In Honor of Stephanie Mott; An Excerpt by CJ Janovy

After Kansas transgender activist Stephanie Mott’s sudden death on Monday, Gov. Laura Kelly called Mott “a champion for equality and a role model for the LGBTQ+ community,” adding that Mott would be missed, “but her advocacy to improve Kansas will be remembered.”

Mott is a key figure in C.J. Janovy’s No Place Like Home: Lessons in Activism from LGBT Kansas. In the condensed excerpt below, Mott tells her life story – it’s a story she told thousands of times, at rallies and groups large and small, wherever she was invited to speak. In this case, it’s during a brown-bag lunch at the United States Department of Agriculture’s Center for Grain and Animal Health Research in Manhattan in June 2015. From No Place Like Home…

Short and round through the middle, Mott comes across as a warm prairie grandmother. She thanked the dozen or so government workers who were quietly unwrapping their lunches. “It’s always an honor to have an opportunity to talk about what it’s like to be transgender,” she said. “You have permission to ask me anything.” It might be rude to ask a transgender person some things, such as whether he or she has had surgery. “You can ask me that,” Mott said. “You can ask me about relationships. If I’m not comfortable answering something I’ll tell you, but so far that’s never happened. There are no inappropriate questions in this space.”

Born in Lawrence in 1957 and growing up on an eighty-acre farm along the Wakarusa River, raised by a mother who embodied unconditional love and a stereotypically strict 1960s father, the child then known as Steven knew by the age of six that he was less like his brothers and more like his sisters. Mott greeted each day with a mental adjustment she describes as “putting on my Steven suit” — going out into the world felt like walking onto a stage and pretending to be a boy. Mott was a teenager in 1976 when Renee Richards was denied entry into the US Open tennis tournament as a woman. “The news of this made it all the way out to the farm where I was growing up,” said Mott, who at that point realized an authentic life might be possible — for some people, anyway. “I thought you had to have money, fame, and connections, and as a Kansas farm kid I didn’t think it was possible for me.”

Mott graduated from Eudora High School and headed to business school at the University of Kansas. College life gave her more freedom, but also made her more aware of how others would react if she revealed her true self. “People I knew, people who loved me and I loved, all thought someone like me was displeasing. So I was dealing with fear and shame.”

Her life was traditional in at least one way, a fact she delivered with expert comedic timing: “I’m sure I’m the only nineteen-year-old student who discovered alcohol on a campus.” This earned the laugh. Mott thought about suicide but instead, she said, “alcohol may have saved me — although it was killing me at the same time.” For the next thirty years, drinking and drugs helped Mott hide from reality. And in an ongoing effort to learn how to be a man, Mott got married twice and had a son. Predictably, the marriages failed, and Mott figured she could never have a relationship because she would always hurt the person she loved.

By 2005 Mott was homeless in Pueblo, Colorado. As she had done before, she called her sisters in Lawrence and asked for money to come back to Kansas and get on her feet. “This time they said no. They knew I had something going on in the gender spectrum but didn’t know what it was — they knew someone was stealing their clothes — and they were tired of watching me kill myself with alcohol and didn’t want me around their teenage kids.”

She ended up at the Topeka Rescue Mission. It sounds sad, Mott said, but this was the best thing to happen to her. “For the first time in my life, I didn’t have anything left to lose.” If she knew anything at that point, it was that pretending to be a man wasn’t working. “I realized that ‘if I’m going to be okay, I’m going to have to figure this out, how to live authentically as the woman I’ve always been.’” Mott uses the phrase “if I’m going to be okay” frequently in her talk, and it is an effective way to connect with her audiences: people might not be able to understand being transgender, but an effort to simply be okay? That quest is universal.

“The rescue mission was probably not the place to start that little journey, but it was a great place for me to be,” Mott continued. The facility felt almost like a jail, and Mott was surrounded by potentially dangerous men. So she escaped to the chapel every day. On the third day, someone asked if anyone wanted to accept Jesus as their savior. “I thought, sure, I’ll do that. I wanted to do something different because what I’d been doing wasn’t working.” Mott started going to a tiny Southern Baptist outreach church near the mission where the pastor seemed respectful of everyone. The congregation was only a handful of people, and when they found out she could play the piano, she became the pianist. By then she had gone several months without a drink. Mott moved into a residential drug and alcohol treatment program at Valeo Behavioral Health Care, a nonprofit mental health agency, where she met a counselor with “long braided hair, a careworn face, tired eyes, and a heart like gold.” Mott’s voice dropped almost to a whisper. “I sat down at the table across from him and he created a space where I could talk about what I needed to talk about without feeling judged. And I’d never had that.”

Next came Mott’s salvation. She met a woman who invited her to Topeka’s Metropolitan Community Church (the LGBTQ church) and took her to a thrift store. “She bought me a dress, and some shoes, and a purse, and just the right pair of earrings. I stuck them behind the seat of my pickup truck because I was living in a men’s halfway house — it did not seem like a good idea to get dressed at the halfway house,” she said, earning more laughter. On Sunday she drove to the church and spent fifteen minutes arguing with herself: she knew this was right for her; she worried about hurting others; this felt like her only chance. “I went in and got dressed in the basement of the church. Another transgender woman guarded the door because we didn’t want a cisgender woman” —  Mott had already explained that cisgender means having a gender identity that matches one’s biological sex, or, not transgender — “walking in and seeing a man in the bathroom. Turns out it wouldn’t have mattered because in that church everybody goes in there for the same reason” —  Mott waited another comedic beat — “to fix our hair.”

Newly dressed, Mott went upstairs where the pastor hugged her and people shook her hand. “I sat in a pew and looked up at the cross and I felt truly myself in the eyes of the Lord for the very first time.” When the attendance book came around, Mott signed her name as Stephanie.

“I can’t tell you what the pastor said because I was being Stephanie in front of God and everybody, and it was so amazing and so beautiful that I don’t even know if there was a sermon that day but there was communion. The pastor who served my communion put her hand on my shoulder and said, ‘God, bless your daughter for the faith she has shown in you.’ And Stephanie was born. I was forty-seven years old.”

