roosevelt encouraged one another to mine the greatness that lay within each of them. As both men climbed the ladders of power, Lodge, focused on dominating the political landscape of Massachusetts, served as the future president's confidant and mentor, advising him on political strategy while helping him obtain positions in government that would eventually lead to the White House. Despite the love and respect that existed between the two men, their relationship eventually came under strain. Following Roosevelt's ascension to the presidency, T. R.'s desire to expand the social safety net--while attempting to broaden the appeal of the Republican Party--clashed with his older friend's more conservative, partisan point of view. Those tensions finally culminated in 1912. Lodge's refusal to support the former president's independent bid for a third presidential term led to a political break-up that was only repaired by each man's hatred for the policies of Woodrow Wilson. Despite their political disagreements, Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge remained devoted friends until the Rough Rider took his final breath on January 6, 1919. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Evoking the political intrigue of the Gilded Age, Laurence Jurdem's book The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History (Simon and Schuster, 2023) chronicles the extraordinary thirty-five-year friendship between President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. Theodore Roosevelt was a uniquely gifted figure. A man of great intellect and physicality, the New York patrician captured the imagination of the American people with his engaging personality and determination to give all citizens regardless of race, color, or creed the opportunity to achieve the American dream. While Roosevelt employed his abilities to rise from unknown New York legislator to become the youngest man ever to assume the presidency in 1901, that rapid success would not have occurred without the assistance of the powerful New Englander, Henry Cabot Lodge. Eight years older than Roosevelt, from a prominent Massachusetts family, Lodge, was one of the most calculating, combative politicians of his age. From 1884 to 1919 Lodge and Roosevelt encouraged one another to mine the greatness that lay within each of them. As both men climbed the ladders of power, Lodge, focused on dominating the political landscape of Massachusetts, served as the future president's confidant and mentor, advising him on political strategy while helping him obtain positions in government that would eventually lead to the White House. Despite the love and respect that existed between the two men, their relationship eventually came under strain. Following Roosevelt's ascension to the presidency, T. R.'s desire to expand the social safety net--while attempting to broaden the appeal of the Republican Party--clashed with his older friend's more conservative, partisan point of view. Those tensions finally culminated in 1912. Lodge's refusal to support the former president's independent bid for a third presidential term led to a political break-up that was only repaired by each man's hatred for the policies of Woodrow Wilson. Despite their political disagreements, Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge remained devoted friends until the Rough Rider took his final breath on January 6, 1919. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Evoking the political intrigue of the Gilded Age, Laurence Jurdem's book The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History (Simon and Schuster, 2023) chronicles the extraordinary thirty-five-year friendship between President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. Theodore Roosevelt was a uniquely gifted figure. A man of great intellect and physicality, the New York patrician captured the imagination of the American people with his engaging personality and determination to give all citizens regardless of race, color, or creed the opportunity to achieve the American dream. While Roosevelt employed his abilities to rise from unknown New York legislator to become the youngest man ever to assume the presidency in 1901, that rapid success would not have occurred without the assistance of the powerful New Englander, Henry Cabot Lodge. Eight years older than Roosevelt, from a prominent Massachusetts family, Lodge, was one of the most calculating, combative politicians of his age. From 1884 to 1919 Lodge and Roosevelt encouraged one another to mine the greatness that lay within each of them. As both men climbed the ladders of power, Lodge, focused on dominating the political landscape of Massachusetts, served as the future president's confidant and mentor, advising him on political strategy while helping him obtain positions in government that would eventually lead to the White House. Despite the love and respect that existed between the two men, their relationship eventually came under strain. Following Roosevelt's ascension to the presidency, T. R.'s desire to expand the social safety net--while attempting to broaden the appeal of the Republican Party--clashed with his older friend's more conservative, partisan point of view. Those tensions finally culminated in 1912. Lodge's refusal to support the former president's independent bid for a third presidential term led to a political break-up that was only repaired by each man's hatred for the policies of Woodrow Wilson. Despite their political disagreements, Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge remained devoted friends until the Rough Rider took his final breath on January 6, 1919. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Evoking the political intrigue of the Gilded Age, Laurence Jurdem's book The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History (Simon and Schuster, 2023) chronicles the extraordinary thirty-five-year friendship between President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts. Theodore Roosevelt was a uniquely gifted figure. A man of great intellect and physicality, the New York patrician captured the imagination of the American people with his engaging personality and determination to give all citizens regardless of race, color, or creed the opportunity to achieve the American dream. While Roosevelt employed his abilities to rise from unknown New York legislator to become the youngest man ever to assume the presidency in 1901, that rapid success would not have occurred without the assistance of the powerful New Englander, Henry Cabot Lodge. Eight years older than Roosevelt, from a prominent Massachusetts family, Lodge, was one of the most calculating, combative politicians of his age. From 1884 to 1919 Lodge and Roosevelt encouraged one another to mine the greatness that lay within each of them. As both men climbed the ladders of power, Lodge, focused on dominating the political landscape of Massachusetts, served as the future president's confidant and mentor, advising him on political strategy while helping him obtain positions in government that would eventually lead to the White House. Despite the love and respect that existed between the two men, their relationship eventually came under strain. Following Roosevelt's ascension to the presidency, T. R.'s desire to expand the social safety net--while attempting to broaden the appeal of the Republican Party--clashed with his older friend's more conservative, partisan point of view. Those tensions finally culminated in 1912. Lodge's refusal to support the former president's independent bid for a third presidential term led to a political break-up that was only repaired by each man's hatred for the policies of Woodrow Wilson. Despite their political disagreements, Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge remained devoted friends until the Rough Rider took his final breath on January 6, 1919. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

The ambitious, larger-than-life character of Theodore Roosevelt is the stuff of legend. Outside of his connection with the League of Nations, much less is known about Roosevelt's closest friend, Henry Cabot Lodge. Equally abundant in intellectual gifts, Lodge helped launch to the presidency the man whose vision he shared of a United States divinely ordained to spread prosperity and peace throughout the globe. Laurence Jurdem joins host Richard Aldous to discuss the personal and political friendship of the two men as revealed in his new book, The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History (https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Rough-Rider-and-the-Professor/Laurence-Jurdem/9781639364411).

Joining me this week is Laurence Jurdem to discuss his newest book, The Rough Rider & the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History. Dr. Jurdem is an Adjunct Professor of history at Fairfield University and Fordham College's Lincoln Center campus. In this episode, we chat about the relationship between Lodge and Roosevelt and what their relationship tells us about politics during the Gilded Age & Progressive Era. To find out more about Dr. Jurdem and his scholarship, visit his website at www.laurencejurdem.com  For more information, head to www.civicsandcoffee.com

We all have friends, and politicians have A LOT of friends.  But when it comes to political “Best Friends”, TR and his buddy Henry Cabot Lodge sets the bar. From a young age, the two men were taught to serve others and achieve tremendous success, which they did with the assistance of each other. But as close as they once were, political bickering tore them apart, only to be brought back together by life threatening challenges. The ups and down's, high's and lows of one of the most famous friendships in American politics; Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge are on this episode of American POTUS!The American POTUS podcast is a 501c3 non-profit show, supported by listener patriots like you. To help us keep the program going, please join others around the nation by considering a tax-deductible donation. You can make your contribution and see what exciting plans we have for new podcasts and other outreach programs, at AmericanPOTUS.org. Thank You for your support and we hope you enjoy this episode. Support the showPlease consider a tax-deductible donation to support this podcast by visiting AmericanPOTUS.org. Thank You!

On today's episode, Sharon is joined by author and professor Laurence Jurdem to discuss his book, The Rough Rider and the Professor, about the unusual thirty-five-year political friendship between President Theodore Roosevelt and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. While Roosevelt famously “rose like a rocket,” in the political spotlight with his larger-than-life personality, it was arguably his machiavellian friend Cabot who lit the fuse, and used his vast social network to boost Roosevelt. In his research, Laurence Jurdem immersed himself in 2,500 letters of archives from the Massachusetts Historical Society to write the story of this unique Presidential friendship, and to remind us that close, meaningful friendships do not always have to perfectly align politically. We can disagree without being disagreeable. Special thanks to our guest, Laurence Jurdem, for joining us today.Host/Executive Producer: Sharon McMahonGuest: Laurence JurdemAudio Producer: Jenny Snyder Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The lives and friendship of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge spanned the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. Few other politicians had such a monumental impact on the time, and Dr. Laurence Jurdem joins the show to explain of their friendship came to define the period.Essential Reading:Laurence Jurdem, The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History (2023).Recommended Reading:John A. Garraty, Henry Cabot Lodge: A Biography (1965).William Harbaugh, Power and Responsibility: The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt (1961).Selections from the Correspondence of Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge, 1884-1918 (1925). Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Their friendship is considered one of the most important in American history. Professor Laurence Jurdem argues in "The Rough Rider and the Professor" that if Henry Cabot Lodge had not taken political upstart Teddy Roosevelt under his wing, it's unlikely he ever would have become president. Jurdem pored over thousands of letters between the two men, to find not only an intimate personal relationship, but an ongoing and riveting discussion of American politics. Jurdem shows how TR slowly and eventually outgrew their friendship when he became president, only to rediscover it after leaving office. The two men had different views, but were both fervent patriots who argued intently over the best courses of action on domestic and foreign policy. He also describes TR's unbeatable persona, and shows how even the most physically active president in American history found hours to write to his friend Lodge and consider his role in shaping American society.Professor Jurdem's website can be found at https://laurencejurdem.com/He is on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LJurdemInformation on his book from Simon & Schuster can be found at https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Rough-Rider-and-the-Professor/Laurence-Jurdem/9781639364411Support our show at https://patreon.com/axelbankhistory**A portion of every contribution is given to a charity for children's literacy** "Axelbank Reports History and Today" can be found on social media at https://twitter.com/axelbankhistory https://instagram.com/axelbankhistoryhttps://facebook.com/axelbankhistory

