Conversation — August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

The 2016 Republican primary process led not simply to the selection of a person who has never before held elective or appointive office and who campaigns by insulting much of the party’s leadership, but also to a series of jarring shifts on economic, social, and security positions. Much as Americans think of their political system as a stagnant contest between two parties, great parties have succumbed in the past. Indeed, Sidney Blumenthal’s new four-volume Political Biography of Abraham Lincoln focuses on just such a process. In the first volume, A Self-Made Man, we can trace not just the early political life of Lincoln, but also the final phase of the Whig Party, which at the volume’s close is set for the cathartic developments that will tear the party apart, creating the field upon which the Republican Party would rise.

Sidney, how did you come to the topic of Lincoln? This is a well-plowed field in American history writing. There is an immense amount of published biographical material on Lincoln, and even a great deal of discussion of Lincoln’s politics. What brought you to this subject?

I’ve always been fixated on Lincoln, since I was a boy taken to Springfield from Chicago, where I grew up. I thought about writing a book on race and presidents, FDR through Reagan, and how the political parties had been transformed by the idea of race. I kept falling deeper and deeper into the past to get to the bottom of things and fell down a rabbit hole to Lincoln and decided to stay there. I went all the way to the beginning. It is said that there’s nothing new to say about Lincoln, but I believe there’s a lot to say, not only in terms of original interpretation but also material to find. Part of that is the result of new technology involved in the research. Whole university libraries have been put online in recent years—books that were hard to find are now easily accessible, as well as journal articles. At the same time I have unique experience as somebody who has lived long in Washington, as a journalist and having served in government, worked with the president in the White House, and been involved in campaigns and elections. I believe that I’m able to go through much of the material at a granular level and see things in it that many academic historians are unable to detect because they have not lived their lives in American politics as I have.

Did you also look at new primary materials?

I did. I’ve written four volumes through to the end, about a million words. I’ve been in the Library of Congress, the National Archives, and other repositories of original documents. I have all sorts of new materials that I know that I have unearthed, including relating to the assassination—but we’ll have to wait for 2019, when that volume is published.

Let’s start with a quotation from Lincoln you place right at the beginning: “I used to be a slave.” What did Lincoln mean by that? And why do you use that at the beginning of your book?

I’ve taken a statement that Lincoln used when he announced his new identity as a Republican in 1856: “I used to be a slave.” It’s a striking way to identify himself as human property. I believe that this statement tells us a lot about the self-made man and his self-making. He considered himself to have been held in bondage by his father, Thomas Lincoln, who himself was an oppressed man. Thomas Lincoln fled from Kentucky to Indiana to escape from slavery. He had to compete for wages against slaves; he was forced to go on slave patrols with the local militia; he had his farm stolen from him with the complicity of local authorities. And he belonged, as I discovered, to small emancipationist primitive Baptist churches in Kentucky, and that antislavery background filtered into Lincoln’s beliefs from the beginning. Lincoln felt he was oppressed by his father, sought to escape from his father; his father used him as, in effect, an indentured servant, collected his wages until he was twenty-one; he settled his family on a farm in Illinois and went his own way. His father considered reading a form of laziness and used to abuse him for it. Lincoln was protected by his stepmother. He was a curious boy; he wandered around; he found people with libraries and spent few weeks in a formal school. “I used to be a slave” is a statement of his self-conception and what he escaped from. Almost all of his abolitionists take the point of view of the pulpit and try to elicit outrage from their audience about the depredations of slavery and condemn the slaveholder. Lincoln takes another point of view; he sees things from the perspective of the slave. Lincoln was never an abolitionist, but he describes himself as naturally antislavery, which goes back to the roots of his family belonging to those churches and his escape from Kentucky, but Lincoln’s antislavery belief was also rooted in his own identity. So that statement is not only an astonishing one, for him to identify himself with the lowest of the low, but also highly revealing from someone who almost never talked about the details of his humiliating past of extreme poverty, ignorance, and abuse.

So you view this as essential to the political Lincoln as well?

The identity of Lincoln is completely connected to the political Lincoln, the man who became a professional party politician, the man who used the professional skills he acquired along the way to end slavery.

Right at the heart of this volume is a story of the fading and failure of the Whig Party. What was Lincoln’s relationship to the Whigs, and what role did he play in the party’s last stage and disintegration?

