Just when I thought it wasn't possible to have a timely article in a news magazine about Woodrow Wilson,
Newsweek obliges. Click on the images to enlarge; enjoy the read.
Commentary is due by December 11.
_________________________________________________________
13 comments:
Although the article shows two perspectives of Wilson, the one where he is the representor of America and a hero, and the one in which he is a failure, one person does not have to follow a specific path. He can and was both, because he brought peace, no matter how fragile it was but it failed. Wilson talks about how America is an example for the rest of the world, similar to the concept of "the City Upon a Hill", and he as the president is also an example. At first I disagreed, but the truth is, the politicians and international policies define how a country is known.
There was a comment made about how Wilson was committed to American neutrality.He may have taken a neutral stance at the start of WWI, but he really did not keep this up.This is evident from when American ships were blocked by the English and Wilson, an advocate for free trade, backed down and let the British stop American ships heading for the central powers or neutral countries. This is seen again when the Germans were using subs, to sink harmless ships, and Americans were being killed. Wilson would not pass laws to keep Americans off neutral ships. While Wilson may have had a stance of neutrality at other times, during the war,it seems he made decisions based on his own feeling towards the war. I didn't think that the author looked to hard into how Wilson handled the problems the US ran into before they joined the war. Because if he had he might not seem so convinced that Wilson was completely neutral.
I really liked the comment at the beginning of this article about how he was compared to Icarus, who was so enamored with the sun that he flew to close and melted. I see how Wilson fits into this comparison. Wilson had many ideas and innovations that he was completely enamored of, so much so that he did not really pay attention to the consequences. He was so blinded by his idea of what the league of nations should look like, that he didn't listen to what everyone else wanted, and so he flew to close to the sun, and his ideas, much like Icarus' wax wings, melted.
I feel as though in many parts of the article, the author is trying to say positive things about Wilson, but truly disliked him. One thing that we should think about is the era in which Wilson governed. He was elected in not the hardest, but one of the harder time periods, WWI. Much of the article speaks about how when Wilson got an idea, he knew it was right, would fight for , and most importantly would not give it up. Obviously this is a good trait, however as president it shows his lack to accept that what he wanted was not always best for the country. Wilson served a tough presidency, and while he often failed to understand other people's opinions, he was usually doing what he was because he thought it was right. When he pushed for the League of Nations, it was not only because he wanted it, but also because HE believed it was best for the U.S. at the time, even if they disagreed with him.
This article really depicted Wilson as a flawed and hypocritical man. On one hand, he had an almost Utopian idea of how the world should work, although the article rejected the idea of him being truly Utopian. The author showed him as having a universal idea of world peace, but also being extremely flawed and sometimes, even cruel, as with the espionage act. He almost reminds of Jefferson, who was both flawed and hypocritical. Jefferson definitely achieved much more in his life than Wilson, who left feeling like a failure. I respect Wilson's want for world peace, but in the end, his ideas were not truly represented, leaving him in a place of failure.
I agree with Ben that Wilson was a lot like Jefferson, because they were both every contradictory men. For one thing, Wilson was a "progressive" president, but his Espionage and Sedition Acts during the War were HUGE violations of civil rights. Another contradictory topic was, as Kip pointed out, his "neutrality" at the beginning of the War. Even before America was in the war Wilson favored the Allies by ignoring a British blockade, while at the same time attacking the Germans for unrestricted submarine warfare (not to mention the economic support the Allies got from us). Like Dina said, there appears to be two sides to Wilson; Wilson the American Hero with the divine right to spread peace to the world, and Wilson the Failure, who was unable to fully accomplish that peace. The article shows that Wilson himself has thought of himself as both of these at some point in his life.