It was like walking through a door and “the nightmare was not allowed to follow.” Mott was a little nervous about telling her religious story to a room full of scientists. “My story is a Christian story,” she acknowledged.

“It’s a faith story. I needed a place and it didn’t need to be a church — it could have been a school classroom, could have been a conference room in the Agricultural Resource Services section at the USDA. I just needed someplace to be me and not feel judged. I’m not one of those people who believes it matters what you believe. I think it’s cool to have conversations with people who don’t believe and people who believe differently from me because I learn, I get to be a bigger person.”

The point is, Mott said, is, “when I took off all the facade, pretense, got down to the core of who I am and exposed her to the sunlight, I started growing and being alive and being happy. Amazing things have happened since then.”

Mott ticked off the tangible signs of a successful life: gainful employment as an office assistant, a return to school to earn a bachelor’s in social work, a master’s degree now nearly complete. Later that summer, she told the group, she would go back to Valeo Behavioral Health Care — where she first talked with that long-haired counselor with the careworn face who didn’t judge her — to do her master’s in social work internship. The scientists broke into applause. “I’ve been sober for nine and a half years, done hundreds of presentations like this, started a couple nonprofit organizations,” she continued. “I’m part of the world today, which is something I wasn’t before.”

CJ Janovy is Digital Content Editor at KCUR in Kansas City, MO

Huston Horn Discusses His New Book “Leonidas Polk: Warrior Bishop of the Confederacy”

Now available: Leonidas Polk: Warrior Bishop of the Confederacy

Leonidas Polk was a graduate of West Point who resigned his commission to enter the Episcopal priesthood as a young man. At first combining parish ministry with cotton farming in Tennessee, Polk subsequently was elected the first bishop of the Louisiana Diocese, whereupon he bought a sugarcane plantation and worked it with several hundred slaves owned by his wife. Then, in the 1850s he was instrumental in the founding of the University of the South in Sewanee, Tennessee. When secession led to war he pulled his diocese out of the national church and with other Southern bishops established what they styled the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Confederate States of America. Polk then offered his military services to his friend and former West Point classmate Jefferson Davis and became a major general in the Confederate Army.

How would you describe your book in two or three sentences? The book covers the principal phases of Leonidas Polk’s life: West Point cadet, Episcopal priest/bishop, sugar planter, University of the South founder, and Confederate general. In many respects an estimable human being, Polk was infected by the virulent racism of his times. And as divisive as the Civil War was to most Americans, Polk took it one step further by dividing the Episcopal Church as well.

What was your inspiration to research and write about the “Warrior Bishop of the Confederacy?” Growing up in a Southern “Lost Cause” household, and becoming an Episcopal minister myself, I was struck by the commonalities between Leonidas Polk and me – and I reflected upon the differences.

What was the most challenging aspect of researching and writing the book? The deciphering and copying over several years of Polk’s voluminous original and microfilmed correspondence. He once himself compared his daunting penmanship to hieroglyphics – but it was worse than that.

William C. Davis says that there are those who have maintained that General Leonidas Polk did more to bring about Confederate defeat than any other single man. Do you agree with that assessment? I am not a military historian, but I suspect such a blanket disparagement is overly harsh. What may be said in his favor was his bravery in combat (foolhardy, sometimes) and his abiding popularity with his rank and file soldiers.

Despite a lack of prior combat experience, General Polk was quickly promoted through the Confederate ranks by President Jefferson Davis. How has history viewed his military service and Davis’s decision to advance him? History knows that Davis and Polk were friends since their West Point days together: “a set,” they called it. That friendship covered many a flaw.

What is one thing you would like readers to take from your work? The disjuncture of Polk’s life as a Christian clergyman and the owner of slaves – albeit the most beneficent of masters, as he liked to think of himself.

If you could have any one person read your book, who would that be? Polly Lee Carroll, my wife and companion for 55 years who read numerous drafts and fixed plenty of footnotes, but died of lymphoma in 2013 before the final version was finished.

Huston Horn followed his career in journalism at the Nashville Tennessean, Sports Illustrated, and Time-Life Books with an ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church. He lives in Pasadena, California.

Advice to Chicago Voters: Remember Mikva

By Rick Kogan, originally published in the Chicago Tribune on 02/20/2019

I was not young and I was not naïve when, on a cold day late in 2005, I decided that it would be a good idea to spend the upcoming year interviewing every one of the city’s 50 aldermen.

I decided to do this because I had recently had a conversation with an otherwise smart reporter who admitted that he did not know the name of the alderman in the ward in which he lived.

“I know, that’s horrible. I feel stupid,” he said. “But I’ll bet I’m not alone.”

I then conducted a random survey around the Tribune offices and at various taverns. Confirming my growing and uneasy suspicion, not one Chicagoan I asked could name more than a handful of aldermen and, indeed, a great number of these people did not know the name of their own alderman.

So I set out to meet and interview every alderman and write about him or her weekly for what was then the Tribune’s Sunday magazine. It was quite an experience, I will tell you, one that began with one of the people now running for mayor, Toni Preckwinkle, who had been elected 4th Ward alderman in 1991 by the thinnest of margins (109 votes). Her ward incorporated parts or all of such neighborhoods as Hyde Park, Kenwood, North Kenwood and Oakland, and she remained its alderman until moving on to other things in 2009. But in 2006, she told me, “When people come to me and say they are thinking about moving into the ward, there are two questions they ask: ‘Are the streets safe?’ and ‘Are the schools good?'”

My aldermanic odyssey ended 50 weeks later with Michael Chandler, the alderman of the 24th Ward, which was on the harsh West Side and included much of the Lawndale neighborhood. First elected in 1995 (he retired in 2015 and died in Arizona two years later), he told me, “I really do believe that there can be a good future for the children of this ward … For every negative story I can find 100 positive ones. There are beautiful people here, all over the city, and they are rich in spirit and hope.”