John Singer Sargent, Henry Cabot Lodge At the 1920 Republican Convention the journalist and H.L. Mencken observed with great amusement and interest the behavior of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, the chair of the convention. “Lodge's keynote speech, of course, was bosh,” wrote Mencken, “but it was bosh delivered with an air…Lodge got away with it because he was Lodge—because there was behind it his unescapable confidence in himself, his disarming disdain of discontent below, his unapologetic superiority. This superiority was and is quite real. Lodge is above the common level of his party, his country and his race, and he knows it very well, and is not disposed toward the puerile hypocrisy of denying it.”  It is extraordinary, given how Mencken saw Lodge, that we are much more likely to know who H.L. Mencken was then to recognize the name of Henry Cabot Lodge. Of a prominent seafaring family, he received one of the very first PhDs granted by Harvard, was involved in Massachusetts politics from 1880, and in 1892 was elected to the United States Senate—where he served until his death in 1924. He was one of the great political personalities of his age, alongside Theodore Roosevelt, his friend of 35 years, Theodore Roosevelt. Together, as Laurence Jurdem describes in his new book, The Rough Rider and the Professor: Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and the Friendship that Changed American History, they formed an unbeatable team, with Roosevelt thrusting ahead, while Lodge offered canny tactics and strategy, serving as Roosevelt's one man think tank and advisory group. Though their friendship was threatened by Roosevelt's third-party run for the White House, their final years were warmed by their mutual detest for Woodrow Wilson.  Laurence Jurdem is currently an adjunct professor of history at Fairfield University and Fordham College's Lincoln Center campus.  The author of Paving the Way for Reagan: The Influence of Conservative Media on U.S. Foreign Policy, he is a frequent commentator on American politics. For Further Investigation Think of this conversation as begin the third of a Summer 2023 trilogy on late 19th century American politicians and political culture. It began with President Garfield, then moved backward to describe the context and foundation of "Civil War politics" in the "Age of Lincoln", and now moves out of the Age of Lincoln with two men who were very much born in the Age of Lincoln, but then shaped the foundations of progressivism. Henry Cabot Lodge, Alexander Hamilton–some have said that Roosevelt was one of the few people to respect Hamilton between his death and the late twentieth century. If so, he learned to do it from Lodge, for whom Hamilton was symbolic of what he desired to be as a politician and a policymaker. Henry Cabot Lodge and Theodore Roosevelt, Hero Tales from American History–a co-written book, composed of biographical essays they wrote for The Century Magazine. Lodge's heroes are George Washington, Gouverneur Morris, John Quincy Adams, Francis Parkman, Grant at Vicksburg, Robert Gould Shaw, James Russell Lowell, Sheridan at Cedar Creek, and Abraham Lincoln. With the exception of Grant and Sheridan, it's a collection of Federalists and Bostonians, which is about right. I quoted several times in the podcast from H.L. Mencken's "Lodge", an essay that he included in his A Mencken Chrestomathy. Very much worth seeking out.  H.W. Brands, T.R: The Last Romantic Two by Patricia O'Toole, The Five of Hearts: An Intimate Portrait of Henry Adams and  his Friends, 1880-1918, and  When Trumpets Fade: Theodore Roosevelt After The White House John Garraty, Henry Cabot Lodge: A Biography William H. Harbaugh, Power and Responsibility: The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt

Richard Norton Smith is a renowned historian, a former director of five presidential libraries, & author whose latest work - Ordinary Man - chronicles the life and career of Gerald Ford. In this conversation, we talk the insurgent rise of Ford as he takes on the local GOP machine, his ascent through the House GOP of the 50s and 60s, the fortuitous events that led him to become Vice President and then President upon Nixon's resignation, his very narrow loss in 1976, & why the Ford Presidency and his enduring impact on America is much more consequential than often realized.(To donate to support The Pro Politics Podcast, you may use this venmo link or inquire by email at mccrary.zachary@gmail.com)IN THIS EPISODEWhat made Ford the “first post-New Deal President”...One of the rare times Ford lost his temper in politics...Ford's “political father figure”, Senator Arthur Vandenberg…The story behind Ford's first insurgent bid for Congress…The secret society within the House that helped propel Ford's career…The story behind Ford's attempt to become Richard Nixon's running mate in 1960…The never before disclosed “deal” that nearly gave House Republicans the majority in the early 1970s…The one politician who could've disrupted Ford's path to become Nixon's VP in 1974…The proposed “constitutional coup” that could have replaced Richard Nixon with a Democratic President…Two meetings with the same influential senator only days apart demonstrate Ford's quick growth in office…The political damage done to Ford by his pardon of Richard Nixon…Two late factors that might have cost Ford in his narrow loss to Jimmy Carter…The political impact of First Lady Betty Ford in the 1976 campaign…Ford's leftward drift after he left the White House…Richard reads a bit of what he feels is Ford's best speech as President…Two of Richard's favorite recommendations for off-the-beaten-path historical sites around DC… AND Bella Abzug, Sprio Agnew, Carl Albert, apartheid, asterisks, Doug Bailey, bar stools, the Bicentennial, Phil Buchen, butcher knives, the CIA, Chevy Chase, Dick Cheney, concealed resentments, John Connally, docile acceptance, Bob Dole, Tom Dewey, English muffins, Barry Goldwater, grizzly bears, Jesse Helms, the Helsinki Accords, Leon Jaworski, Billy Kidd, Leslie King, Henry Kissinger, Tom Korologos, Mel Laird, Henry Cabot Lodge, Russell Long, The Marshall Plan, Sara Jane Moore, non-descript committee rooms, OSHA, Old Bulls, John Rankin, Ronald Reagan, the road to Damascus, Nelson Rockefeller, John Rhodes, Rhodesia, the Rules Committee, Bob Schieffer, Phyllis Schlafly, Hugh Scott, scoundrels, George Shultz, ski chalets, Oliver Sipple, Ted Sorensen, Robert Taft, transitional figures, Harry Truman, the UAW, the Warren Commission & more!

Comentario: Recomendación de la Nota al Calce 166: Isla Caribe ft. Melina Aguilar Colón ⦁ La gente de Ponce: "Ponce es Ponce y lo demás es parking🦁👑👨🏽🇦🇴". Eso dice un refrán popular que se inventaron los ponceños al igual que decirle empanadilla al pastelillo y vice versa. En esta nota al calce conversamos con Melina Aguilar Colón, de Isla Caribe, sobre su proyecto de promoción turística y cultural en el sur de Puerto Rico. El Jefe: Populismo y corrupción en el Puerto Rico de 1898 ⦁ Nieve de los Ángeles Vázquez, autora ⦁ https://www.linkedin.com/in/nieve-de-los-angeles-vazquez-35475b102 En este libro el lector encontrará dos historias paralelas que se interconectan. Por un lado, El Jefe se detiene a observar, con ojos de detective, a la aristocracia estadounidense responsable de la invasión militar y económica a Puerto Rico. Al analizar los comportamientos de John Pierpont Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Havemeyer, y de sus cooptados: William McKinley, Joseph Foraker, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, Nelson A. Miles, entre muchos otros, podremos explicar la inserción de Puerto Rico en los planes de guerra contra España; la invasión militar y también la invasión económica a la isla; las primeras órdenes ejecutivas relacionadas con el cabotaje, la moneda, el sistema de impuestos y las tarifas aduaneras; el despojo de nuestras riquezas; el comportamiento de los gobernadores militares estadounidenses; los contenidos del Tratado de París y, en definitivas, podremos entender la partida de Monopolio en la que se convirtió Puerto Rico. Por otro lado, El Jefe analiza la figura de Luis Muñoz Rivera. Era él, el primer ministro, la figura máxima en el espectro político y también el Jefe hegemónico del partido mayoritario, cuando ocurrió la invasión estadounidense de 1898. Estaba al mando del país cuando Wall Street invadió económicamente a la isla; cuando se implantó la primera orden de cabotaje; cuando se instauró un gobierno militar sin el aval del derecho internacional; cuando se planteó un canje de monedas ilegal e inmoral; cuando se iniciaron y culminaron las negociaciones del Tratado de París y cuando ese mismo tratado pasó al hemiciclo del Senado de Estados Unidos. El Jefe vivió una de esas pocas coyunturas históricas, de esas rarísimas que ocurren una vez en la vida de los pueblos y que al político de turno lo llevan directo a la gloria y la fama o lo hunden en los oscuros pantanos del olvido y el resentimiento colectivo. Sobre Muñoz Rivera recayó la responsabilidad moral y política de anticipar el peligro, proteger las riquezas del país, mirar con luces largas hacia el porvenir y actuar en consecuencia. No lo hizo y los efectos de sus actos y omisiones todavía se sienten en el Puerto Rico del siglo XXI. La vida de Luis Muñoz Rivera, por lo tanto, nos interesa. Es imperativo que revisitemos sus abundantes hagiografías, separemos la paja del grano, el autobombo de la realidad, el mesianismo de los hechos y, sobre todo, que dejemos de inventar excusas para justificarlo. Debemos recordar, como bien acuñó José Luis González, que los santos tienen su lugar en la esfera de la religión pero no en la política.

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. Versailles 1919 @Batchelorshow 1/2: #GOP: Isolationism and the Republican Party since Henry Cabot Lodge and Teddy Roosevelt. John Bolton, NRO https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2023/01/23/containing-isolationism/

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. Versailles signing 1919 @Batchelorshow 2/2: #GOP: Isolationism and the Republican Party since Henry Cabot Lodge and Teddy Roosevelt. John Bolton, NRO https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2023/01/23/containing-isolationism/

Bộ trưởng Quốc phòng Robert McNamara nói rằng, “mọi phép đo định lượng đều cho thấy chúng ta đang chiến thắng trong cuộc chiến.” Từ Đại sứ Henry Cabot Lodge trong bộ vest trắng thanh lịch đến Tướng William Westmoreland trong bộ đồng phục nhàu nhĩ, với những lời lẽ ấy thì ngay cả những kẻ bán tín bán nghi nhất cũng phải tin, trước khi hết năm. Xem thêm.

What can Henry Cabot Lodge's writing from the late 1800s and early 1900s teach us about America today? A recent article, “Henry Cabot Lodge: Nationalist Historian”, written by Colin Dueck, explains why Lodge had fears about America and its future. Newt's guest is Colin Dueck. He is a non-resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this very special Halloween episode we are drinking one of our absolute favorite cocktails (this will soon be apparent #sorrynotsorry), the Gimlet. This lime-laced gin beverage became the drink of choice by British officers on long ocean voyages out of necessity to prevent scurvy–its popularity with sailors ties to the era and theme of STEPHANIE's scandal.