In this article, I feel as though there were some similarities or parallels drawn between Wilson and Jefferson. Perhaps in the way Jefferson was seen and the way Wilson liked to see himself. At first the article portrays Wilson's arrogance like something admirable, noble, and sadly misunderstood by his peers. I would like to point out that there is one big difference between Jefferson and Wilson among the other, more apparent, and infinitely numerous ones. Jefferson had respect, both for others and their opinions, and from others. Wilson expected respect of his ideas of right and of himself. His arrogance and self-righteousness lead to a general disregard of others and that was his downfall.
I like the way this article portrays the contradictory ways Wilson was seen, cleverly using irony and humor to give us these different perspectives.
At the end of the article, it talked about rights. It said "There is a common right, that we can find it, and that it matters most of all." This reminded me of the natural rights that we learned about last year. Natural rights were rights that every person had no matter where they were from or what they had. I'm not sure if this was the rights that the article was talking about, but they sounded similar.
I believe that Wilson did try very hard in order to help the country, and he wanted to stay neutral because he thought that was the best for the country but his blindness made him lead to bad decisions. When the U-boats attacked neutral ships and Americans died, he did not pass an act that would have stopped Americans from going on those ships. One headline said that Wilson knew how to play politics but his principles came first and that ruined him. Although what he thought was right, not going to war and setting up the treaty of versailles, his blindness and his personal values kept him from being one of the best president.
I think it's important to note how the article portrays Wilson as this man somewhat obsessed with perfection, morals and, the "common right". He wanted a perfect government to contribute to a more perfect world. His ideology was that wanting to translate "right" into reality through social reform. He thought that America was amazing, and therefore he was as well. I think his obsession with wanting to harness perfection into American government and then to the world made him both a good politician, and was the reason for his downfall. Like the article mentions very early on, he was the Icarus of his time. So obsessed and captivated by perfection that he was blinded by the fact that it was unachievable. Blinded to the fact that perfection can never really be. But by the time that realization hit, his "wax wings" had already melted.
This article shows Wilson's good and bad side, even though it is an article about a book which seems to speak more positively of him. I only say this, because the author of the book, Cooper, says "[Wilson was] one of the deepest and most daring souls ever to inhabit the white house." In my opinion, Wilson wasn't that daring. He had a few daring ideas, such as the league of nations, but most failed to become daring actions. This article also shows Wilson's personality perfectly. As it says he was arrogant and cocky, not only about himself but America too. He felt that America was the best country to lead and teach others, for example in Latin America. But as the article shows, Wilson didn't think America was perfect. He repeatedly tried to change it based on his own principles, usually ending in failure. Overall I agree with the article, but I doubt I would agree with the book because of the difference in the authors opinions.
Wilson was an idealist (though his ideas were not quite utopian) who made a couple of bad choices caused by his interpretation of the greater good. Though a large number of people agreed with how he planned to make the U.S.A., and even the whole world better, some people (such as Henry Cabot Lodge) thought some of his ideas would make the world worse. For instance, Wilson thought that segregation of blacks in the government was entirely necessary, but others thought that he was simply dealing a heavy blow to black’s rights.
In my opinion, Wilson had great intentions, but his strong belief in his ideals sometimes led him to try and force others to believe what he was doing. This in combination with the fact that he was too stubborn to accept disagreement made him commit several acts that make many overlook all the good he tried to (and did) achieve.
FROM ROOP--
Like a lot of other people said in the comments earlier it seemed like the author of the article had a mix feeling toward Wilson. There we times in the article where she made him seem like a hero and then there were times made him seem not very smart, and I thought that was quite interesting. And I think she wrote it like that because there are people who see him as a hero and there are also people who don’t, so the author goes both ways to please the reader. I think an important of Wilson that the article talked about kind of was his confidence, that quote that was in the article I think showed that Wilson was confident in himself and didn’t really care what other people thought. Which Is a good thing because that time was a hard time for people and if Wilson didn’t believe in himself who else would. But confidence can also turn into ignorance. Wilson seemed like a person that wanted to help people to the best of his abilities and had some good ideas, but I think following through and listening was the problem that held him back.
Post a Comment