In this volume, he becomes a Whig. He grows up in the Whig Party. This party system is just in development. The Democrats are rejuvenated through the new party machinery created by Martin Van Buren in alliance with Andrew Jackson, and in Illinois by Lincoln’s perennial rival, Stephen A. Douglas—crucial to everything that happens in his life. Lincoln rises as a Whig, the opposition party led by Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. Lincoln models himself on Clay, who invents the phrase “self-made man” to describe his own rise from rags to riches and almost the presidency. The Whigs differ from the Democrats in believing in a positive role for government in economic development, in what we call infrastructure today, canals and roads and ultimately railroads, related to government policy, to encourage manufacturing through tariffs. This was a party of town, respectable people, and reform. Complex contradictory parties held together that often waged campaigns around no principles whatsoever other than spoils—“to the victor belong the spoils,” as William L. Marcy, who was New York Democratic boss and a member of the Jackson Kitchen Cabinet, said, and Lincoln believed in that too. So we see the creation of this political party that has northern and southern wings. What we see towards the end of this book are all the issues which will rip the Whig Party apart, with Lincoln caught in the center, as a result of the Mexican War. Lincoln opposes the Mexican War, believing it was fraudulently started based on made-up incidents where the US was attacked by Mexicans, which turned out to be untrue. He proposed the “Spot Resolutions” to see where the spot was, and was called “Ranchero Spotty” by Douglas, the derisive term “ranchero” being a reference to a Mexican guerilla, and “spotty” referring to the resolution. So Lincoln was an absurd terrorist, according to Douglas. The Mexican War happens. Huge territory is claimed: California, Texas is annexed, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming. The question is whether it will be slave or free.

That’s it, isn’t it? The Mexican view of these events is that it was all about slavery. This was a war of aggression by the Southerners to expand the territory available for slavery.

This is the view adopted by many American political leaders as well, including Senator Thomas Hart Benton. And Lincoln eventually adopts this view. This is seen as part of a grand plan, even a conspiracy, in Lincoln’s rhetoric, to create a vast empire of slavery, throughout the West, which annexes Cuba, the Caribbean, much of the balance of Mexico, and many other Latin countries. This was the view, and it was not incorrect. It was set in motion when John C. Calhoun, the great figure representing the slavocracy and the slave power, managed to insinuate himself as secretary of state during the John Tyler Administration, and set about distorting documents to create the impression that the British want to seize Texas as a free territory against slavery, falsely, and create a war fever that plays itself out in the administration of James K. Polk. Some of this has its contemporary resonance.

Was it Lincoln’s view that the Whig party failed because it lacked a comprehensive program, with basic values, with a platform?

Lincoln was elected to one term in the Congress. He began serving in the aftermath of the Mexican War. And these issues were raised in its aftermath. Lincoln voted for the Wilmot Proviso, which was a proposal that stipulated that all the territory gained from Mexico must remain free. He voted for it many times, but it never passed. Lincoln, attempting to create a consensus position on the antislavery side hammered out, in consultation with the leading abolitionists in the house a proposal for emancipation in the District of Columbia. It was aborted and never presented, but it was his first emancipation proclamation. This volume ends in 1849, when Lincoln ends his first term in the Congress and enters the political wilderness not knowing what’s going to happen. In 1854, led by Stephen A. Douglas as a senator, Congress passes and President Pierce signs the Kansas–Nebraska Act, opening up those territories to settlers who would decide for themselves whether each territory would be free or slave. And that of course opened up Bleeding Kansas, where settlers from each side poured in and began a pitched battle killing each other. So what happens with that is the Whig Party splits in northern and southern wings and is never reconciled. As the party comes apart at the seams, another political party forms based on opposition to immigration, the American Party, as in “Make America great again.” This party’s chief idea is that only native-born Protestants are qualified to hold public office. Lincoln sees that many members of the Whig Party are drawn to the Know Nothings, and in the next volume you’ll see Lincoln practicing the most subtle and complex politics in order to undermine, behind the scenes, the Know Nothings, in order to be able to forge a broad antislavery coalition that becomes the Republican Party out of the ruins of the Whig Party. So in this volume, Lincoln becomes a Whig and then ultimately faces the issues that will tell his party apart.

Let’s go back to Stephen Douglas. You write that Lincoln’s forward movement was always in pursuit of Douglas. Why “in pursuit”?

