Post on Cadillac Desert
Eleventh Entry, 27 Nov 05
Ray Swider
Reisner, Marc, Cadillac Desert
Turner lives! What Turner asserted, Reisner emphatically states and then proves through his examination of water, the American west, politics, money and power. Reisner speaks to the theme which I believe to be most evident in all of history – that historical “agency” is unequal; that those with the most power, money, and influence have the greatest agency; that the shapers and makers of history are those with the most agency. Reisner makes this point over and over. On page 296 he states that water flows towards those with money and power. On page 457 he contrasts Native American culture with that of white America and finds it “fragmented, atomized, and ephemeral” and its achievements modest. When quoting Glenn Saunders on page 434, he finds that America’s greatness came from its abundance of resources. That brings him full circle back to Turner, although I suspect that Reisner would prefer to be labeled an environmentalist, conservationist, and slow-growth advocate, and not a Turnerian.
I find Turner (and Reisner) compelling because of what they do tell us about ourselves and about the constants in human history. There is no escaping these constants. The sweep of history is a function of power and resources. The two go hand in glove. Where I find Turner compelling is that he (and Reisner) see competition for resources and resource exploitation in pursuit of money and power as the mainspring of history. Call this agency or invent another term, but it amounts to the same thing. That is not to say that there are not other historical actors – significant in their own right and acting on their own behalf – but the agency of these groups is limited by the money (resources), power, and influence, which they enjoy and employ. Reisner examines water as the key resource of the American west, but he could be talking about oil in the Middle East, specie during the European age of discovery, spices during the Renaissance, or many other significant resources which built empires, created competition, and destroyed empires.
The other feature of Reisner I find fascinating is his examination of the Bureau of Reclamation. What he describes is my experience in Government over the last fifteen years after I arrived in Washington. The business of government is business. The justification to spend tax dollars follows rigid methodologies, but the manipulation of data for political purposes, driven by favored constituencies, is what the bureaucracy does within those methodologies. The cost benefit analysis and benefit to cost ratio, which Reisner cites as Bureau practice, are essential elements for justifying authorizations and appropriations. It is amazing, however, how those “B/C ratios” can be twisted, turned, justified, managed, calculated, discounted, added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided to come up with the “right” answer. The symbiosis between Government bureaucrats, Congressional advocates, and influential constituents is astounding and would probably enrage the taxpayers if the truth were fully known. One of the keys to politics, though, is that they will never know, or become complicit themselves, or never care. That is the essence of American politics (and American history – North, South, East and West).
So, I believe Turner was right. And so is Reisner. But what I think they are right about is this – that the US has been blessed by an abundance of resources – land, water, minerals, energy, climate – that were there for the taking. That immigration and westering were necessary to grow a nation and exploit those resources. That population pressures were relieved by the frontier. That extensive growth could be profitable and tolerated because of the abundance of resources and emptiness of the continent. And that with the closing of the frontier, filling of the continent (at least its most desirable locations), and the depletion of resources, the US externalized its politics in the search for more and cheaper resources, including labor. I believe this to be the sweep of American history. The study of that history should be utilitarian in that it causes us to be honest about our success (and failure) and inform public policy about what to do next, why, and how.
Ray Swider
Reisner, Marc, Cadillac Desert
Turner lives! What Turner asserted, Reisner emphatically states and then proves through his examination of water, the American west, politics, money and power. Reisner speaks to the theme which I believe to be most evident in all of history – that historical “agency” is unequal; that those with the most power, money, and influence have the greatest agency; that the shapers and makers of history are those with the most agency. Reisner makes this point over and over. On page 296 he states that water flows towards those with money and power. On page 457 he contrasts Native American culture with that of white America and finds it “fragmented, atomized, and ephemeral” and its achievements modest. When quoting Glenn Saunders on page 434, he finds that America’s greatness came from its abundance of resources. That brings him full circle back to Turner, although I suspect that Reisner would prefer to be labeled an environmentalist, conservationist, and slow-growth advocate, and not a Turnerian.
I find Turner (and Reisner) compelling because of what they do tell us about ourselves and about the constants in human history. There is no escaping these constants. The sweep of history is a function of power and resources. The two go hand in glove. Where I find Turner compelling is that he (and Reisner) see competition for resources and resource exploitation in pursuit of money and power as the mainspring of history. Call this agency or invent another term, but it amounts to the same thing. That is not to say that there are not other historical actors – significant in their own right and acting on their own behalf – but the agency of these groups is limited by the money (resources), power, and influence, which they enjoy and employ. Reisner examines water as the key resource of the American west, but he could be talking about oil in the Middle East, specie during the European age of discovery, spices during the Renaissance, or many other significant resources which built empires, created competition, and destroyed empires.
The other feature of Reisner I find fascinating is his examination of the Bureau of Reclamation. What he describes is my experience in Government over the last fifteen years after I arrived in Washington. The business of government is business. The justification to spend tax dollars follows rigid methodologies, but the manipulation of data for political purposes, driven by favored constituencies, is what the bureaucracy does within those methodologies. The cost benefit analysis and benefit to cost ratio, which Reisner cites as Bureau practice, are essential elements for justifying authorizations and appropriations. It is amazing, however, how those “B/C ratios” can be twisted, turned, justified, managed, calculated, discounted, added, subtracted, multiplied, and divided to come up with the “right” answer. The symbiosis between Government bureaucrats, Congressional advocates, and influential constituents is astounding and would probably enrage the taxpayers if the truth were fully known. One of the keys to politics, though, is that they will never know, or become complicit themselves, or never care. That is the essence of American politics (and American history – North, South, East and West).
So, I believe Turner was right. And so is Reisner. But what I think they are right about is this – that the US has been blessed by an abundance of resources – land, water, minerals, energy, climate – that were there for the taking. That immigration and westering were necessary to grow a nation and exploit those resources. That population pressures were relieved by the frontier. That extensive growth could be profitable and tolerated because of the abundance of resources and emptiness of the continent. And that with the closing of the frontier, filling of the continent (at least its most desirable locations), and the depletion of resources, the US externalized its politics in the search for more and cheaper resources, including labor. I believe this to be the sweep of American history. The study of that history should be utilitarian in that it causes us to be honest about our success (and failure) and inform public policy about what to do next, why, and how.
posted by Ray Swider at 11:54 AM
1 Comments:
Ray, I really appreciated your including the third paragraph. Your first-person observations from fifteen years of government work experience support the political/bureaucratic side of Reiser's argument. You are very right when you said that the "system" would "probably enrage the taxpayers if the truth were fully known." I'm only now beginning, with Reisner's help, to see the full meaning of your statement. Thanks for the insights.
Post a Comment
<< Home