In between were 48 encounters that took us (my companion in this endeavor was former Tribune photographer Charles Osgood) to every corner of the city and provided us uncommon insights into how the city works — and doesn’t. The men and women we met were of varying degrees of intelligence, power and effectiveness. They were the City Council, the legislative body of Chicago, meeting at least once every month to debate and vote on all manner of things important to the way the city operates. But they also oversee, on a more intimate level, the needs, concerns and complaints of the 55,000 people, on average, who live in their wards.

I bring this up because not only Election Day is Tuesday and you might be wise to learn what you can about the people running for the opportunity to run the ward in which you live. More than one of the aldermen interviewed in 2006 viewed themselves as “little mayors.”

I also bring this up because there are two new books that remind me and will remind you that politics once attracted people worthy of admiration.

“Clear It With Sid!” (University of Illinois Press) is by Michael Dorf and George Van Dusen. It is about Sidney R. Yates, who was an Illinois congressman from 1949-1963 and 1965-1999. It tells the whole story—from his West Side childhood as the youngest of six children son of a Lithuanian blacksmith and his wife; his losing race for alderman of the city’s 46th Ward; his eventual rise to political power and influence — with particular emphasis on his savvy and strenuous battle to save the National Endowments for the Arts.

The authors have a deep knowledge of and affection for their subject and capture the many facets of this charismatic figure. He was durable and witty too. In his later years he said, “First the knees go. Then the nouns go. Then you go.” At 89, he became the oldest person to ever serve in the House. Yates died the next year, in 2000.

Durbin is the author of the preface to another fine new book, Conversations with Abner Mikva: Final Recollections on Chicago Politics, Democracy’s Future, and a Life of Public Service by Sanford D. Horwitt, a speechwriter for and friend of Mikva’s for decades.

In that preface, Durbin writes that Mikva “was a patriot in every sense,” calling him “my hero … a paragon of both progressive values and independence from party orthodoxy. In an era of cynicism and disappointment, [his] record of public service is proof that the good guys can win without selling their souls.”

The book is crafted from the monthly conversations Horwitt had with Mikva at various places during the last three years of Mikva’s life, which ended in 2016, after a career as Illinois state legislator, congressman, federal judge, White House counsel, professor and mentor to a generation or two of young people, including a fellow named Obama.

The first line of this book is, “Abner Mikva saw death coming but not Donald Trump,” and the following 180-some pages are peppered with frank observations and opinions about a gallery of politicians and topical matters, some of them controversial. Horwitt is a stylish writer and though this is not a conventional biography it will surely provide a rich and solid foundation for any yet to be written.

Together, these two books, these two politician’s lives, will make you wonder why, in the main, politics attracts too few people of character, intelligence and substance.

It will also remind you, as you go to the polls, of Chicago’s shady political image.

It was 1948 and Mikva, attending law school at the University of Chicago, walked into the 8th Ward Democratic headquarters to volunteer for an upcoming election.

Ward Committeeman Timothy O’Sullivan took a big cigar out of his mouth and said, “We ain’t got no jobs.”

Mikva said, “I just want to volunteer …”

“We don’t want nobody who don’t want no job,” said O’Sullivan. “Who sent ya?”

“Nobody sent me,” said Mikva.

O’Sullivan mulled the answer and then said, “We don’t want nobody nobody sent.”

Now, if you haven’t already done so, go vote.

Benjamin L. Miller Discusses His New Book “In God’s Presence”

Now available: In God’s Presence; Chaplains, Missionaries, and Religious Space during the American Civil War

When thousands of young men in the North and South marched off to fight in the Civil War, another army of men accompanied them to care for these soldiers spiritual needs. In God’s Presence explores how these two cohorts of men, Northern and Southern and mostly Christian, navigated the challenges of the Civil War on battlefields and in military camps, hospitals, and prisons.

  1. 1. What’s your elevator pitch for In God’s Presence? How would you describe the book in two or three sentences?

This book highlights the extraordinary work of chaplains and missionaries, who promoted ecumenism within religious spaces during the American Civil War. Coming from a sectarian antebellum religious world, these individuals created a sense of spiritual community within different wartime spaces (camps, battlefields, hospitals, and prisons). In the wake of this work, they gained converts, expanded African American access to Christianity, and promoted civil religion.

2. What was your inspiration to research and write about the role religious figures played in the American Civil War?

I have always been intrigued by religious figures and religious studies more generally. Throughout college and graduate school, I have taken numerous courses covering several major religious traditions. Within each tradition, I was drawn to the leaders, trying to make sense of how they kept the faith of their flocks alive during tough times. Plus, I have been fascinated by the American Civil War ever since middle school. The study of clergy during the Civil War seemed like a perfect fit for my educational background and scholarly interests.

3. What was the most challenging aspect of researching and writing the book?

The most challenging aspect of this book was conceiving of and applying my concept of religious space to the American Civil War. This frame has gone through many iterations and been expounded upon through a number of conference papers. Each time I received comments, I used them to enhance the analytical frame. I am happy with the final result.

4. Your book examines, among other things, the evolution of religious ceremony through the duration of the war. Was there a significant change in the desire for religious ceremonies and figures from the start of the war to the end?

I would say that desire for religious ceremony and access to spiritual leaders does not change over the course of the war. Soldiers were interested throughout the conflict. However, there are points when soldiers demonstrated heightened interest in spiritual matters. For example, these situations occur when soldiers are actively campaigning and being exposed to high casualty rates or in winter camps or hospitals, with ample spare time to devote to religion.

5. Can you discuss the lasting effects chaplains & missionaries returning from the war had on their congregations?

I argue that chaplains and missionaries promoted civil religion, brought many men back to the church, and helped enable independent African American churches to form. However, these post-bellum topics deserve a much more in-depth scholarly treatment. My book is a stepping stone for more analysis and discussion.

6. What is one thing you would like readers to take from your work?

I hope readers see that sectarian divides can be bridged. Civil War era chaplains and missionaries ministered to any men who desired spiritual aid. They were true leaders who tried to unify individuals under a shared belief in Christianity even while the nation was torn apart by the War.