This episode debuts a new format of very brief profiles of interesting historical figures that we haven't given sufficient attention to in regular episodes. Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. is a prime example of the Northeastern elites who had a disproportionate (albeit declining) amount of power in mid-20th Century America. Both of Lodge Junior's parents were descended from Republican Senators, so you could say politics was in their blood. Lodge launched a successful political career during the 1930s. When Lodge, who was a Moderate Republican,  lost his Massachusetts US Senate seat to John F. Kennedy in 1952, he pivoted to a diplomatic career. He became US Ambassador to the United Nations under President Eisenhower. He then served as Richard Nixon's running-mate in the razor-thin 1960 presidential election. After losing that race, his former opponent President Kennedy appointed Lodge to serve as Ambassador to South Vietnam, & Lodge remained involved in diplomatic negotiations in Southeast Asia for the remainder of the disastrous Vietnam conflict. The Lodge family is a prime example of a New England WASP political dynasty, one that never achieved the glamour & fame gained by the Kennedys, but which nevertheless wielded considerable power.Support the show

The 1800s were an era of big questions, many of which we answered in cruel and selfish ways. Is one race better than another? Is one religion? If so, which one? In what ways? Is one economic system better than another? Is one system of governance like a democratic republic like the US, or socialist, or monarchy, theocracy, communism, best? Some people answered these questions with a resounding "yes". But if we think our people and ways are better than anyone else's, what responsibility do we have to spread those things? Men like Henry Cabot Lodge and Theodore Roosevelt were firm believers in social Darwinism, though their vision of it meant teaching those less "civilized" people our ways. And they were okay with the United States taking power over them. Meanwhile, there were men like William Jennings Bryan who refused to think of others in social Darwinism terms. He spent years fighting that dark philosophy, ultimately prosecuting the Scopes Monkey trial to stop the spread of social Darwinism. But the seeds of eugenics were planted. Caught in the middle were the people of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillippines, and other colonies of the Spanish empire. Spain was busy imprisoning Cubans in concentration camps. Their ruthless behavior toward America's neighbors caught the attention of the US Senate, which was already champing at the bit for a fight. Men in the United States were worried about their waning influence on society. Groups bellyached about how men were not men any more thanks to cities and offices. In the minds of some, war was the answer to weak-willed men. And Spain provided that war. Our guest today is Paul T. McCartney author of “Power and Progress: American National Identity, the War of 1898, and the Rise of American Imperialism”. He teaches at Towson University. Discussion Questions: Do you believe your people are somehow superior to another people group? Why? Does that sound like an attitude Jesus would have? If you are somehow superior, what is your responsibility to other people? Should the US help people who are being oppressed around the world? When should we intervene? Do you think that men are in decline? If so, what is the answer to that? Do you better relate to Teddy Roosevelt or William Jennings Bryan when it comes to war? Or are you a pacifist? How would Jesus have responded to the cruelty of Spain? What do you think about social Darwinism? Helpful Links and Sources: "The Evangelicals" by Frances Fitzgerald "Church History in Plain Language" by Bruce Shelley "The War Lovers" by Evan Thomas "Power and Progress" by Paul T. McCartney "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin Britannica article on Darwin's Beagle voyage Britannica article about Darwin's London years and natural selection Bio of Henry Cabot Lodge Article abouhttp://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/empire/text7/tillman.pdft Alfred Thayer Mahan Proctor's Speech Tillman's Speech Bryan's Speech "A Godly Hero" by Michael Kazin Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

‘Do not make peace until we get Porto Rico.' That's what Theodore Roosevelt wrote to his partner in imperial crime, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, as Roosevelt was preparing to personally invade Cuba. ‘Porto Rico is not forgotten and we mean to have it,' Lodge replied.   Sources War Against All Puerto Ricans, by Nelson A Denis   Fantasy Island, by Ed Morales    America's Backyard: Puerto Rico    The History of Vieques in 10 Minutes. by Robert Rabin    Rain and Tears by Neutrin05 https://soundcloud.com/neutrin05 Creative Commons — Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported — CC BY-SA 3.0 Free Download / Stream: http://bit.ly/2PKvY28 Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/RRsQBq9nSXQ   Donations in support of the show can be made at: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=ZL2DQE3EK446C

This is talk with James Shapiro of Columbia University on his recent book, ‘Shakespeare in a Divided America'. This conversation covers highlights of Shapiro's book on the influence of Shakespeare in American thought and on the minds of such American leaders as John Quincy Adams, Ulysses S. Grant, Abraham Lincoln, and Henry Cabot Lodge. The book also examines how Shakespeare appears in American history and how Shakespearean material weighs in on such matters as race, immigration, and gender. From the Astor Place riots in the 19th century to the hullabaloo over the portrayal of a Trump look alike at the Delacorte theatre, this book also shows how Shakespearean performance exposes a range of divisive conflicts in the American consciousness. This talk also cover Shapiro's prior work on Shakespeare's life, antisemitism in Shakespeare, and the question of Shakespearean authorship.00:00:00 - Intro00:02:47 - Overview of ‘Shakespeare in a Divided America'00:06:57 - John Quincy Adams, Ulysses S. Grant, and ‘Othello'00:11:08 - Why Shakespeare in America?00:13:56 - Astor Place Riots, Shakespeare competition, unruly behavior00:21:30 - Shakespeare in prison00:26:39 - Henry Cabot Lodge, ‘The Tempest', and immigration00:32:47 - Kiss Me Kate, post war American and marriage00:34:59 - LGBTQ and ‘Shakespeare in Love'00:38:39 - Joel Coen's ‘Macbeth', using film in pedagogy00:40:23 - Trump as Caesar at the Delacorte00:43:33 - James Shapiro's history as a Shakespearean, theatre goer00:46:22 - The transformation experience of theatre going00:48:30 - The Shakespearean authorship question and the Supreme Court00:54:58 - Following one's own path in Shakespeare studies00:56:58 - Future research, African-American Shylock, multicultural Shakespeare01:01:25 - Theatre in Ireland01:04:49 - Closing remarks

Professor Luke Nichter is a Professor of History and James H. Cavanaugh Endowed Chair in Presidential Studies at Chapman University. The following books and articles are pertinent to this episode: The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War White House Years by Henry Kissinger IR Talk Episode with Professor Thomas Schwartz Richard Nixon and Europe: The Reshaping of the Postwar Atlantic World

As Buddhist protests against President Diem grow in South Vietnam.  After much debate President Kennedy agrees to the demand of ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge to arrange a coup to bring down president Diem.  As a result of that coup, Diem is murdered in cold blood shot in the back of an armoured personnel carrier.

In this episode, we are examining a few 20th century political campaign objects from the remarkable, but little known career of Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. Chances are that if you have heard of Lodge, Jr., you likely remember his involvement in the Vietnam War. But in today's episode, we're exploring Lodge's earlier political career. We'll look at an undelivered speech drafted for Senator Joseph McCarthy, an unusual pair of campaign mugs, and a peculiar bronzed hot dog paperweight. Learn more about episode objects here: http://www.masshist.org/podcast/episode6 Email us at podcast@masshist.org. Episode Special Guest: Luke Nichter is a Professor of History at Chapman University and the author of The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War This episode uses materials from: Psychic by Ketsa (Commercial non-exclusive license through Ketsa) Curious Nature by Ketsa (Commercial non-exclusive license through Ketsa) Elephant Walk by Poddington Bear (Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported)

Even with the Viet Cong revolt in the south going badly for the Government.  President Diem now picks a fight with the majority Buddhist population, this leads to violent protest in the Cities of South Vietnam and monks burning themselves to death.  The American Government begins to question its support to Diem.  A biography of American ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.   

Phần 9: Nguyễn Khánh lừa đại sứ Henry Cabot Lodge và cái chết của thiếu tá Nhung Phần 10: Bữa cơm gây oán của thị trưởng Đà Nẵng đãi “người hùng” Honolulu

November 1963, was a month that changed the trajectory of American History.  During the summer of 1963, President John F. Kennedy and the Kennedy Administration grew increasingly frustrated with the South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem and his increasingly dictatorial ways in running the government. When Ambassador , and Republican, Henry Cabot Lodge pushed Diem to remove his brother General Ngo from command of the Army, and Diem refused, a coup by the other Generals in South Vietnam was given a tacit go ahead. That led to the assassination of Diem and the overthrow of his government. After a decade of stability the South Vietnamese government fell into a state of constant chaos.Vice President Lyndon Johnson, who had met with and supported Diem, knew almost nothing about the permission given for the coup. He only discovered it as it happened. Johnson had been a masterful politician as a member  of the United States Senate. He was a man who dreamed big dreams for his country in domestic policy, but he had not been an expert in foreign policy. As Vice President he had been relegated to the role of a ceremonial representative for the Kennedy administration. The Kennedy's distrusted and disliked him, going so far at one point to have an ambitious  Robert Kennedy send an un-coded message to a foreign government that Johnson in no way spoke for the Kennedy Administration. Johnson even feared he may be dumped from the ticket in the coming 1964 campaign.On November 22, 1963, just 20 days after the assassination of Diem, everything changed.  A horrific moment in American History unfolded in Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald and Lyndon Johnson was catapulted into the White House, having been intentionally kept in the dark, with little working knowledge of what the long term strategy was in South Vietnam. He decided to keep the Kennedy Cabinet in place and listening to their advice he wrestled with what to do in Vietnam. Here is the story of this faithful month , November 1963, and how it made an indigenous, civil war in Vietnam,  OUR WAR,  and led to the loss of 50,000 American soldiers, as we struggled to fight back the high tide of communism in South East Asia. 

One of the most controversial foreign policy decisions of the 20th century was America suggesting a “League of Nations” after WWI and then immediately refusing to join that very same league. What happened!? Some nations even blame America’s refusal to join as the lynchpin problem for leading to WW2. So why on earth did this … 143 – Henry Cabot Lodge Finale!Read More »

Now we get into the nitty gritty on Lodge. He’s really remembered in US history for two things. This week we cover the first of those which is his unflagging support for Imperialism. Singin’ Songs and pickin’ fights around the world! Like brothers from another mother, he and Teddy Roo would be the most adamant … 142 – Henry Cabot Lodge pt. 2Read More »

It’s time we finally delve into the infamous Henry Cabot Lodge. Why should we care about this Senator from Massachusetts? Perhaps because he was one of the single most influential Americans in the early 20th century? Anti-Immigration, pro-war/imperialism, and a profound racist, his beliefs would shape much of American foreign policy before and after WWI. … 141 – Henry Cabot Lodge Pt. 1Read More »