Stephen A. Douglas arrives from Vermont and transforms himself in Illinois. He is a self-made man. He rises higher and faster than Lincoln. They live in a very small world in Illinois. They are the two rivals from the beginning, from the 1830s. They debated on stages continually. Douglas was the co-owner and an editor of the main newspaper in Springfield. Lincoln was a co-editor of the chief Whig newspaper in Springfield. They fought wars with each other, literally, with each of their sides battling in the streets at night. At one point an editor was stabbed. Things went to court and eventually were settled. These were rough-and-tumble politics. Illinois was a largely Democratic state; it was the most racist state in the north. The only Whig district was around Springfield, where Lincoln lived, his political base. There was no northern Illinois to speak of. Chicago virtually did not exist until the 1850s, when it boomed because of the Illinois Central Railroad, which was created by Stephen A. Douglas through an act of Congress. He became very wealthy as a result because he owned all the right-of-way real estate along Lake Michigan in Chicago that he sold to the Illinois Central.

Is it an intellectual rivalry?

It’s a political rivalry but also an intellectual rivalry. It consummates not only in the senate campaign of 1858 with the famous debates, but also in the 1860 presidential contest. The key to the Lincoln-Douglas rivalry is that Douglas rises higher than Lincoln. He becomes a judge on the state Supreme Court. He becomes a senator, a very powerful senator. He runs at the age of thirty-nine for president in 1852. He is the rising man, the leader of a movement called Young America; he’s the coming man. Lincoln is left in the dust back in Illinois. Eventually, Lincoln gets himself elected in a safe Whig district to Congress. He does it through a manipulation of the convention system, edging out a competitor to take the seat. But Douglas is the master of Illinois; Lincoln is envious of him, derides him, and opposes him on many issues, economic issues involving a government role funding infrastructure, but also on the question of slavery. Douglas tries to insinuate himself to the Southerners, to win them over, but he never succeeds. Even though he is the owner also, as a senator from Illinois, of a large plantation in Mississippi, which his wife owned. Douglas is himself a slaveholder. He tries to play all angles against the middle, but he is so ambitious, so young, so supercharged that the Southerners don’t trust him. They believe he is out for himself and is never going to be one of them. Lincoln is still in Illinois. That is Lincoln’s great strength. Eventually Douglas has to return to Illinois to run, and Lincoln always remains his rival, stands up and confronts him over the Kansas–Nebraska Act. In his challenge of Douglas, Lincoln finds his winding path to national power.

What about Lincoln’s relationship with his wife, Mary Todd? You write, “There would have been no Lincoln without Mary. He remained smitten and with wonder that she had selected a ‘poor nobody.’” But of course history sees things differently. She has tended to be seen as a drag rather than a help in his career.

I take a different view of Mary Todd. We tend to look at her as someone who created embarrassing scenes for Lincoln, who was a kleptomaniac, who was ultimately declared insane and put in an asylum. He saw her as the most political woman he had ever seen. She came from a Southern upper-class family. Her father, Robert Todd, is a friend and ally of Henry Clay, who was Lincoln’s beau ideal. She has been to a finishing school. She speaks French. He is in awe of her; he breaks up with her; they reconcile and marry. Lincoln was an unsteady but a wildly ambitious personality. He had a series of breakdowns, some of them over his awful relations with the opposite sex, which he couldn’t figure out at all . . . that exacerbated his very sensitive feelings about his social inferiority and the idea that he was standing exposed before Springfield and the state and revealed to be nobody and nothing, just a pathetic bumpkin. In marrying her, he gains social respectability, social mobility, a family, a home, and a wife who is utterly devoted to his political advancement. She refers to their marriage as “our Lincoln party.” She pushes him constantly. When he aims for a lower office, he is doing himself a disservice, and she pushes him forward. She understands political roles, and she understands the social life of politics. She is there to play it with him. She makes Lincoln possible.

As you’ve been interviewed, you get some perfunctory questions about your book, but the interviews then devolve into questions about the Clinton emails and current politics.

Cable TV is full of hyperventilating about Hillary’s emails.

We can only have one issue a week.

The Chicago media interviews were very interesting, no emails, but talking about Lincoln instead. Maybe because he’s from Illinois. But some TV shows want to ask the most superficial questions and go straight to the emails, about which I don’t really comment. At Politics and Prose Bookstore I was followed by Republican trackers, paid agents of America Rising, an oppo group that has targeted me and other private citizens. Tracking has become part of campaigns—recording what a candidate says in public. But this is unique, tracking a private citizen at cultural and literary events. They stood up and sought to ask questions that were tendentious and calculated to negative comments about me, highly distorted and filled with falsehood. My response was to identify them as Republican trackers, ask them to give names, the organization they were from and how much they were paid. This was all young men: Does your mother know you’re out working for Donald Trump? It’s telling that today’s GOP is down to disrupting a discussion of the life of Abraham Lincoln.