7. If you could have any one person read your book, who would it be and why?

I can’t think of any one person. However, I would like individuals training to join the U.S. military chaplaincy to read my book. It provides insight into how spiritual leaders dealt with the challenges of ministering to troops during warfare. In the end, my book depicts successful chaplains and missionaries as leaders who promoted a strong sense of mission and dedication to their flocks. I believe the best military chaplains today would have these same characteristics.

Benjamin L. Miller is an adjunct instructor of history at Howard Community College in Columbia, Maryland. His work has appeared in the New York Times’ Disunion: The Civil War blog, The World of the Civil War: A Daily Life Encyclopedia, and American Civil War, a part of the Gale Library of Daily Life series.

Hampton Newsome Q&A about “The Fight for the Old North State”

Now available: The Fight for the Old North State; The Civil War in North Carolina, January-May 1864

On a cold day in early January 1864, Robert E. Lee wrote to Confederate president Jefferson Davis “The time is at hand when, if an attempt can be made to capture the enemy’s forces at New Berne, it should be done.” Over the next few months, Lee’s dispatch would precipitate a momentous series of events as the Confederates, threatened by a supply crisis and an emerging peace movement, sought to seize Federal bases in eastern North Carolina. This book tells the story of these operations—the late war Confederate resurgence in the Old North State.

1.What’s your elevator pitch for The Fight for the Old North State? How would you describe the book in two or three sentences?

This book is about the Confederate effort to retake key coastal positions in North Carolina during the first half of 1864. In launching these operations, rebel leaders sought to secure vital supplies for Robert E. Lee’s army and dampen a growing peace movement then threatening to pull the state out of the war. The ensuing engagements involved complex joint army and navy operations, daring raids, and deadly ironclads.

2.What led you to research and write about the late-war Confederate resurgence in the Old North State?

I was drawn to this project by the interesting mix of military and political issues behind the battles in eastern North Carolina. These clashes, which included Confederate attacks on New Bern and Plymouth, formed a compelling story that not only involved much marching and fighting but also other issues such as Unionist resistance to the Confederacy, emancipation, desertion, and a crucial gubernatorial election.

3. What were some of the challenging aspects of researching the book?

The search for material sent me far and wide. I’m grateful for the help from archivists at dozens of institutions around the country. There were many obstacles of course. One interesting challenge was the hunt for elusive information about Confederate supply efforts in eastern North Carolina during 1864. Most of the official Confederate commissary records from that period have not survived. However, I was able to find valuable information elsewhere, in period newspapers for instance. Another hurdle was the effort to find information about Union African-American recruits at Plymouth. In trying to track down several details, I scanned through regimental books and personnel files housed at the National Archives as well as records in the collections at Duke University. In the end, like a lot of research, I found more on these issues than I expected but less than I hoped for!

4. Your book offers a compelling account of Confederate efforts in early 1864 to turn the tide of the Civil War in eastern North Carolina. What would you list as the most important decision made by the rebel leaders in their efforts?

Confederate success stemmed in large part from the decision to delay the attack on Plymouth until the completion of the ironclad Albemarle. Once finished in April, that gunboat, which had been initially constructed in a cornfield, steamed down the Roanoke River, defeated Union naval vessels guarding the town, and poured fire into the unprotected flank and rear of the Federal fortifications, turning the tide of the battle.

5. Robert E. Lee’s proposal to take eastern North Carolina triggered one of the last successful Confederate offensives. What was the impact of these operations on the culmination of the Civil War?

In targeting Federal bases, rebel leaders sought to boost morale in the state and, in doing so, help Governor Zebulon Vance win reelection that summer and keep the state firmly in the Confederacy. The rebel victories in North Carolina also opened areas previously closed to Confederate commissary agents, allowing them to gather supplies for Lee’s army in the brutal campaigns that summer in Virginia. Though the precise impacts of these events on the overall war are difficult to gauge, the operations clearly aided the Confederate war effort.

6. What is one thing you would like readers to take from your work?

I hope readers gain an appreciation of just how complicated things were in Civil War North Carolina. In addition to the tactical and operational details highlighted in the book, many issues impacted the Old North State during the conflict including the enlistment of North Carolinians into Union regiments, Confederate desertion, guerrilla warfare, emancipation, and the peace movement.

Hampton Newsome is the author of Richmond Must Fall: The Richmond-Petersburg Campaign, October 1864.

Robert Hutchinson (“German Foreign Intelligence from Hitler’s War to the Cold War”) Author Q & A

Now available: German Foreign Intelligence from Hitler’s War to the Cold War; Flawed Assumptions and Faulty Analysis

In the Allies’ post-war analyses of the Nazis’ defeat, the “weakness and incompetence” of the German intelligence services figured prominently. And how could it have been otherwise, when they worked at the whim of a regime in the grip of “ignorant maniacs”? But what if, Robert Hutchinson asks, the worldviews of the intelligence services and the “ignorant maniacs” aligned more closely than these analyses—and subsequent studies—assumed? What if the reports of the German foreign intelligence services, rather than being dismissed by ideologues who “knew better,” instead served to reinforce the National Socialist worldview? Returning to these reports, examining the information on enemy nations that was gathered, processed, and presented to leaders in the Nazi state, Hutchinson’s study reveals the consequences of the politicization of German intelligence during the war—as well as the persistence of ingrained prejudices among the intelligence services’ Cold War successors.

Closer scrutiny of underutilized and unpublished reports shows how during the World War II the German intelligence services supported widely-held assumptions among the Nazi elite that Britain was politically and morally bankrupt, that the Soviet Union was tottering militarily and racially inferior, and that the United States’ vast economic potential was undermined by political, cultural, and racial degeneration. Furthermore, Hutchinson argues, these distortions continued as German intelligence veterans parlayed their supposed expertise on the Soviet Union into positions of prominence in Western intelligence in the early years of the Cold War. With its unique insights into the impact of ideology on wartime and post-war intelligence, his book raises important questions not only about how intelligence reports can influence policy decisions, but also about the subjective nature of intelligence gathering itself.