In this episode we discuss Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities by Eric Kaufmann. Next time we will discuss True Names by Vernor Vinge. Some highlights from Whiteshift: Many people desire roots, value tradition and wish to maintain continuity with ancestors who have occupied a historic territory. This means we're more likely to experience what I term Whiteshift, a process by which white majorities absorb an admixture of different peoples through intermarriage, but remain oriented around existing myths of descent, symbols and traditions No one who has honestly analysed survey data on individuals – the gold standard for public opinion research – can deny that white majority concern over immigration is the main cause of the rise of the populist right in the West. This is primarily explained by concern over identity, not economic threat. We are entering a period of cultural instability in the West attendant on our passage between two relatively stable equilibria. The first is based on white ethnic homogeneity, the second on what the prescient centrist writer Michael Lind calls ‘beige' ethnicity, i.e. a racially mixed majority group. In the middle lies a turbulent multicultural interregnum. We in the West are becoming less like homogeneous Iceland and more like homogeneous mixed-race Turkmenistan. But to get there we'll be passing through a phase where we'll move closer to multicultural Guyana or Mauritius. The challenge is to enable conservative whites to see a future for themselves in Whiteshift – the mixture of many non-whites into the white group through voluntary assimilation. Anyone who wants to explain what's happening in the West needs to answer two simple questions. First, why are right-wing populists doing better than left-wing ones? Second, why did the migration crisis boost populist-right numbers sharply while the economic crisis had no overall effect? If we stick to data, the answer is crystal clear. Demography and culture, not economic and political developments, hold the key to understanding the populist moment. Because Western nations were generally formed by a dominant white ethnic group, whose myths and symbols – such as the proper name ‘Norway' – became the nation's, the two concepts overlap in the minds of many. White majorities possess an ‘ethnic' module, an extra string to their national identity which minorities lack. Ethnic majorities thereby express their ethnic identity as nationalism. I contend that today's white majorities are likely to successfully absorb minority populations while their core myths and boundary symbols endure. This will involve a change in the physical appearance of the median Westerner, hence Whiteshift, though linguistic and religious markers are less likely to be affected. Getting from where we are now, where most Westerners share the racial and religious features of their ethnic archetype, to the situation in a century or two, when most will be what we now term ‘mixed-race', is vital to understanding our present condition. In our more peaceful, post-ideological, demographically turbulent world, migration-led ethnic change is altering the basis of politics from class to ethnicity. On one side is a conservative coalition of whites who are attached to their heritage joined by minorities who value the white tradition; on the other side a progressive alliance of minorities who identify with their ethnic identity combined with whites who are agnostic or hostile towards theirs. Among whites, ethno-demographic change polarizes people between ‘tribal' ethnics who value their particularity and ‘religious' post-ethnics who prioritize universalist creeds such as John McWhorter's ‘religion of anti-racism'. Whites can fight ethnic change by voting for right-wing populists or committing terrorist acts. They may repress anxieties in the name of ‘politically correct' anti-racism, but cracks in this moral edifice are appearing. Many opt to flee by avoiding diverse neighbourhoods, schools and social networks. And other whites may choose to join the newcomers, first in friendship, subsequently in marriage. Intermarriage promises to erode the rising diversity which underlies our current malaise. Religion evolved to permit cooperation in larger units.31 Our predisposition towards religion, morality and reputation – all of which can transcend the tribe – reflects our adaptation to larger social units. Be that as it may, humans have lived in large groups only in the very recent past, so it is reasonable to assume tribalism is a more powerful aspect of our evolutionary psychology than our willingness to abide by a moral code. Today what we increasingly see in the West is a battle between the ‘tribal' populist right and the ‘religious' anti-racist left. Much of this book is concerned with the clash between a rising white tribalism and an ideology I term ‘left-modernism'. A sociologist member of the ‘New York Intellectuals' group of writers and literary critics, Daniel Bell, used the term modernism to describe the spirit of anti-traditionalism which emerged in Western high culture between 1880 and 1930. With the murderous excesses of communism and fascism, many Western intellectuals embraced a fusion of modernist anti-traditionalism and cultural egalitarianism, distinguishing the new ideology from both socialism and traditional liberalism. Cosmopolitanism was its guiding ethos. Unlike socialism or fascism, this left-wing modernism meshed nicely with capitalism and globalization. The left-modernist sensibility spread from a small elite to a much wider section of middle-class society in the 1960s with the rise of television and growth of universities, taking over as the dominant sensibility of the high culture. As it gained ground, it turned moralistic and imperialistic, seeking not merely to persuade but to institutionalize itself in law and policy, altering the basis of liberalism from tolerating to mandating diversity. This is a subtle but critical shift. Meanwhile the economic egalitarianism of socialism gave way to a trinity of sacred values around race, gender and sexual orientation. Immigration restriction became a plank of the Progressive movement which advocated improved working conditions, women's suffrage and social reform. This combination of left-wing economics and ethno-nationalism confounds modern notions of left and right but Progressive vs. free market liberal was how the world was divided in the late nineteenth century. A prominent plank in the Progressive platform was temperance, realized in the Volstead Act of 1920 prohibiting the sale of alcohol. The Prohibition vote pitted immigrant-origin Catholics and upper-class urban WASPs such as the anti-Prohibition leader and New York socialite Pauline Morton Sabin on the ‘wet' side against ‘dry' working-class, rural and religious Protestants. For Joseph Gusfield, Prohibition was principally a symbolic crusade targeted at urban Catholic immigrants who congregated in saloons and their ‘smart set' upper-class allies. This was a Protestant assertion of identity in an increasingly urban nation in which Catholics and Jews formed around a fifth of the population. Those of WASP background had declined to half the total from two thirds in the 1820s. What's interesting is that Anglo representatives did not make their case in ethno-communal terms, nor did they invoke the country's historic ethnic composition. Rather they couched their ethnic motives as state interests. Instead of coming clean about their lament over cultural loss, they felt obliged to fabricate economic and security rationales for restriction. Much the same is true today in the penchant for talking about immigrants putting pressure on services, taking jobs, increasing crime, undermining the welfare state or increasing the risk of terrorism. In my view it would be far healthier to permit the airing of ethno-cultural concerns rather than suppressing these, which leads to often spurious claims about immigrants. Likewise, immigrants' normal desires to defend their interests are decried as ‘identity politics'. [Randolph] Bourne, on the other hand, infused Kallen's structure with WASP self-loathing. As a rebel against his own group, Bourne combined the Liberal Progressives' desire to transcend ‘New Englandism' and Protestantism with Kallen's call for minority groups to maintain their ethnic boundaries. The end product was what I term asymmetrical multiculturalism, whereby minorities identify with their groups while Anglo-Protestants morph into cosmopolites. Thus Bourne at once congratulates the Jew ‘who sticks proudly to the faith of his fathers and boasts of that venerable culture of his', while encouraging his fellow Anglo-Saxons to: Breathe a larger air … [for] in his [young Anglo-Saxon's] new enthusiasms for continental literature, for unplumbed Russian depths, for French clarity of thought, for Teuton philosophies of power, he feels himself a citizen of a larger world. He may be absurdly superficial, his outward-reaching wonder may ignore all the stiller and homelier virtues of his Anglo-Saxon home, but he has at least found the clue to that international mind which will be essential to all men and women of good-will if they are ever to save this Western world of ours from suicide. [1916] Bourne, not Kallen, is the founding father of today's multiculturalist left because he combines rebellion against his own culture and Liberal Progressive cosmopolitanism with an endorsement – for minorities only – of Kallen's ethnic conservatism. In other words, ethnic minorities should preserve themselves while the majority should dissolve itself. Cosmopolitanism must manage the contradiction between its ethos of transcending ethnicity and its need for cultural diversity, which requires ethnic attachment. Bourne resolved this by splitting the world into two moral planes, one for a ‘parental' majority who would be asked to shed their ethnicity and oppose their own culture, and the other for childlike minorities, who would be urged to embrace their heritage in the strongest terms. This crystallized a dualistic habit of mind, entrenched in the anti-WASP ethos of 1920s authors like Sinclair Lewis and H. L. Mencken and the bohemian ‘Lost Generation' of American intellectuals such as F. Scott Fitzgerald. All associated the Anglo-Protestant majority with Prohibition, deemed WASP culture to be of no value, and accused the ethnic majority of suppressing more interesting and expressive ethnic groups. The Lost Generation's anti-majority ethos pervaded the writing of 1950s ‘Beat Generation' left-modernist writers like Norman Mailer and Jack Kerouac – who contrasted lively black jazz or Mexican culture with the ‘square' puritanical whiteness of Middle America. As white ethnics assimilated, the despised majority shifted from WASPs to all whites. The multiculturalism of the 1960s fused the Liberal Progressive pluralist movement with the anti-white ethos of the Beat counterculture. The situation by 1924 was a far cry from the pre-1890 dispensation, when a liberal-assimilationist Anglo-Americanism spanned both universalist and ethno-nationalist shades of opinion. Prior to 1890, most Anglo-Protestant thinkers held the view that their ethnic group could assimilate all comers. During moments of euphoria, they talked up the country as a universal cosmopolitan civilization; in their reflective moods, they remarked on its Anglo-Saxon Protestant character. By 1910, this Emersonian ‘double-consciousness' was gone, each side of its contradiction a separate and consistent ideology. Most WASP intellectuals were, like New England patrician Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, ethno-nationalists who backed restriction, or, like Bourne and Dewey, cosmopolitans calling for diversity and open borders. Few ethno-nationalists favoured open immigration. No pluralists endorsed restriction. Herein lie the roots of our contemporary polarized condition. Critical race theorists contend that white ethnics only ‘became white' when they became useful to the WASP majority. Even Bill Clinton, a southern Protestant whose Irish heritage is undocumented, latched on to the idea that his Irish forebears ‘became' white. Irish Catholics in the north, some claim, were important allies of southern whites in the struggle against Yankee republicanism, so southerners embraced the Irish.60 I'm less convinced. The Irish, Jews and Italians may not have been part of a narrower WASP ‘us', but they were perceived as racially white, thus part of a pan-ethnic ‘us'. This entitled them to opportunities not available to African- or Asian Americans. Post-1960s intermarriage led to an extension of American majority ethnic boundaries from WASP to white but the foundations for expansion were already in place. From the 1960s on, the religious marker of dominant ethnicity came to be redefined from Protestant to ‘Judaeo-Christian'. This chapter underscores several aspects of American ethnic history that are relevant today. First, that the US, like most European nations, has had an ethnic majority since Independence. Second, that the Anglo-Protestant majority underwent a Whiteshift in the mid-twentieth century which permitted it to absorb Catholics and Jews, members of groups once viewed as outsiders. Finally, certain ethnic groups – notably Anglo-Protestants and African-Americans – have become symbolically intertwined with American nationhood. Two thirds of Americans are not members of these groups, yet many recognize them as ethno-traditional: part of what makes the nation distinct. On the right, an ethno-traditional nationalism focused on protecting the white Anglo heritage is emerging as an important force in American politics. Culture is not ethnicity and the two have too often been conflated. Even if white culture remains the default mode, ethno-cultural decline may proceed apace. There are two separate ethno-cultural dynamics, white ethnic decline and the attenuation of the white tradition in American national identity. Only whites will be concerned with the former, but conservative-minded minorities may be attached to white ethno-traditions of nationhood. That is, they will wish to slow changes to the America ‘they know'. Where conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, which might be multiracial, authoritarians always prefer less diversity and dissent. Conservatives are not the same as authoritarians. For instance, authoritarians dislike inequality – a form of economic diversity – thus may find themselves on the left Electoral maps based on aggregate county results matched to census data offered the first snapshot of the social drivers of Trump, and it was apparent that education, not income, best predicted Trump success. Still, at first glance, maps reinforce stereotypes like the urban–rural divide. As with Brexit, income is correlated with education, but there are many wealthy people – think successful plumber – with few qualifications. Similarly, many resemble struggling artists, possessing degrees but little money. When you control for education, income has no effect on whether a white person voted for, or supports, Trump. Being less well-off produces an effect on Trump voting only when authoritarian and conservative values are held constant – and even then has a much smaller impact than values. Education is the best census indicator because it reflects people's subjective worldview, not just their material circumstances. Researchers find that teenagers with more open and exploratory psychological orientations self-select into university. This, much more than what people learn at university, makes them more liberal. Median education level offers a window onto the cultural values of a voting district, which is why it correlates best with Trump's vote share. In American exit polls, Trump won whites without college degrees 67–28, compared to 49–45 for whites with degrees. The changing racial demographics of America could permit the Democrats to consistently win first the presidential, then congressional, elections. Alternatively, the Republican establishment may be able to install a pro-immigration primary candidate. But is this a solution? With no federal outlet for white identity concerns