Tell us about the next volume.

Volumes will appear every year in the spring through 2019. Next volume is Lincoln in the wilderness to the founding of the Illinois Republican Party, the collapse of the Whigs, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the rise of the antislavery coalitions. How he puts together the Illinois party. The next book goes to Gettysburg. Then the next book goes to the end of the war, assassination, and Reconstruction through 1876, covering what happens to the legacy of Lincoln without Lincoln.

That’s a theme we could carry forward to the current day.

 Absolutely.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

From the April 2015 issue

Company Men

Torture, treachery, and the CIA

Get access to 168 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

August 2018

Combustion Engines

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

There Will Always Be Fires

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The End of Eden

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

How to Start a Nuclear War

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Combustion Engines·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On any given day last summer, the smoke-choked skies over Missoula, Montana, swarmed with an average of twenty-eight helicopters and eighteen fixed-wing craft, a blitz waged against Lolo Peak, Rice Ridge, and ninety-six other wildfires in the Lolo National Forest. On the ground, forty or fifty twenty-person handcrews were deployed, alongside hundreds of fire engines and bulldozers. In the battle against Rice Ridge alone, the Air Force, handcrews, loggers, dozers, parachutists, flacks, forecasters, and cooks amounted to some nine hundred people.

Rice Ridge was what is known as a mega-fire, a recently coined term for blazes that cover more than 100,000 acres. The West has always known forest fires, of course, but for much of the past century, they rarely got any bigger than 10,000 acres. No more. In 1988, a 250,000-acre anomaly, Canyon Creek, burned for months, roaring across a forty-mile stretch of Montana’s Bob Marshall Wilderness in a single night. A few decades on, that anomaly is becoming the norm. Rice Ridge, for its part, swept through 160,000 acres.

At this scale, the firefighting operation is run by an incident management team, a group of about thirty specialists drawn from a mix of state and federal agencies and trained in fields ranging from aviation to weather forecasting and accounting to public information. The management teams are ranked according to experience and ability, from type 3 (the least skilled) to type 1 (the most). The fiercest fires are assigned to type 1s. Teams take the name of their incident commander, the field general, and some of those names become recognizable, even illustrious, in the wildfire-fighting community. One such name is that of Greg Poncin, who is to fire commanders what Wyatt Earp was to federal marshals.

Smoke from the Lolo Peak fire (detail) © Laura Verhaeghe
Article
There Will Always Be Fires·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The pinhal interior, a wooded region of hills and narrow hollows in rural central Portugal, used to be farmland. Well into the latter half of the past century, the fields were worked by peasants from the old stone villages. Portugal was poor and isolated, and the pinhal interior particularly so; when they could, the peasants left. There is electricity and running water now, but most of the people have gone. The fields have been taken over by trees. Each year the forest encroaches farther, and each year the villages grow more lonely. There are remnants of the earlier life, though, and amid the trees the holdouts of the older generations still work a few small fields. The pinhal interior cannot yet be called wilderness, then, and that, in large part, is why it burns.

Thousands of fires burn in the region each summer, almost all of them started not by lightning or some other natural spark but by the remaining Portuguese. (The great majority of the blazes are started unintentionally, though not all.) The pinhal interior—the name means “interior pine forest,” though today there is at least as much eucalyptus as pine—stretches along a sort of climate border between the semiarid Iberian interior and the wet influence of the Atlantic; vegetation grows exceptionally well there, and in the summers fire conditions are ideal. Still, most of the burns are quickly contained, and although they have grown larger in recent years, residents have learned to pay them little mind. The creeping fire that began in the dry duff and twigs of an oak grove on June 17 of last year, in the district of Pe­drógão Grande, therefore occasioned no panic.

A local woman, Dora da Silva Co­sta, drove past the blaze in the midafternoon, by which time it had entered a stand of pines. Firefighters were on hand. “There were no people in the streets,” Costa told me. “It was just another fire.” She continued on her way. It was a Saturday, and she had brought her two young sons to visit their older cousin in Vila Facaia, the village of small farms in which she’d been raised.

