Jack Rakove
@jrakove.bsky.social
Native Cook County Democrat, Cubs fan, and long-time historian of the American Revolution and Constitution
Jack Norman Rakove is an American historian, author, and professor at Stanford University. He is a Pulitzer Prize winner.
Source: Wikipedia
Political science
72%
Economics
9%
How the Cubs Won - Public Books
Sports history is made all the time—and most of it consists of phenomena that rank at the level of Trivial Pursuits: x number of homeruns, y number of strikeouts, a few hundredths of a second here ...
www.publicbooks.org
I'm not that kind of expert, but . . . this game came to the same end as the other Packers game two weeks ago, but Williams had a better arc on that final pass than he had on the prior one.
For my deeper thoughts on sports history, see:
www.publicbooks.org/how-the-cubs...
For my deeper thoughts on sports history, see:
www.publicbooks.org/how-the-cubs...
I had to get rid of a couple thousand +/- when I had to clear out of my campus office. It took a lot out of me.
Thanks. I am pretty proud of it myself. (And no one caught the major proofreading error that appeared in the first hardcover edition.)
wait a minute--what happened on the other times?
Once or twice somewhere I may have equated the "execrable race of Stuarts" (John Adams' phrase) with the even more execrable race of Trumps.
If a good pun makes you wince it can't be all bad.
That's an interesting way to restate it. A purported institutional analysis of this kind is a false flag op, when the real mischief is political in nature.
So to describe this in institutional terms rather than political ones is wrong. The continued degeneration of the GOP is the dominant independent variable in US politics, until Trump's re-election produced the culmination of the GOP's deterioration.
The other independent variable at work is the supineness of congressional republicans, who either play along or resign. What's the point of having a feckless speaker of the House whose main mission is to prevent his chamber from meeting, not least because of the Epstein issue?
It's not an imperial presidency, a la 1974, that is at issue. It is an authoritarian one, which simply acts on deeply rooted preferences, as expressed in Project 2025, or the whims, resentments, and wholly self-interested motives of Trump and those around him.
In both pageantry and policy, Trump has established a new, more audacious version of the imperial presidency that goes far beyond even the one associated with Richard Nixon, for whom the term was popularized half a century ago. www.nytimes.com/2025/12/21/u...
Trump Takes America’s ‘Imperial Presidency’ to a New Level
www.nytimes.com
The overall summary in this article is pretty good, though with this administration one is always playing catch-up, when, to use a terrible pun, we'd rather be playing ketchup.
But the analysis is flawed and inadequate to the situation.
But the analysis is flawed and inadequate to the situation.
Reposted by Jack N. Rakove
Trump Takes America’s ‘Imperial Presidency’ to a New Level
www.nytimes.com
In both pageantry and policy, Trump has established a new, more audacious version of the imperial presidency that goes far beyond even the one associated with Richard Nixon, for whom the term was popularized half a century ago. www.nytimes.com/2025/12/21/u...
Well, I'm emeritus and out of the loop, so to speak. May be part of it or maybe not. מי יודע
You could check the History dept. website in the new year.
You could check the History dept. website in the new year.
Thanks. That was a great lineup at Yale. We have something similar planned after the new year.
Gordon wrote much of that book at CASBS on the Stanford campus. He left it on our doorstep (speaking figuratively) when he and his wife headed back east (by car) in 1988.
Gordon wrote much of that book at CASBS on the Stanford campus. He left it on our doorstep (speaking figuratively) when he and his wife headed back east (by car) in 1988.
Don't have strong feelings historically about TJ, once I saw once in Chicago in 2018 beyond enjoying the overall production and not being wild about the treatment of Jefferson and Madison.
I liked Lincoln because it was intelligently political and relied a lot on Michael Vorenberg's Final Freedom.
I liked Lincoln because it was intelligently political and relied a lot on Michael Vorenberg's Final Freedom.
Not sure what you mean by "niche." To ask what made the Revolution revolutionary is not a trivial or passing question. And it would be useful for "most Americans" to know that we rejected G3 not because he was a tyrant but because he was striving to be a constitutional monarch.
Perhaps, but as I suggest in the piece, Burns entrusted the Civil War narrative to Shelby Foote, who was more or less a Lost Cause guy, and then avoided saying anything of substance about Reconstruction, one way or the other.
Really? What would that be?
And having heard Burns speak, impressively, at Stanford's commencement in 2016, I do not think he is oblivious to this. Indeed, if he were he'd have to be an idiot, which he clearly is not.
Second, you imagine how some general audience would view the series, how much they would learn, etc. And we should cut them some slack.
But this is not any moment in American history. My own gloomy view is that we will celebrate the 250th with the looming collapse of our constitutional system.
But this is not any moment in American history. My own gloomy view is that we will celebrate the 250th with the looming collapse of our constitutional system.
But I have two more basic points that basically reiterate my article, which I'm not sure you fully grasp.
First, Burns may give us a good account of what we call a war of national liberation. But he fails to explain what made the Revolution revolutionary because the politics is treated so poorly.
First, Burns may give us a good account of what we call a war of national liberation. But he fails to explain what made the Revolution revolutionary because the politics is treated so poorly.
It might help if you watched it, because then you can judge how well Burns' technique works here. This series lacked the vitality of the Civil War series. Without having photography or the films, it seemed much more tedious. Who wants to watch re-enactors?
I think his success speaks for itself. But one is still free to criticize his editorial choices or to think about how he conceives his audience and its interests. I also believe that one can't really understand the Revolution without taking its politics seriously, which he just could not do.
When it came to discussing contingency in history, especially in my undergrad lectures, my favorite example was Thomas Hutchinson's refusal to let the tea ships moored at Griffin's Wharf to sail back to England.
The Great Might-Have-Been of the Constitutional Convention
The U.S. Senate and the nation's history might different if the Constitutional Convention had structured the chamber differently.
washingtonmonthly.com
In case you missed it, then, you might get a kick out of this earlier essay.
washingtonmonthly.com/2025/09/17/c...
washingtonmonthly.com/2025/09/17/c...
so we're of one mind about this!
Take a look at it. It's short, vividly written, Atlantic in its perspective, and being mostly about the 17th c., will not seem familiar to most American students. The other, far more massive book, Voyagers to the West, is purely late 18th c.
I always taught Bailyn's Peopling of British N. America in the first quarter of our US History survey. He was obviously a pioneer of Atlantic history. And I think it would resonate for UK students.
I think the great debate is about Merrick Garland, who had been a much admired prosecutor. And Biden faced a dilemma: after a disruptive presidency like Trump's first term, you want to reset the basic norms, which means presidents keep hands off the DoJ. Garland thought in those terms, too, I think.
Reposted by Anna O. Law, Johann N. Neem
What’s Wrong with The American Revolution by Ken Burns
Ken Burns’s latest PBS series is long on muskets and bayonets, but the history of the American Revolution remains strangely understated.
washingtonmonthly.com
My qualms about Ken Burns' American Revolution series, which strangely fails to explain what made the Revolution revolutionary.
washingtonmonthly.com/2025/12/18/w...
washingtonmonthly.com/2025/12/18/w...