or ethno-traditional nationalism, and with a return to policies of multiculturalism and high immigration which are viewed as a threat to these identities, it's possible the culturally conservative section of the US population could start viewing the government as an enemy. This is an old trope in American history and could pose a security problem. It is also how violent ethnic conflict sometimes ignites. For instance, the British-Protestant majority in Northern Ireland, where parties run on ethnic lines, meant Irish Catholics lost every election in the province between 1922 and the abolition of the Northern Ireland provincial government in 1972. This lack of political representation produced alienation which helped foment the civil war in 1969. What happens if rural and red-state America is permanently frozen out of power when it considers itself the repository of authentic Americanism? [EUROPE:] Liberals fought against the ‘normalization' of the far right, but with rising populist-right totals and coalition arithmetic pulling towards partnership it was only a question of time before the consensus gave way. The anti-racist norm against voting for the far right began to erode and centrist parties started adopting their policies. Elite obstruction may actually have contributed to an angrier anti-elite mood, recruiting yet more voters to the far-right banner. The anti-racist taboo against them has weakened but remains: more voters express strong anti-immigration views than are willing to vote far right.4 Yet, as I explain in chapter 9, the higher the populist right's vote share, the more the taboo erodes. This eases their path to a higher total when conditions permit, setting in motion a self-fulfilling spiral. Economic rationales frequently disguise underlying psychological drivers. For instance, in small opt-in samples on Prolific Academic, one group of white Republican voters scored the problem of ‘unchecked urban sprawl' a 51 out of 100, but another group of white Republicans who saw the question as ‘unchecked urban sprawl caused by immigration' scored it 74/100 (italics added for emphasis). Likewise, among a sample of white British Brexit voters, the problem of ‘pressure on council housing' scored a 47/100 but ‘immigrants putting pressure on council housing' was rated 68/100. In both cases, it logically cannot be the case that the immigration-driven portion of the problem of urban sprawl or pressure on council housing is more important than the problem itself. Thus what's driving opposition to immigration must be something prior to these material concerns. Likewise, the large-sample, representative British Election Study shows that concerns over the cultural and economic effects of immigration are tightly correlated. This suggests opposition to immigration comes first (Jonathan Haidt's unconscious ‘elephant' moves us to act) and various rationalizations like pressure on public services follow (Haidt's conscious ‘rider' telling us a story about why we acted as we did).17 But rationales matter. If a morally acceptable rationale is not there, this inhibits a party's ability to articulate its underlying anti-immigration grievances. This is why restrictionists tend to don the cloak of economic rationalization. The idea that the country has a traditional ethnic composition which people are attached to – what I term ethno-traditional nationalism – and which should not change too quickly, is viewed as beyond the limits of acceptable debate. This is a pity, because the ‘legitimate' arguments stigmatize minorities and are often racist in a way the ‘illegitimate' arguments about wanting to slow cultural loss are not. Only when the latter is taken to the extreme of wanting to bar certain groups or repatriate immigrants do they become racist. Rising diversity polarizes people by psychological outlook and reorients party platforms. As countries ethnically change, green parties move to capture cosmopolitan liberals and the populist right targets conservatives and authoritarians.88 While attitude liberalization did throw up cultural debates over religion, gay marriage and traditional values, these are on their way to becoming marginal in Europe as liberal attitudes attain mass acceptance. The legalization of drugs and the question of how best to address crime are live social issues, but neither promises the same radical transformation of society as ethnic change. Therefore it is ethno-demographic shifts which are rotating European societies away from a dominant left–right economic orientation to a globalist–nationalist cultural axis. The West is becoming less like homogeneous South Korea, where foreign policy and economic divisions dominate, and more like South Africa, where ethnicity is the main political division.89 When a regalizing order fails to make a charge of deviance stick, the norm begins to unwind, leading to a period of intense cultural contestation. Competing groups police norm boundaries and marginalize deviants who are seen to have violated their community's sacred values. I maintain we are currently in such a period, in which hegemonic liberal norms known as ‘political correctness' are being challenged by both populists and centrists, some of whom are trying to install new social norms, notably those defining Muslims and cosmopolitans as deviant. Fascism and socialism lost out after the Second World War, but what of the victor, liberalism? The Allies' victory did enlarge and protect the scope of negative liberty. But alongside this success a positive liberalism was smuggled in which advocated individuality and cosmopolitanism over community. Most, myself included, value individual autonomy, but one has to recognize that not all share this aim. Someone who prefers to wear a veil or dedicate their lives to religion is making a communitarian choice which negative liberalism respects but positive liberalism (whether of the modernist left or burqa-banning right) does not. Expressive individualism advocates that we channel our authentic inner nature, or what H. G. Wells or Henri Bergson termed our life force, unconstrained by tradition or reason. Aesthetically, it tended towards what the influential American sociologist Daniel Bell terms modernism, rejecting Christian or national traditions while spurning established techniques and motifs.22 Not only were traditions overturned but esteem was accorded to those whose innovations shocked sensibilities and subverted historic narratives and symbols the most. Clearly something happened between the nation-evoking historical and landscape painting of a Delacroix or Constable in the early nineteenth century and Marcel Duchamp's urinal of 1917. This ‘something' was the rise, after 1880, of what Bell terms modernism and Anthony Giddens calls de-traditionalization. For Bell, modernism is the antinomian rejection of all cultural authority. For Giddens, the shift is from a past- to a future-orientation and involves a decline in existential security.23 For Bell, modernism replaces contemplation of external reality and tradition with sensation and immediacy.26 The desire to seek out new and different experiences elevates novelty and diversity into cardinal virtues of the new positive liberalism. To favour tradition over the new, homogeneity over diversity, is to be reactionary. Left-modernism continually throws up new movements such as Surrealism or Postmodernism in its quest for novelty and difference. The shock of the new is accompanied by a cosmopolitan pastiche of borrowings from non-Western cultures, as with the Primitivism of Paul Gauguin. Yet there is a tension between the expressive-individualist and egalitarian strands of left-modernism. Gauguin, for example, who considered himself a cosmopolite defending Tahitian sexual freedom against the buttoned-down West, stands accused by the New Left of cultural appropriation, colonialism, orientalism and patriarchy. The social penetration of left-modernist ideas would take a great leap forward only in the 1960s as television and university education soared. In America, the share of 18- to 24-year-olds in College increased from 15 per cent in 1950 to a third in 1970. Given the large postwar ‘baby-boom' generation, this translated into a phenomenal expansion of universities. The growth of television was even more dramatic: from 9 per cent penetration in American homes in 1950 to 93 per cent by 1965.41 The New York, Hollywood and campus-based nodes in this network allowed liberal sensibilities to spread from a small coterie of aficionados to a wider public. Rising affluence may also have played a part in creating a social atmosphere more conducive to liberalism. All told, these ingredients facilitated a marked liberal shift across a wide range of attitudes measured in social surveys from the mid-1960s: gender roles, racial equality, sexual mores and religion – with the effects most apparent in the postwar Baby Boom generation.42 Since so much of the debate around the boundaries of the permissible revolves around racism, we need a rigorous – rather than political – definition of the concept. It's very important to specify clearly, using analytic political theory and precise terminology, why certain utterances or actions are racist. Only in this manner can we defend a racist taboo. I define racism as (a) antipathy to racial or pan-ethnic outgroups, defined as communities of birth; (b) the quest for race purity; or (c) racial discrimination which results in a violation of citizens' right to equal treatment before the law. The problem is that left-modernism has established racial inequality as an outrage rather than one dimension – and not generally the most important – of the problem of inequality. If racial inequality is one facet of inequality, it should be considered alongside other aspects such as income, health, weight or age. To focus the lion's share of attention on race and gender disparities entrenches ‘inequality privilege', wherein those who suffer from low-visibility disadvantages are treated less fairly than those who fit totemic left-modernist categories. A white male who is short, disabled, poor and unattractive will understandably resent the fact his disadvantage is downplayed while he is pilloried for his privilege. In effect, the 2010s represent a renewed period of left-modernist innovation, incubated by near-universal left–liberal hegemony among non-STEM faculty and administrators. Most academics are moderate liberals rather than radical leftists, but in the absence of conservative or libertarian voices willing to stand against left-modernist excess, liberal saturation reduced resistance to the japes of extremist students and professors. Social media and progressive online news acted as a vector, carrying the new left-modernist awakening off-campus much more effectively than was true during the first wave of political correctness of the late 1980s and 1990s. Angela Nagle finds that leftist radicalism emerged first, attracting a far-right response. One of the first to trace the emergence of this polarizing dynamic, she shows how, in left-modernist online chat groups, those who stake outlandish claims about white male oppression win moral and social plaudits. These in turn are lampooned by the alt-right, who leverage left-modernist excesses to legitimate blatant racism and sexism. This begins a cycle of polarizing rhetorical confrontation. Alt-right message boards adopt a playful countercultural style, emphasizing their rebellion against a stifling, puritanical-left establishment.11 Whereas bohemians like the Young Intellectuals of the 1910s and 1920s lauded African-American jazz and immigrant conviviality as a riposte to an uptight Prohibitionist Anglo-Protestant culture, the alt-right champions white maleness as a liberation from the strictures of the puritanical left. Hamid argues that being attached to an ethnic group and looking out for its interests is qualitatively different from hating or fearing outgroups. This is a distinction social psychologists recognize, between love for one's group and hatred of the other. As Marilyn Brewer writes in one of the most highly cited articles on prejudice: The prevailing approach to the study of ethnocentrism, ingroup bias, and prejudice presumes that ingroup love and outgroup hate are reciprocally related. Findings from both cross-cultural research and laboratory experiments support the alternative view that ingroup identification is independent of negative attitudes toward outgroups.54 If politics in the West is ever to return to normal rather than becoming even more polarized, white interests will need to be discussed. I realize this is very controversial for left-modernists. Yet not only is white group self-interest legitimate, but I maintain that in an era of unprecedented white demographic decline it is absolutely vital for it to have a democratic outlet. Marginalizing race puritanism is important, but muzzling relaxed versions of white identity sublimates it in a host of negative ways. For example, when whites are concerned about their decline but can't express it, they may mask their concern as worry about the nation-state. It's more politically correct to worry about Islam's challenge to liberalism and East European ‘cheap labour' in Britain than it is to say you are attached to being a white Brit and fear cultural loss. This means left-modernism has placed us in a situation where expressing racism is more acceptable than articulating racial self-interest. David Willetts, Minister of Education in David Cameron's Conservative government: The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties which they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn't do?' This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the US you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests.62 trying to reconstruct our racial categories from above through politics may be as difficult as trying to get people to unlearn the primary colours. This doesn't mean categories can't evolve, but it suggests the process is complex, evolutionary and bottom-up. As the median racial type changes, the boundaries of whiteness may expand because people judge categories based on the average type they encounter. Hispanics, like the Italians before them, may become part of the ethnic majority in the not-too-distant future. Many white Americans currently view those with Spanish surnames or Hispanic features as outsiders. A majority of Hispanics see themselves as white, but only 6 per cent of Hispanics who identify as white say they are accepted as such by American society. Even among those with just one Latino grandparent, 58 per cent identify as Hispanic.43 Yet this may change with increased intermarriage, cultural assimilation and the arrival of more culturally distant groups. Already, lighter-skinned Hispanics are more likely to vote Republican or live in the same neighbourhoods as whites.44 As group lines are blurred by intermarriage, ethnic boundaries may shift: Ramirez may be considered an Anglo-American on a par with De Niro. Hispanic surnames are unlikely to be ‘counter-entropic' barriers to assimilation. This assimilation process is a major reason why the centre-left writer John Judis revised his thesis that America's changing demographics will automatically produce Democratic victories in the future.45 When the criteria for defining who is in or out of the majority change, whole chunks of the population who are not of mixed origin – like the fully Irish John F. Kennedy – suddenly become part of the ethnic majority. The analogy would be if fully Hispanic or Asian Americans came to be viewed as white. I deem this unlikely, given the proximity to Mexico and the established nature of the racial categories noted by Richard Dawkins. What seems more likely is that the high rate of intermarriage between Latinos and whites, as well as the rising share of native English-speakers, Protestants or seculars among them, may expand the boundaries of whiteness to include those of mixed parentage. That is, those with some European background who are culturally assimilated and have Anglo first names – but who have Spanish surnames or a Hispanic appearance – may be accepted as white.