1.What’s your elevator pitch for German Foreign Intelligence from Hitler’s War to the Cold War? How would you describe the book in two or three sentences?

German Foreign Intelligence from Hitler’s War to the Cold War examines the reports prepared by the Nazi-era German foreign intelligence services and their Cold War successor organizations, and evaluates the politicization of the German foreign intelligence services in both periods. I argue that during the Second World War, the German intelligence services’ politicized intelligence reports on foreign affairs provided flawed evidence confirming the Nazi worldview that 1) Great Britain would “see reason” and exit the war quickly, 2) that the Soviet Union was a teetering colossus that would crumble in the face of the Nazi invasion, 3) that the United States, despite its enormous economic and military potential, would not decisively effect the outcome of the war in Europe, and, 4) that all three states were puppets in the hands of international Jewry.  Moreover, I argue that when former German intelligence officers endeavored to leverage their “expertise” on the Soviet Union into positions of prominence in West German and American intelligence institutions after 1945, their reports continued to reproduce the flawed wartime tropes of innate Russian military and racial inferiority well into the 1960s.

2. What led you to research and write about the German foreign intelligence services?

When I was just starting out in graduate school, I read Richard Breitman, Norman Goda, Timothy Naftali, and Robert Wolfe’s U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis, which did some fantastic work in the then-recently declassified files of the FBI, CIA, and other American government agencies, pertaining to what the U.S. government knew about the unfolding Holocaust, the role of German intelligence agencies in the Holocaust, and the connections forged between a number of former German intelligence officers and U.S. intelligence agencies during the Cold War. After reading U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis, I found myself wondering if the German foreign intelligence services’ role in the Holocaust was representative of a wider than expected ideological agreement with the Nazi worldview more generally. If so, what kinds of reports did these people write during the war? And if they continued working for the United States or other Western nations during the Cold War, apart from the moral aspects of that, in the absence of the Nazi dictatorship, did they continue to understand the world the same way? I was fortunate enough to do my graduate work at the University of Maryland, which is located in very close proximity to the National Archives in College Park, where the declassified American intelligence records are held (in addition to their captured German records collection, which also proved valuable in the early stages of this project at setting the scope of inquiry), and so I was off to the races.

3. According to Derek R. Mallett, your book demonstrates that Nazi ideology pervaded the German intelligence services and that their collective body of reports, rather than countering Hitler’s beliefs in fact supported and perpetuated them. Can you draw parallels between that time in German intelligence and any current regimes or agencies?

My expertise on the present is quite limited, but I can make a general point in response to this (excellent) question. The mechanism for how this worked – how the German intelligence agencies failed – during this period is that, during the Second World War and Cold War, when information on their opponent (particularly the Soviet Union) was scarce, the intelligence officers writing the daily and weekly reports increasingly relied on prejudices and national character as modes of analysis to fill the gap in hard data. This was not controversial, as there were certain things about “the Russian” that these people, given their cultural milieu “knew” to be true. “The Russian” was primitive, hard, brutal, cruel, indifferent to suffering, etc., and, as a result, the German intelligence services argued during the war and after that these innate characteristics defined Soviet political and military strategy, even down to the operational and tactical levels (“the Russian” preferred the defensive to the offensive, was not capable of operational brilliance or innovation and so on). So, why do I bring this up in reference to this question? There is some evidence that similar processes take place in foreign intelligence analysis today, where national and cultural stereotypes about some enemies can lead to broad, incorrect conclusions about the motivations or tactical and operational capabilities of jihadist insurgents, for example. Some of the language of the Cold War, to which my work is more directly linked, is rooted in these types of tropes and continues to be employed both in intelligence analysis and at the policymaking level – one aspect of the current debate about the proper American response to Putin is an all too familiar debate about whether force is the only language that “the Russian” leadership understands.

4. Your work reveals the consequences of the politicization of German intelligence during World War II—as well as the persistence of ingrained prejudices among the intelligence services’ Cold War successors. What steps can be taken (or have been taken) to de-politicize national intelligence in modern governments?

That’s a great question with a highly complex answer. Generally speaking, the modern understanding of the purpose and function of foreign intelligence services is to gather and contextualize information for policymakers. In the case of the United States and many other Western countries, while the head of the foreign intelligence services may be a political appointee there is a general assumption (in theory) that an ideologue or political party loyalist would be an inappropriate selection to head such a service. This reflects the view, particularly given the American historical context with J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, that intelligence services are politicized form the top down. In this regard, most of the public concern, to the extent that there is public concern on the matter of politicization, is limited to the leadership of these institutions. What I found striking about the German intelligence agencies I examined, is that he reports produced by these agencies indicated that “politicization” was not a matter of intelligence chiefs shaping reports to their personal preferences or the preferences of policymakers, but rather that the reports and analysis of mid-level career intelligence officers were themselves politicized. In some cases, these individuals’ careers long-predated the Nazi dictatorship or survived long after it was over. As a result, the politicization that is most important for my work is the politicization of cultural consensus and unquestioned, widely-held preconceptions of the world (anti-communist, anti-Russian, etc.), by analysts themselves. So I think more attention could certainly be paid to that – leadership is not always the deciding factor in whether or not an intelligence service is effective in objectively gathering and contextualizing information. This calls for rigorous self-examination. What are our internalized stereotypes, prejudices, and assumptions about the world and how does that subtly influence how we interpret world events?

5. What is one thing you would like readers to take from your work?

It may sound overly simplistic, but power of ideas and beliefs. The subjects I study were not stupid people. Many of them had country-specific university degrees, international language skills, and, in some cases, decades of experience in the countries they covered. Their prejudices and assumptions about how the world worked, however, undercut that, leading to, frankly, ridiculous interpretations of world events. The power of ideas led to one German Foreign Office representative who had lived and worked in the United States for decades to argue that the United States did not possess (either in peacetime or ona war footing) the economic or manpower resources to prosecute a war simultaneously in Europe and the Pacific and so the United States could be entirely discounted from a military planning perspective. There were German intelligence officers who really believed that Churchill was a captive of Jewish capital and that it was only a matter of time before the British people realized this betrayal and turned on his government. The power of ideas trumped the power of data, because no matter how adept the German intelligence services were at obtaining economic or military data during the war, the ideas and beliefs made a compelling case about why the data did not matter.

