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%
Reposted by Jan W. Mueller
Whereas for Machiavelli, corruzione involved the degredation of a whole way of political life, which is what we are experiencing now.
The Latest Defenses of SCOTUS’s Corruption Only Make the Case Against It talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-l...
The Latest Defenses of SCOTUS’s Corruption Only Make the Case Against It
Chris Geidner flags today an appearance by CBS News’ Chief Legal Correspondent...
talkingpointsmemo.com
This is why I think a Machiavellian notion of corruzione is conceptually richer than our basic English definition.
Reposted by Juan Cole, Jack N. Rakove
The Latest Defenses of SCOTUS’s Corruption Only Make the Case Against It
Chris Geidner flags today an appearance by CBS News’ Chief Legal Correspondent...
talkingpointsmemo.com
The Latest Defenses of SCOTUS’s Corruption Only Make the Case Against It talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-l...
I think that's right, though I'd have to check the debates.
But again: my main point is there is ample evidence of corruption in their current use, probably abetted by cryptocurrency. So if one has evidence of their abuse, why could Congress not use the N&P Clause to provide a partial remedy?
But again: my main point is there is ample evidence of corruption in their current use, probably abetted by cryptocurrency. So if one has evidence of their abuse, why could Congress not use the N&P Clause to provide a partial remedy?
And a president who issues ukases. I agree that impeachment is part of the problem of constitutional failure that I have been writing about.
But here my query has a more focused concern: is this something that Congress could do?
But here my query has a more focused concern: is this something that Congress could do?
New reporting says Don Jr. directly facilitated the pardon of a crypto whale who had promoted the Trump's family crypto. Jr. brought the pardon lawyer to the White House, and introduced him directly to his Dad. Pardon occurred right after. donmoynihan.substack.com/p/pardon-the...
The pardon power seems to be a vestigial remnant of the royal prerogative tout simple. But could Congress employ the Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate its use? And bribery is an impeachable offense, creating a bona fide legislative purpose.
Comments welcome.
Comments welcome.
New reporting says Don Jr. directly facilitated the pardon of a crypto whale who had promoted the Trump's family crypto. Jr. brought the pardon lawyer to the White House, and introduced him directly to his Dad. Pardon occurred right after. donmoynihan.substack.com/p/pardon-the...
Reposted by Jack N. Rakove
Defiance in a Time of Cowardice
She sang the national anthem in Spanish as deportation forces assaulted L.A. Now she’s headed to Sundance.
www.thebulwark.com
“We live during a time where all the institutions and corporations I worked for—or leaders I looked up to—they caved or remained silent, so we are now finding hope in everyday people…”
www.thebulwark.com/p/defiance-i...
www.thebulwark.com/p/defiance-i...
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?