Few have ever enjoyed the degree of foreign-policy influence and versatility that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the grand-son of Woodrow Wilson's senatorial antagonist, did. In the postwar era, perhaps only George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Cabot Lodge, however, had the distinction of wielding that influence under presidents of both parties. For three decades, he was at the center of American foreign policy, serving as advisor to five presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Gerald Ford, and as ambassador to the United Nations, Vietnam, West Germany, and presidential envoy to the Vatican. Cabot Lodge's political influence was at times immense. He was the first person, in 1943, to see Eisenhower as a potential presidential material; he entered Eisenhower in the 1952 New Hampshire primary without the candidate's knowledge, crafted his political positions, and managed his campaign. As UN ambassador in the 1950s, Cabot Lodge was effectively at times a second secretary of state. In the 1960s, he was called twice, by John F. Kennedy and by Lyndon Johnson, to serve in the toughest position in the State Department's portfolio, as ambassador to South Vietnam. In the 1970s, he paved the way for permanent American ties with the Holy See. Over his career, beginning with his arrival in the U.S. Senate at age thirty-four in 1937, when there were just seventeen Republican senators, he did more than anyone else to transform the Republican Party from a regional, isolationist party into the nation's dominant force in foreign policy, a position it held from Eisenhower's time until the twenty-first century. In this book, The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War (Yale University Press, 2020) historian Luke A. Nichter professor of history at Texas A & M University–Central Texas, coeditor (with Douglas Brinkley) of the New York Times bestselling book The Nixon Tapes: 1971–1972, gives us a outstanding narrative of Cabot Lodge's extraordinary and consequential life. Cabot Lodge was among the last of the well-heeled Eastern Establishment Republicans who put duty over partisanship and saw themselves as the hereditary captains of the American state. Unlike many who reach his position, Cabot Lodge took his secrets to the grave—including some that, revealed here for the first time, will force historians to rethink their understanding of America's involvement in the Vietnam War. Charles Coutinho Ph. D. of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written recently for Chatham House's International Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few have ever enjoyed the degree of foreign-policy influence and versatility that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the grand-son of Woodrow Wilson's senatorial antagonist, did. In the postwar era, perhaps only George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Cabot Lodge, however, had the distinction of wielding that influence under presidents of both parties. For three decades, he was at the center of American foreign policy, serving as advisor to five presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Gerald Ford, and as ambassador to the United Nations, Vietnam, West Germany, and presidential envoy to the Vatican. Cabot Lodge's political influence was at times immense. He was the first person, in 1943, to see Eisenhower as a potential presidential material; he entered Eisenhower in the 1952 New Hampshire primary without the candidate's knowledge, crafted his political positions, and managed his campaign. As UN ambassador in the 1950s, Cabot Lodge was effectively at times a second secretary of state. In the 1960s, he was called twice, by John F. Kennedy and by Lyndon Johnson, to serve in the toughest position in the State Department's portfolio, as ambassador to South Vietnam. In the 1970s, he paved the way for permanent American ties with the Holy See. Over his career, beginning with his arrival in the U.S. Senate at age thirty-four in 1937, when there were just seventeen Republican senators, he did more than anyone else to transform the Republican Party from a regional, isolationist party into the nation's dominant force in foreign policy, a position it held from Eisenhower's time until the twenty-first century. In this book, The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War (Yale University Press, 2020) historian Luke A. Nichter professor of history at Texas A & M University–Central Texas, coeditor (with Douglas Brinkley) of the New York Times bestselling book The Nixon Tapes: 1971–1972, gives us a outstanding narrative of Cabot Lodge's extraordinary and consequential life. Cabot Lodge was among the last of the well-heeled Eastern Establishment Republicans who put duty over partisanship and saw themselves as the hereditary captains of the American state. Unlike many who reach his position, Cabot Lodge took his secrets to the grave—including some that, revealed here for the first time, will force historians to rethink their understanding of America's involvement in the Vietnam War. Charles Coutinho Ph. D. of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written recently for Chatham House's International Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few have ever enjoyed the degree of foreign-policy influence and versatility that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the grand-son of Woodrow Wilson’s senatorial antagonist, did. In the postwar era, perhaps only George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Cabot Lodge, however, had the distinction of wielding that influence under presidents of both parties. For three decades, he was at the center of American foreign policy, serving as advisor to five presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Gerald Ford, and as ambassador to the United Nations, Vietnam, West Germany, and presidential envoy to the Vatican. Cabot Lodge’s political influence was at times immense. He was the first person, in 1943, to see Eisenhower as a potential presidential material; he entered Eisenhower in the 1952 New Hampshire primary without the candidate’s knowledge, crafted his political positions, and managed his campaign. As UN ambassador in the 1950s, Cabot Lodge was effectively at times a second secretary of state. In the 1960s, he was called twice, by John F. Kennedy and by Lyndon Johnson, to serve in the toughest position in the State Department’s portfolio, as ambassador to South Vietnam. In the 1970s, he paved the way for permanent American ties with the Holy See. Over his career, beginning with his arrival in the U.S. Senate at age thirty-four in 1937, when there were just seventeen Republican senators, he did more than anyone else to transform the Republican Party from a regional, isolationist party into the nation’s dominant force in foreign policy, a position it held from Eisenhower’s time until the twenty-first century. In this book, The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War (Yale University Press, 2020) historian Luke A. Nichter professor of history at Texas A & M University–Central Texas, coeditor (with Douglas Brinkley) of the New York Times bestselling book The Nixon Tapes: 1971–1972, gives us a outstanding narrative of Cabot Lodge’s extraordinary and consequential life. Cabot Lodge was among the last of the well-heeled Eastern Establishment Republicans who put duty over partisanship and saw themselves as the hereditary captains of the American state. Unlike many who reach his position, Cabot Lodge took his secrets to the grave—including some that, revealed here for the first time, will force historians to rethink their understanding of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Charles Coutinho Ph. D. of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written recently for Chatham House’s International Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few have ever enjoyed the degree of foreign-policy influence and versatility that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the grand-son of Woodrow Wilson’s senatorial antagonist, did. In the postwar era, perhaps only George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Cabot Lodge, however, had the distinction of wielding that influence under presidents of both parties. For three decades, he was at the center of American foreign policy, serving as advisor to five presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Gerald Ford, and as ambassador to the United Nations, Vietnam, West Germany, and presidential envoy to the Vatican. Cabot Lodge’s political influence was at times immense. He was the first person, in 1943, to see Eisenhower as a potential presidential material; he entered Eisenhower in the 1952 New Hampshire primary without the candidate’s knowledge, crafted his political positions, and managed his campaign. As UN ambassador in the 1950s, Cabot Lodge was effectively at times a second secretary of state. In the 1960s, he was called twice, by John F. Kennedy and by Lyndon Johnson, to serve in the toughest position in the State Department’s portfolio, as ambassador to South Vietnam. In the 1970s, he paved the way for permanent American ties with the Holy See. Over his career, beginning with his arrival in the U.S. Senate at age thirty-four in 1937, when there were just seventeen Republican senators, he did more than anyone else to transform the Republican Party from a regional, isolationist party into the nation’s dominant force in foreign policy, a position it held from Eisenhower’s time until the twenty-first century. In this book, The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War (Yale University Press, 2020) historian Luke A. Nichter professor of history at Texas A & M University–Central Texas, coeditor (with Douglas Brinkley) of the New York Times bestselling book The Nixon Tapes: 1971–1972, gives us a outstanding narrative of Cabot Lodge’s extraordinary and consequential life. Cabot Lodge was among the last of the well-heeled Eastern Establishment Republicans who put duty over partisanship and saw themselves as the hereditary captains of the American state. Unlike many who reach his position, Cabot Lodge took his secrets to the grave—including some that, revealed here for the first time, will force historians to rethink their understanding of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Charles Coutinho Ph. D. of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written recently for Chatham House’s International Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few have ever enjoyed the degree of foreign-policy influence and versatility that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the grand-son of Woodrow Wilson’s senatorial antagonist, did. In the postwar era, perhaps only George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Cabot Lodge, however, had the distinction of wielding that influence under presidents of both parties. For three decades, he was at the center of American foreign policy, serving as advisor to five presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Gerald Ford, and as ambassador to the United Nations, Vietnam, West Germany, and presidential envoy to the Vatican. Cabot Lodge’s political influence was at times immense. He was the first person, in 1943, to see Eisenhower as a potential presidential material; he entered Eisenhower in the 1952 New Hampshire primary without the candidate’s knowledge, crafted his political positions, and managed his campaign. As UN ambassador in the 1950s, Cabot Lodge was effectively at times a second secretary of state. In the 1960s, he was called twice, by John F. Kennedy and by Lyndon Johnson, to serve in the toughest position in the State Department’s portfolio, as ambassador to South Vietnam. In