6. If you could have any one person read your book, who would it be and why?

I cannot think of any one person, but I think aspects of my work would lend some potentially valuable perspective to PME (professional military education), especially the portions that touch on unconscious biases. Moreover, the lesson of the Cold War era collaboration between the ex-Nazi intelligence officers and American and West German intelligence institutions illustrates the great care that must be taken in trusting and learning lessons even from Allies.  Like their American counterparts, these officers were sincerely concerned about Soviet aggression, and, as the last military to engage the Soviet Union militarily, it was not unreasonable for the United States or other Western countries to seek out their experiences.  Setting aside the moral implications of that decision (turning a blind eye to war criminals or allowing war criminals to be rehabilitated), the fundamental mistake was not seeking allies in the Cold War, but a flawed assumption that the German experts on the Soviet Union were experts at all.  In strategic thinking, this is called “mirroring”: American intelligence professionals assumed that German intelligence officers were equally professional and non-political, and shared a practical worldview separate from that of the dictatorship from where they came. So a healthy skepticism about the value of the expertise the Americans were getting from their new allies was not always present.  This definitely has implications for any sort of multi-coalitional undertaking in contemporary affairs – where misinformation or disinformation can be amplified due to a lack of contextualization or skepticism.

Robert Hutchinson is a fellow in the Strategy and Policy Department at the U.S. Naval War College. Continue reading “Robert Hutchinson (“German Foreign Intelligence from Hitler’s War to the Cold War”) Author Q & A”

UPK Launches New Publishing Services

Faculty and researchers at the University of Kansas will find new services to help put their work into the hands of others. The University Press of Kansas (UPK) has earned a reputation for publishing distinguished scholarship, and now it is launching a new supplementary publishing services program intended to assist scholars interested in increasing the impact of their work.

“Scholars have many, many important things to consider and compile when conducting research,” said Conrad Roberts, UPK director. “Staying abreast of the dramatic changes in the publishing field shouldn’t be their top concern, and yet navigating publishing’s ins and outs is crucial to a project’s success.  The new publishing services program at UPK can help guide faculty and researchers and take the mystery and tedium out of presenting the results of their endeavors. Our goal is to help them realize the best possible outcomes and avoid costly missteps.”

Through this suite of services, UPK staff hope to partner with scholars to identify strategies and solutions specific to their publishing needs. The right approach can save time while also increasing the visibility, reach and impact of the researcher’s work.

Types of services available through UPK:

  • Copy editing and proofreading
  • Typesetting
  • Indexing
  • eBook conversion
  • Cover design
  • Printing
  • Print on demand
  • Sales connections to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Baker & Taylor and Ingram
  • Marketing and promotion

Researchers and scholars interested in learning more about UPK’s publishing services or who would like to start using the program offerings should send an email with an overview of their needs to Staff will respond with options, including strategies, costs and timelines.

Based at the University of Kansas, UPK represents a consortium of six state universities: Emporia State University, Fort Hays State University, Kansas State University, Pittsburg State University, Wichita State University and KU. UPK publishes scholarly books in several genres but stands out for its books in military history, U.S. history, environmental studies, Native American studies, politics and law.

Matthew D. Wright (“Vindication of Politics”) author Q&A

Now available: A Vindication of Politics; On the Common Good and Human Flourishing

Is politics strictly a means to an end—something that serves only the interests of individuals and the various associations of civil society such as families and charities? Or is a society’s political common good an end in itself, an essential component of full human flourishing? Responding to recent influential arguments for the instrumentality of the political common good, Matthew D. Wright’s A Vindication of Politics addresses a lacuna in natural law political theory by foregrounding the significance of political culture. Rather than an activity defined by law and government, politics emerges in this account as a cultural enterprise that connects generations and ennobles our common life.

1. What’s your elevator pitch for A Vindication of Politics? How would you describe the book in two or three sentences?

A Vindication of Politics argues that politics is an intrinsic part of what we need to flourish as social beings. It resists the modern impulse to view politics as simply a means to other ends and revivifies civic friendship by situating it within a political culture refined over generations.

2. What led you to research and write about the idea that politics is a cultural enterprise that connects generations and ennobles our common life?

I had to work my way around to this argument, though I ultimately realized that on an intuitive level it motivated my resistance all along to the idea that politics is merely instrumental. It didn’t make sense of the patriotism I witnessed around me in Arkansas, where I grew up. I had either to disassociate patriotism and politics or wade into the murky waters of political culture and take a stab at conceptual precision. I resisted for quite a while, steeped as I was in the analytical outlook of most Thomistic natural lawyers. In the end, Edmund Burke helped me get where I was trying to go (in a way I take to be very consonant with the natural law tradition).

3. What was the most challenging aspect of researching and writing the book?

Probably its conceptual scope. The book addresses one of the most fundamental questions of political philosophy, and at each phase there were a lot of different directions the argument could have gone. For example, in Chapter 2, I take up the familial good in order to compare and contrast subpolitical goods with political ones. But how to give an adequate account of the good of family life in one chapter? Should I explore the spousal relationship? Sibling? Parent-child? Emotional bonds? Moral education? The range of possibilities at each stage of the argument was quite broad and deciding which path made for the strongest argument was seldom easy.

4. Your book offers new insight into the nature of the political common good and human sociability as well as their importance for making sense of the fundamental questions of American constitutional identify, principles, and aspirations. How, in your opinion, has the perception of politics for the common good evolved in the past century?