Firefighters near Pedrógão Grande (detail) © Pablo Blazquez Dominguez/Getty Images
Article
The End of Eden·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

On a blistering morning in July 2017, Ghazi Luaibi rose before dawn and set out in a worn black sedan from his home in Zubair, a town of concrete low-rises in southern Iraq. He drove for a while along sandy roads strewn with plastic bags. On the horizon, he could see gas flares from the oil refineries, pillars of amber flame rising into the sky. As he approached Basra, the largest city in the province, desert scrub gave way to empty apartment blocks and rows of withered palms. Though the sun had barely risen, the temperature was already nearing 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The previous year, Basra had registered one of the highest temperatures ever reliably recorded on earth: about 129 degrees, hot enough to cause birds to drop from the sky.

Ghazi, a sixty-two-year-old with stooped shoulders, an ash-gray beard, and lively brown eyes, would have preferred to stay home and wait out the heat. But he hadn’t had much of a choice. He was the president of the local council of Mandaeans, members of a gnostic religion that appeared in Mesopotamia in the early centuries ad. Today marked the beginning of their new year, and Ghazi, who was born into the Mandaean priestly class, was responsible for making sure everything went smoothly: he needed to find a tent to shield worshippers from the sun and, most importantly, a location near flowing water where they could carry out the ceremony.

Mandaean holidays are celebrated with a mass baptism, a ritual that is deeply rooted in their scripture and theology. Mandaeans follow the teachings of Yahia Yuhana, known to Christians as John the Baptist. Water is central to their religion. They believe that all life originates in the World of Light, a spiritual realm that is the starting point for a great river known as Yardana, or Jordan. Outside the World of Light lie the lifeless, stagnant waters of the World of Darkness. According to one version of the Mandaean creation myth, a demiurge named Ptahil set out to shape a new world from the World of Darkness, which became the material world we inhabit today. Once the world was complete, Ptahil sculpted Adam, the first man, from the same dark waters as the earth, but his soul came from the World of Light. In Mandaean scripture, rivers are manifestations of the World of Light, coursing from the heavenly Jordan to the earth to purify it. To be baptized is to be immersed in this divine realm.

Basra General Hospital (detail) July 2017 © Alex Potter
Article
How to Start a Nuclear War·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Serving as a US Air Force launch control officer for intercontinental missiles in the early Seventies, First Lieutenant Bruce Blair figured out how to start a nuclear war and kill a few hundred million people. His unit, stationed in the vast missile fields at Malmstrom Air Force Base, in Montana, oversaw one of four squadrons of Minuteman II ­ICBMs, each missile topped by a W56 thermonuclear warhead with an explosive force of 1.2 megatons—eighty times that of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. In theory, the missiles could be fired only by order of the president of the United States, and required mutual cooperation by the two men on duty in each of the launch control centers, of which there were five for each squadron.

In fact, as Blair recounted to me recently, the system could be bypassed with remarkable ease. Safeguards made it difficult, though not impossible, for a two-man crew (of either captains or lieutenants, some straight out of college) in a single launch control center to fire a missile. But, said Blair, “it took only a small conspiracy”—of two people in two separate control centers—to launch the entire squadron of fifty missiles, “sixty megatons targeted at the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea.” (The scheme would first necessitate the “disabling” of the conspirators’ silo crewmates, unless, of course, they, too, were complicit in the operation.) Working in conjunction, the plotters could “jury-rig the system” to send a “vote” by turning keys in their separate launch centers. The three other launch centers might see what was happening, but they would not be able to override the two votes, and the missiles would begin their firing sequence. Even more alarmingly, Blair discovered that if one of the plotters was posted at the particular launch control center in overall command of the squadron, they could together format and transmit a “valid and authentic launch order” for general nuclear war that would immediately launch the entire US strategic nuclear missile force, including a thousand Minuteman and fifty-four Titan missiles, without the possibility of recall. As he put it, “that would get everyone’s attention, for sure.” A more pacifically inclined conspiracy, on the other hand, could effectively disarm the strategic force by formatting and transmitting messages invalidating the presidential launch codes.

When he quit the Air Force in 1974, Blair was haunted by the power that had been within his grasp, andhe resolved to do something about it. But when he started lobbying his former superiors, he was met with indifference and even active hostility. “I got in a fair scrap with the Air Force over it,” he recalled. As Blair well knew, there was supposed to be a system already in place to prevent that type of unilateral launch. The civilian leadership in the Pentagon took comfort in this, not knowing that the Strategic Air Command, which then controlled the Air Force’s nuclear weapons, had quietly neutralized it.