the 1970s, he paved the way for permanent American ties with the Holy See. Over his career, beginning with his arrival in the U.S. Senate at age thirty-four in 1937, when there were just seventeen Republican senators, he did more than anyone else to transform the Republican Party from a regional, isolationist party into the nation’s dominant force in foreign policy, a position it held from Eisenhower’s time until the twenty-first century. In this book, The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War (Yale University Press, 2020) historian Luke A. Nichter professor of history at Texas A & M University–Central Texas, coeditor (with Douglas Brinkley) of the New York Times bestselling book The Nixon Tapes: 1971–1972, gives us a outstanding narrative of Cabot Lodge’s extraordinary and consequential life. Cabot Lodge was among the last of the well-heeled Eastern Establishment Republicans who put duty over partisanship and saw themselves as the hereditary captains of the American state. Unlike many who reach his position, Cabot Lodge took his secrets to the grave—including some that, revealed here for the first time, will force historians to rethink their understanding of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Charles Coutinho Ph. D. of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written recently for Chatham House’s International Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few have ever enjoyed the degree of foreign-policy influence and versatility that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the grand-son of Woodrow Wilson’s senatorial antagonist, did. In the postwar era, perhaps only George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Cabot Lodge, however, had the distinction of wielding that influence under presidents of both parties. For three decades, he was at the center of American foreign policy, serving as advisor to five presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Gerald Ford, and as ambassador to the United Nations, Vietnam, West Germany, and presidential envoy to the Vatican. Cabot Lodge’s political influence was at times immense. He was the first person, in 1943, to see Eisenhower as a potential presidential material; he entered Eisenhower in the 1952 New Hampshire primary without the candidate’s knowledge, crafted his political positions, and managed his campaign. As UN ambassador in the 1950s, Cabot Lodge was effectively at times a second secretary of state. In the 1960s, he was called twice, by John F. Kennedy and by Lyndon Johnson, to serve in the toughest position in the State Department’s portfolio, as ambassador to South Vietnam. In the 1970s, he paved the way for permanent American ties with the Holy See. Over his career, beginning with his arrival in the U.S. Senate at age thirty-four in 1937, when there were just seventeen Republican senators, he did more than anyone else to transform the Republican Party from a regional, isolationist party into the nation’s dominant force in foreign policy, a position it held from Eisenhower’s time until the twenty-first century. In this book, The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War (Yale University Press, 2020) historian Luke A. Nichter professor of history at Texas A & M University–Central Texas, coeditor (with Douglas Brinkley) of the New York Times bestselling book The Nixon Tapes: 1971–1972, gives us a outstanding narrative of Cabot Lodge’s extraordinary and consequential life. Cabot Lodge was among the last of the well-heeled Eastern Establishment Republicans who put duty over partisanship and saw themselves as the hereditary captains of the American state. Unlike many who reach his position, Cabot Lodge took his secrets to the grave—including some that, revealed here for the first time, will force historians to rethink their understanding of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Charles Coutinho Ph. D. of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written recently for Chatham House’s International Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few have ever enjoyed the degree of foreign-policy influence and versatility that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the grand-son of Woodrow Wilson’s senatorial antagonist, did. In the postwar era, perhaps only George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Cabot Lodge, however, had the distinction of wielding that influence under presidents of both parties. For three decades, he was at the center of American foreign policy, serving as advisor to five presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Gerald Ford, and as ambassador to the United Nations, Vietnam, West Germany, and presidential envoy to the Vatican. Cabot Lodge’s political influence was at times immense. He was the first person, in 1943, to see Eisenhower as a potential presidential material; he entered Eisenhower in the 1952 New Hampshire primary without the candidate’s knowledge, crafted his political positions, and managed his campaign. As UN ambassador in the 1950s, Cabot Lodge was effectively at times a second secretary of state. In the 1960s, he was called twice, by John F. Kennedy and by Lyndon Johnson, to serve in the toughest position in the State Department’s portfolio, as ambassador to South Vietnam. In the 1970s, he paved the way for permanent American ties with the Holy See. Over his career, beginning with his arrival in the U.S. Senate at age thirty-four in 1937, when there were just seventeen Republican senators, he did more than anyone else to transform the Republican Party from a regional, isolationist party into the nation’s dominant force in foreign policy, a position it held from Eisenhower’s time until the twenty-first century. In this book, The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War (Yale University Press, 2020) historian Luke A. Nichter professor of history at Texas A & M University–Central Texas, coeditor (with Douglas Brinkley) of the New York Times bestselling book The Nixon Tapes: 1971–1972, gives us a outstanding narrative of Cabot Lodge’s extraordinary and consequential life. Cabot Lodge was among the last of the well-heeled Eastern Establishment Republicans who put duty over partisanship and saw themselves as the hereditary captains of the American state. Unlike many who reach his position, Cabot Lodge took his secrets to the grave—including some that, revealed here for the first time, will force historians to rethink their understanding of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Charles Coutinho Ph. D. of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written recently for Chatham House’s International Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Few have ever enjoyed the degree of foreign-policy influence and versatility that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the grand-son of Woodrow Wilson’s senatorial antagonist, did. In the postwar era, perhaps only George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Cabot Lodge, however, had the distinction of wielding that influence under presidents of both parties. For three decades, he was at the center of American foreign policy, serving as advisor to five presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Gerald Ford, and as ambassador to the United Nations, Vietnam, West Germany, and presidential envoy to the Vatican. Cabot Lodge’s political influence was at times immense. He was the first person, in 1943, to see Eisenhower as a potential presidential material; he entered Eisenhower in the 1952 New Hampshire primary without the candidate’s knowledge, crafted his political positions, and managed his campaign. As UN ambassador in the 1950s, Cabot Lodge was effectively at times a second secretary of state. In the 1960s, he was called twice, by John F. Kennedy and by Lyndon Johnson, to serve in the toughest position in the State Department’s portfolio, as ambassador to South Vietnam. In the 1970s, he paved the way for permanent American ties with the Holy See. Over his career, beginning with his arrival in the U.S. Senate at age thirty-four in 1937, when there were just seventeen Republican senators, he did more than anyone else to transform the Republican Party from a regional, isolationist party into the nation’s dominant force in foreign policy, a position it held from Eisenhower’s time until the twenty-first century. In this book, The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War (Yale University Press, 2020) historian Luke A. Nichter professor of history at Texas A & M University–Central Texas, coeditor (with Douglas Brinkley) of the New York Times bestselling book The Nixon Tapes: 1971–1972, gives us a outstanding narrative of Cabot Lodge’s extraordinary and consequential life. Cabot Lodge was among the last of the well-heeled Eastern Establishment Republicans who put duty over partisanship and saw themselves as the hereditary captains of the American state. Unlike many who reach his position, Cabot Lodge took his secrets to the grave—including some that, revealed here for the first time, will force historians to rethink their understanding of America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Charles Coutinho Ph. D. of the Royal Historical Society, received his doctorate from New York University. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written recently for Chatham House’s International Affairs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Based on new archival discoveries, the first biography of a man who was at the center of U.S. foreign policy for a generation Few have ever enjoyed the degree of foreign-policy influence and versatility that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. did—in the postwar era, perhaps only George Marshall, Henry Kissinger, and James Baker. Lodge, however, had the distinction of wielding that influence under presidents of both parties. For three decades, he was at the center of American foreign policy, serving as advisor to five presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to Gerald Ford, and as ambassador to the United Nations, Vietnam, West Germany, and the Vatican. In The Last Brahmin: Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. and the Making of the Cold War (Yale University Press), Luke A. Nichter brings to light previously unexamined material in telling, for the first time, the full story of Lodge’s life and significance. About the Author . . . Luke A. Nichter is professor of history at Texas A&M University–Central Texas and a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow for 2020-21. Nichter is a noted expert on Richard Nixon’s 3,432 hours of secret White House tapes. He is the New York Times best-selling coauthor (with Douglas Brinkley) of The Nixon Tapes: 1971–1972. A sequel volume, The Nixon Tapes: 1973, was published in 2015. His work on the Nixon tapes was the winner of the Arthur S. Link–Warren F. Kuehl Prize for Documentary Editing, awarded by the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations. His website, nixontapes.org, offers free access to the publicly released Nixon tapes as a public service. Nichter’s other books include Richard Nixon and Europe: The Reshaping of the Postwar Atlantic World, which was based on multilingual archival research in six countries. He is a former founding executive producer of C-SPAN’s American History TV, launched in January 2011 in 41 million homes, and his work has appeared in or has been reported on by theNew York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, New Republic, Financial Times, and the Associated Press. For more information, including video and audio clips of recent interviews, visit his website at http://lukenichter.com/. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/steve-richards/support