Alexis De Tocqueville observed that there is a tight reciprocal connection between political association and civil association. The health of civil associations mitigates the tendency of democracies to create a political space dominated by the autonomous individual, on the one hand, and the omni-present state, on the other. The last hundred years has seen both the harrowing dissolution of civil society (for those on both the right and left) and the rise of the administrative state. In consequence, what discourse there is about the common good seldom includes as a necessary, intrinsic element the flourishing of civil associations like families, religious communities, charities, and so forth. But as I argue, the success of these groups is part of our political common good. Any theoretical account or political program that excludes them is, in my view, constructing a false notion of the common good.

5. As nasty as politics can be, the American public hopes for more from it than the quid pro quo of a business transaction. Can you speak to what effect the Trump administration has had on the public’s expectation of the government?

There are, of course, many, many answers to this question. I’ll hazard a couple of observations. First, I think the Trump presidency demonstrates that politics is inextricably concerned with virtue. For many who support him, he’s the necessary wrecking ball wielded against a political establishment that is fast leaving traditional American values behind. For those who resist and the many who despise him, he’s proof that despite the distance and alienation we often feel in modern politics, we do care about with whom we share the bonds of citizenship. We want, as John Cooper observed of civic friendship, our fellow citizens to be “good, upstanding people, and definitely do not want them to be small-minded, self-absorbed, sleazy.” Second, I think disputes surrounding Trump evince the power of icons to control the moral and political imagination. Think for instance of the way the MAGA hat just framed the confrontation between the boys of Covington Catholic and a Native-American elder. As Burke observed, what controls the imagination becomes a commanding idea in the mind. Our failure of civic education leaves us with precious few positive American icons, and our impoverished political imaginations suffer for it.

6. What is one thing you would like readers to take from your work?

This isn’t a surprising answer (and it’s cheating to treat it as “one thing”), but I’d love my readers to have a clear picture of what the common good is and why it matters. It’s a capacious, complex concept, and all such ideas are easily rendered meaningless by overuse and misuse. Hopefully, A Vindication of Politics can shed some helpful light on an important ideal.

7. What does building a political culture look like in the current polarized state of politics today?

I think it first requires recognizing that we have a political culture. That is, no political culture is defined by the current leaders, citizens, conflicts, crises, and so forth. To think so is, as sociologist James Davison Hunter has observed, to mistake the weather for the climate. Political culture—the climate—implicates institutions, social and political practices, habits of mind, and so forth, all formed across generations of shared history. Aside from a meaningful education in that historical political culture, political conflict is readily reduced to an interest-driven turf war. As Burke said, “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.” If you lack a sense of history, you will lack a sense of responsibility to preserve, reform, and bequeath our shared institutions, and present crises will take on world-ending significance. I think this accounts, at least in part, for the acrimony we see. So recovering a healthy political culture in the present will require a renewal of serious civic education.

8. If you could have any one person read your book, who would it be and why?

I don’t know that I could settle on one person. Of course, I hope my argument persuades the scholars with whom I interact and disagree. Some of those I disagree with the most, I learned the most from, and I hope my treatment of their work reflects that. John Finnis is a great example. In one important way, I offer a critique of his view of the common good. In many other ways, however, I find him very persuasive and always helpful.

Author Matthew D. Wright is associate professor of government in the Torrey Honors Institute, Biola University, La Mirada, California.

President Trump and His Wall

by Louis Fisher, written for Penza News

President Trump’s determination to build a wall on the border of Mexico has led to a shutdown of many federal agencies. 800,000 workers are laid off, putting at risk many essential governmental programs.  The Food and Drug Administration has suspended all inspections of domestic food-processing facilities, creating health hazards for the general public.  Farmers are unable to receive subsidies to plant crops.  The capacity of airports to conduct checkpoints to ensure safety is under increasing strain.  Damage is being done to national parks.  Many federal contractors are out of work.  In this climate, various shops and businesses have lost their customers.

(AP Photo)

Although the House of Representatives, now under control of the Democratic Party, has passed a number of bills to reopen executive departments, Senator Mitch McConnell, leader of the Republican-run Senate, has made it clear he will not allow votes on those bills unless President Trump intends to sign them. On Saturday, January 12, the shutdown became the longest in U.S. history.  Which political party will be blamed the most for this economic and political damage?

President Trump has claimed he can declare a “national emergency” to build the wall if Congress fails to enact the funds he has requested. Some discretion exists for funds appropriated but not yet obligated, as those in the Defense Department.  However, no authority allows the President to take funds from the Pentagon and use them for programs operated by another executive agency, such as the Department of Homeland Security.  Such efforts would amount to transferring the constitutional power of the purse from Congress to the President.  The violation would be particularly clear if Congress had refused to provide funds for the wall or any type of discretionary authority.  Trump would provoke not only litigation but even possible impeachment and removal.  His Republican base could decide if this type of presidential initiative is “making America great again.”

Louis Fisher is scholar in residence at The Constitution Project in Washington, DC, and visiting scholar at the William and Mary Law School. From 1970 to 2010 he served in the Library of Congress as senior specialist in separation of powers at Congressional Research Service and specialist in constitutional law at the Law Library. His many books include Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President, Sixth Edition, Revised; Presidential War Power, Third Edition, Revised; Military Tribunals and Presidential Power, winner of the Richard E. Neustadt Award; and Supreme Court Expansion of Presidential Power, all from Kansas.

Tammy R. Vigil (“Moms in Chief”) Q&A

Moms in Chief; The Rhetoric of Republican Motherhood and the Spouses of Presidential Nominees, 1992-2016

In 1776, when Abigail Adams implored her husband to “Remember the Ladies,” John Adams scoffed, declaring, “We know better than to repeal our masculine system.” More than two hundred years later, American women continue to struggle against the idea that they are simply vassal extensions of their husbands—a notion that is acutely enacted in presidential campaigns. An examination of how the spouses of recent presidential candidates have presented themselves and been perceived on the campaign trail, Moms in Chief reveals the ways in which the age-old rhetoric of republican motherhood maintains its hold on the public portrayal of womanhood in American politics and constrains American women’s status as empowered, autonomous citizens.