This reluctance to implement an obviously desirable precaution might seem extraordinary, but it is explicable in light of the dominant theme in the military’s nuclear weapons culture: the strategy known as “launch under attack.” Theoretically, the president has the option of waiting through an attack before deciding how to respond. But in practice, the system of command and control has been organized so as to leave a president facing reports of incoming missiles with little option but to launch. In the words of Lee Butler, who commanded all US nuclear forces at the end of the Cold War, the system the military designed was “structured to drive the president invariably toward a decision to launch under attack” if he or she believes there is “incontrovertible proof that warheads actually are on the way.” Ensuring that all missiles and bombers would be en route before any enemy missiles actually landed meant that most of the targets in the strategic nuclear war plan would be destroyed—thereby justifying the purchase and deployment of the massive force required to execute such a strike.

Among students of nuclear command and control, this practice of precluding all options but the desired one is known as “jamming” the president. Blair’s irksome protests threatened to slow this process. When his pleas drew rejection from inside the system, he turned to Congress. Eventually the Air Force agreed to begin using “unlock codes”—codes transmitted at the time of the launch order by higher authority without which the crews could not fire—on the weapons in 1977. (Even then, the Navy held off safeguarding its submarine-launched nuclear missiles in this way for another twenty years.)

Following this small victory, Blair continued to probe the baroque architecture of nuclear command and control, and its extreme vulnerability to lethal mishap. In the early Eighties, while working with a top-secret clearance for the Office of Technology Assessment, he prepared a detailed report on such shortcomings. The Pentagon promptly classified it as SIOP-ESI—a level higher than top secret. (SIOP stands for Single Integrated Operational Plan, the US plan for conducting a nuclear war. ESI stands for Extremely Sensitive Information.) Hidden away in the Pentagon, the report was withheld from both relevant senior civilian officials and the very congressional committees that had commissioned it in the first place.

From positions in Washington’s national security think tanks, including the Brookings Institution, Blair used his expertise and scholarly approach to gain access to knowledgeable insiders at the highest ranks, even in Moscow. On visits to the Russian capital during the halcyon years between the Cold War’s end and the renewal of tensions in the twenty-first century, he learned that the Soviet Union had actually developed a “dead hand” in ultimate control of their strategic nuclear arsenal. If sensors detected signs of an enemy nuclear attack, the USSR’s entire missile force would immediately launch with a minimum of human intervention—in effect, the doomsday weapon that ends the world in Dr. Strangelove.

Needless to say, this was a tightly held arrangement, known only to a select few in Moscow. Similarly chilling secrets, Blair continued to learn, lurked in the bowels of the US system, often unknown to the civilian leadership that supposedly directed it. In 1998, for example, on a visit to the headquarters of Strategic Command (­STRATCOM), the force controlling all US strategic nuclear weapons, at Offutt Air Force Base, near Omaha, Nebraska, he discovered that the ­­­STRATCOM targeting staff had unilaterally chosen to interpret a presidential order on nuclear targeting in such a way as to reinsert China into the ­SIOP, from which it had been removed in 1982, thereby provisionally consigning a billion Chinese to nuclear immolation. Shortly thereafter, he informed a senior White House official, whose reaction Blair recalled as “surprised” and “befuddled.”

In 2006, Blair founded Global Zero, an organization dedicated to ridding the world of nuclear weapons, with an immediate goal of ending the policy of launch under attack. By that time, the Cold War that had generated the ­SIOP and all those nuclear weapons had long since come to an end. As a result, part of the nuclear war machine had been dismantled—warhead numbers were reduced, bombers taken off alert, weapons withdrawn from Europe. But at its heart, the system continued unchanged, officially ever alert and smooth running, poised to dispatch hundreds of precisely targeted weapons, but only on receipt of an order from the commander in chief.

Bombhead, by Bruce Conner (detail) © Conner Family Trust, San Francisco, and ARS, New York City. Courtesy Kohn Gallery, Los Angeles

Amount former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf paid a lobbying firm for access to top U.S. lawmakers:

$175,000

40,800,000,000 pounds of total adult human biomass is due to excessive fatness.

The Saudi-Canadian spat; the Catholic Church’s new position on the death penalty; a few Swedish crown jewels were stolen in broad daylight

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

Illustration by Stan Fellows

Illustration by Stan Fellows

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today