Abby Battis, the curator at Historic Beverly, tells us about their great exhibit on The Story of the Revolution--a 2-volume history of the Revolution by Massachusetts Senator, and historian Henry Cabot Lodge, illustrated with original paintings now on display for the first time since 1898! We discuss F.C. Yohn's paintings, "The Fight at Concord Bridge" and "The Battle of Brandywine," and Carlton T. Chapman's "Bonhomme Richard defeats the Serapis."

Americans are exhausted by dishonest politics that we get bombed with every single day. Here are three quotes I want to you think about and act on.Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance, this great land of ordered liberty, for if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin. - Henry Cabot LodgeIt is never right to compromise with dishonesty - Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who prevent the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln.If your exhausted about dishonest politics then stand up and get some energy and take back the Congress before they distroy the constitution. Hold your politicians accountable. If you have a comment send me a text to 818.252.5682 www.lodge-co.com

Americans are exhausted by dishonest politics that we get bombed with every single day. Here are three quotes I want to you think about and act on.Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance, this great land of ordered liberty, for if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin. - Henry Cabot LodgeIt is never right to compromise with dishonesty - Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who prevent the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln.If your exhausted about dishonest politics then stand up and get some energy and take back the Congress before they distroy the constitution. Hold your politicians accountable. If you have a comment send me a text to 818.252.5682 www.lodge-co.com

Woodrow Wilson believed he and he alone could end war--forever. His plan for the League of Nations would usher in an era of eternal peace. So it really hurt the president's feelings when not everyone agreed with his vision. American author John Dos Passos in his World War I uniform. Dos Passos spent 1919 traveling around Europe and wrote about the adoration of ordinary people for Woodrow Wilson. The story about the baker from Belfort was included in essay titled "America and the Pursuit of Happiness" and published in The Nation on December 29, 1920. The essay is included in John Dos Passos: The Major Nonfictional Prose. The book is out of print, but you can find it at libraries. President Woodrow Wilson believed himself a pure and shining force for good. He had many fine traits, including an inspiring faith in the potential of humankind, but modesty was not among them. Wilson outlined his Fourteen Points in a speech on January 8, 1918. General Principles 1. Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view. 2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants. 3. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance. 4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety. 5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable government whose title is to be determined. Territorial Issues 6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy. 7. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired. 8. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all. 9. A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality. 10. The people of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development. 11. Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into. 12. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees. 13. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant. The League of Nations 14. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. Decisions at the Paris Peace Conference were supposed to be made by a council of four, pictured here. Left to right, they were British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Italian Premier Vittorio Orlando, French Premier Georges Clemenceau and US President Woodrow Wilson. In reality, Orlando had very little influence. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican from Massachusetts, opposed the League of Nations covenant as it had been written but was willing to accept it with amendments and reservations. He deeply disliked Wilson, once stating, "I never expected to hate anyone in politics with the hatred I feel for Wilson." Senator Hiram Johnson of California was one of the "irreconcilables" who considered the League of Nations unconstitutional. He fought hard against the League throughout 1919. The speech that I excerpted was read by an actor in a production called "Great Senate Debates: The League of Nations" by the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate. You can see the entire documentary here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TAswhH3D7Q&t=34s). Senator William Borah, a Republican from Idaho, was another Irreconcilible who rejected American involvement in the League of Nations in any form. His speech denouncing the League was one of the most emotional moments during the final push for a vote on the Senate Floor. The excerpt from Borah's speech is also read by actor and from "Great Senate Debates: The League of Nations." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TAswhH3D7Q&t=34s) First Lady Edith Wilson was fiercely protective of her husband after his stroke in October 1919. She controlled all access to the president for months. She passed along decisions that she claimed had been made by her husband, but it's not clear if he was capable of even of communicating during this time. Some historians have suggested that in a weird, unconstitutional way, Edith Wilson was the first female president of the United States. * Please note that the links below to Amazon are affiliate links. That means that, at no extra cost to you, I can earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. (Here's what, legally, I'm supposed to tell you: I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.) However, I only suggest books that I have used and genuinely highly recommend.

No matter how often we debate America’s role in the world, we are not throwing around original ideas. This debate resurfaces each time we decide whether or not to intervene in a foreign country. It was the main discussion amongst Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and William Randolph Hearst who favored imperial expansion while other notable intellectuals; Mark Twain and Andrew Carnegie valued restraint. Stephen Kinzer joins us today to discuss how this original debate unfolded.What is manifest destiny? Who were the expansionists in 1898? Who was Henry Cabot Lodge? Who was William Randolph Hearst? What was Teddy Roosevelt’s view on war? How did the U.S. acquire Puerto Rico and Guam? What is plutocracy?Further Reading:The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire, written by Stephen KinzerJohn Winthrop Dreams of a City on a Hill, 1630Theodore RooseveltThe Spanish-American War in the Philippines and the Battle for Manilla, American ExperienceRelated Content:The World Wide Revolution, Liberty Chronicles PodcastImperialism, written by Stephen DaviesThe Conquest of the United States by Spain, written by William Graham Sumner See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The unofficial second parter to our examination of Woodrow Wilson's campaign to get the League of Nations approved of back home, in episode 42 we further our analysis of the different parties and their interests in the US. Who was in favour of the League, who wanted the League with some adjustments, and who was resolutely opposed to it no matter what? Where did Henry Cabot Lodge fit into this sliding scale, and when he released his Reservations document to Congress on 28th February - wherein he underline 14 problems he had with the League as it stood - what was his end goal? Did he genuinely want the League to be improved, or, for political reasons, as well as some surprising other ones, did he want it to fail completely, and never see the light of day?As an Irish historian examining such a contentious period of American history, I must say I really had a ball in this episode, and I hope you enjoy this very important detour from our Versailles narrative. The tale of Wilson's failure forms a large part of what made the Treaty of Versailles, the League of Nations and the Paris Peace Conference generally such a tragic but also such a fascinating story. It is one which requires detours like these to fully grasp, so I hope you'll join me as we jump headlong into American politics once again...*********************The Versailles Anniversary Project is possible because of your support and interest - make sure to spread the word, engage with the debate, and look at the different ways you can help this project succeed!->Visit the homeland for this new project!->Become a delegate and play the Delegation Game for just $6 a month!->Support the podcast financially and access ad free episodes with transcripts from just $2 a month! ->Follow WDF on Twitter! ->Join the Facebook group!->Subscribe on iTunes! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

I am so proud to be an American. This nation that give us so much, in the way of so many freedoms. I am so proud to receive this blessing of our nation. The liberty that is my birth right as an American under our constitution. Those that hate need to stop. Be proud of your nation. "Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance, this great land of ordered liberty, for if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin. - Henry Cabot Lodge"

I am so proud to be an American. This nation that give us so much, in the way of so many freedoms. I am so proud to receive this blessing of our nation. The liberty that is my birth right as an American under our constitution. Those that hate need to stop. Be proud of your nation. "Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance, this great land of ordered liberty, for if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin. - Henry Cabot Lodge"

Theodore Roosevelt— the man, the myth, the legend— served as the 26th Presdident of the United States from 1901 to 1909. As a public figure, he was defined by his robust masculinity and exuberant personality. He was a man who wrote the book on being a manly man, he was a man of virtue, of intelligence, a man who embraced the strenuous life, bettering himself through the trials and tribulations he faced. In today's episode of the Better Hiker Podcast we're going to be taking a look at Hero Tales from American History, a book Theodore Roosevelt co-authored with Henry Cabot Lodge. In Hero Tales from American History, Roosevelt identified a couple dozen men he claimed were American heroes. Some were politicians, some pioneers, and many were warriors, American soldiers. We're going to focus on three men who helped colonize America. Three pioneers who moved west, conquering the land and people in their path-- Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, and Francis Parkman. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/history-of-adventure/support

Sermon presented by Mike Adams on June 10, 2018. In 1899, Rudyard Kipling penned the poem, “The White Man’s Burden,” which was copied by then vice president Theodore Roosevelt and sent to Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who didn’t appreciate the art of the poetry but did appreciate the ideas presented. There exists in American . . . → Read More: The Great Race

J. Edgar Hoover and Howard Hughes clean up the podcast industry ––– JFK galvanized into giving a damn ––– two and a half years' secret war against the secret state ––– the U.S. in Southeast Asia: not just "the Vietnam War," but the technocrats' fuckfest ––– W. Averell Harriman and Henry Cabot Lodge take matters, sorry, murders into their own hands ––– the American University and Civil Rights speeches ––– it wasn't supposed to be Dallas: CIA assassination attempt #1, November 2, 1963, Chicago

Inside Hawaiian Volcanoes To watch this video please visit Public Access America https://youtu.be/r9ninRXIXyQ Kīlauea and its Halemaʻumaʻu caldera were traditionally considered the sacred home of the volcano goddess Pele, and Hawaiians visited the crater to offer gifts to the goddess. In 1790, a party of warriors (along with women and children who were in the area) were caught in an unusually violent eruption. Many were killed and others left footprints in the lava that can still be seen today. The first western visitors to the site, English missionary William Ellis and American Asa Thurston, went to Kīlauea in 1823. Ellis wrote of his reaction to the first sight of the erupting volcano: A spectacle, sublime and even appalling, presented itself before us. 'We stopped and trembled.' Astonishment and awe for some moments rendered us mute, and, like statues, we stood fixed to the spot, with our eyes riveted on the abyss below. The volcano became a tourist attraction in the 1840s, and local businessmen such as Benjamin Pitman and George Lycurgus ran a series of hotels at the rim. Volcano House is the only hotel or restaurant located within the borders of the national park. Lorrin A. Thurston, grandson of the American missionary Asa Thurston, was one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the park after investing in the hotel from 1891 to 1904. William R. Castle first proposed the idea in 1903. Thurston, who then owned the Honolulu Advertiser newspaper, printed editorials in favor of the park idea. In 1907, the territory of Hawaii paid for fifty members of Congress and their wives to visit Haleakala and Kīlauea. It included a dinner cooked over lava steam vents. In 1908 Thurston entertained Secretary of the Interior James Rudolph Garfield, and in 1909 another congressional delegation. Governor Walter F. Frear proposed a draft bill in 1911 to create "Kilauea National Park" for $50,000. Thurston and local landowner William Herbert Shipman proposed boundaries, but ran into some opposition from ranchers. Thurston printed endorsements from John Muir, Henry Cabot Lodge, and former President Theodore Roosevelt. After several attempts, the legislation introduced by delegate Jonah Kūhiō Kalaniana'ole finally passed to create the park. House Resolution 9525 was signed by Woodrow Wilson on August 1, 1916. It was the 11th National Park in the United States, and the first in a Territory. Within a few weeks, the National Park Service Organic Act would create the National Park Service to run the system. Originally called "Hawaii National Park", it was split from the Haleakalā National Park on September 22, 1960. An easily accessible lava tube was named for the Thurston family. An undeveloped stretch of the Thurston Lava Tube extends an additional 1,100 ft (340 m) beyond the developed area and dead-ends into the hillside, but it is closed to the general public. source link https://archive.org/details/gov.ntis.ava19369vnb1 public domain link https://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/