1. What’s your elevator pitch for Moms in Chief? How would you describe the book in two or three sentences?

Moms in Chief provides a comprehensive assessment of the ways the press, the parties, and the candidates’ mates frame spouses during presidential campaigns. The book traces the history of women as political beings in the United States in order to contextualize an analysis of the depictions of some of the most high-profile women in national political contests. The project underscores how judging spouses based on traditional gender roles is problematic for presidential nominees’ consorts and for perceptions of women in the political sphere.

2. What led you to research and write about the spouses of presidential nominees?

While doing research for a chapter on the roles spouses play in presidential conventions for my previous book, Connecting with Constituents: Identification Building and Blocking in Contemporary National Convention Addresses, I became interested in the wives of presidential nominees and perplexed by the lack of research about them. People write a lot about first ladies, but not much about the women who audition for that position throughout a presidential campaign. I discovered that there were surprising similarities in the ways the wives of nominees represented themselves during conventions despite clear differences in their actual biographies, experiences, and political outlooks. That realization made me curious about the broader campaigns. As I explored the treatment of spouses during presidential contests, it became clear that my findings warranted a book-length project. The addition of the first male spouse during the 2016 contest made the comparisons of spousal characterizations even more compelling.

3. What was the most challenging aspect of researching and writing the book?

The most challenging part of writing Moms in Chief was keeping chapter one, the section where I recount women’s political history in the United States, a manageable length. The history of perspectives on women as political actors in the US provides a critical frame of reference for understanding the portrayal of candidates’ spouses, but it is also an extensive topic with myriad dimensions. Deciding how to shape that baseline summary in an informative and engaging manner was difficult. The original draft was almost three times as long as the final version. However, I am proud of how that chapter turned out. It is one that anybody interested in politics, citizenship, and women’s fight for political parity should read.

4. Moms in Chief is the first book to dive deep into the role of “the women” in presidential elections. Have you seen a distinct change from the role spouses have played in the development of campaigns since 1992?

During the span of time this book covers, there has not been a dramatic change in the role the spouses play. Claims of spouses as “secret weapons” preceded the 1992 campaign and continued through 2016. In more contemporary contests, though, the acknowledgment of how nominees’ wives helped develop and execute campaign strategies has become a bit more overt, and certain spouses have been more vocal and visible both with and without their husbands. However, these variations seem to be based on the personalities and talents of the individual spouses. After all, Melania Trump in 2016 was not nearly as active on the campaign trail or behind the scenes as Barbara Bush was in 1992.

5. As more women begin to seek the presidency, can you predict what possible role husbands (not including Bill Clinton) may play in future presidential campaigns as compared to female spouses?

In the short term, the likelihood is that men who are married to presidential nominees will not be viewed in as restrictive a manner as women have been (and likely will continue to be). I doubt that male consorts will be asked for their personal cookie recipes (and be criticized if they don’t have one), or that they will be pressed for parenting advice and to give tours of the family home. Customary sex roles that cast men as independent beings and women as defined by their relationships are still too entrenched in society. Established gender norms, paired with a deep partisan divide, make it difficult for candidates’ spouses to embrace the full complexities of their own identities due to the fear of possibly alienating segments of the population and costing their mate valuable votes. Male spouses will have the advantage of being perceived more expansively than their female counterparts; they will be able to emphasize their roles as husbands and fathers, but they will not be confined by these roles as women have been as wives and mothers.  However, as gender norms continue to shift, it is possible that we will eventually be able to view candidates’ mates as autonomous individuals and full citizens whether they are male or female.

6. Your book suggests that the very definition of women as American citizens and political actors is at stake when they are representing their spouses during an election. Do you foresee more attention being paid to spouses in future elections?

There will be some additional attention paid to spouses during elections when the consort is novel in some way. For example, Michelle Obama and Bill Clinton received more scrutiny than Tipper Gore, Cindy McCain, and Ann Romney. The first husband of a nominee that is not a well-known past president will likely receive a bit more notice than most female spouses, but how much commentary he inspires will depend largely on his role in the campaign and his personality. It is important to note that a male spouse of a president will never serve as the model of American masculinity in the same way first ladies act as icons of American womanhood. The secondary status of a “first gentleman” will be incongruous with the historic standing of males as the dominant sex; the president’s husband will be considered an anomaly rather than an ideal.

Unless reporters and campaign strategists expand their perceptions of the spouses (particularly wives), the coverage of candidates’ mates will likely remain as it has for the past several decades—wives will be expected to conform to traditional gender norms and will be evaluated based on their ability and willingness to meet these conventional expectations. There will be some progressive movement in how women are viewed, but it will likely be incremental and slow to develop.

7. What is one thing you would like readers to take from your work?

I would like readers to understand that all women, even spouses of presidential nominees, are autonomous individuals who should not be narrowly defined by the relational roles they fulfill. Interpreting women based primarily on their relationships with others does a disservice to female citizens by making their value contingent on their familial associations. If women are to achieve political parity and be perceived as more than helpmates for their husbands and caretakers for their children, we as a society need to move beyond conflating the terms “woman,” “wife,” and “mother” when we talk about women.

Being a wife or a mother is a personally fulfilling and socially useful role for many females, but judging the political value of all women solely through these connections prevents us from establishing a political order in which women are allowed and even encouraged to voice their own needs, and not just the needs of those they care about, in the public arena. In this way, women can come to be treated as individuals and full citizens in the same way men are.

8. If you could have any one person read your book, who would it be and why?

If I could have any one person read Moms in Chief, it would be Abigail Adams. She had the foresight to understand the implications of the dismissal of women as autonomous citizens; she pled for the rights of women to be included in the founding documents of the nation and her entreaties went largely unheeded even by her own husband. As the second first lady of the United States, she understood both the importance of that role and the socially-imposed limitations political wives face. After reading Moms in Chief, Adams would likely be both excited by the gains in political power women have achieved since her day and disheartened by how much more remains to be done. She would be pleased that nominees’ spouses can participate openly in campaigns, yet she would be disappointed by the persistent barriers women still face as political actors.