June 7, 2010: Obama, Clinton, Issa & the Sestak & Romanoff Job Offers

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Ms. Goodman is the Editor / Features Editor at HNN. She has a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University.



  • White House admits job offer to Sestak to clear Senate for Specter: President Barack Obama’s embarrassed White House acknowledged Friday it had enlisted Bill Clinton to try to ease Rep. Joe Sestak out of Pennsylvania’s Senate primary with a job offer. For Obama, the revelations called into question his repeated promises to run an open government that was above backroom deals. Sestak stayed in the race and eventually defeated Specter to become the Democratic nominee, ending Specter’s 30-year Senate tenure. – Detroit News wire services


  • Obama under fire for election tactics with Sestak, Romanoff: The White House on Thursday dismissed charges that President Obama’s top aides have breached his pledge to run the most ethical and open administration in history by trying to entice Democrats in Pennsylvania and Colorado to skip races against favored incumbents. Some Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, are demanding an independent investigation of what they call inappropriately heavy-handed politics…. – USA Today, 6-4-10
  • California Rep. Darrell Issa takes on role as Obama’s chief antagonist: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the man who radically changed California politics by helping fund the 2003 recall effort that lead to the removal of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and the election of fellow Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, has become one of President Obama’s chief antagonists. From his perch as the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa has spent the last 15 months constantly blasting the Obama administration on nearly every controversy and calling for countless investigations that the Democratic-controlled committee refuses to order. But Issa is finally starting to hit some of his targets. He was one of the leading Republicans in pushing the White House to reveal more details about its discussions to persuade Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) to forgo a Senate primary run against Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in return for a possible government job. Sestak won the primary, and now another Senate candidate challenging an incumbent Democrat, Andrew Romanoff in Colorado, has acknowledged having similar discussions with White House officials. Issa has suggested the White House violated the law and may have offered Sestak “a bribe” in the process, assertions that have not been proved…. – WaPo, 6-4-10
  • Obama under fire for election tactics with Sestak, Romanoff: The White House on Thursday dismissed charges that President Obama’s top aides have breached his pledge to run the most ethical and open administration in history by trying to entice Democrats in Pennsylvania and Colorado to skip races against favored incumbents.
    Some Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, are demanding an independent investigation of what they call inappropriately heavy-handed politics.
    Press secretary Robert Gibbs countered that the White House has every right to try to avert expensive and divisive intraparty primaries between Democrats, something it did by encouraging potential candidates to consider other options, including government jobs or appointments.
    “The president has an interest in ensuring that supporters don’t run against each other in contested primaries,” Gibbs said…. – USA Today, 6-3-10
  • White House: President Obama was unaware aides floated job offers to Andrew Romanoff: Hammered by accusations of playing politics, the White House claimed Thursday President Obama was unaware aides floated job offers to get a second lawmaker to quit a Senate race. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs denied the White House had engaged in any wrongdoing or secret back-room deals, contending the administration has not hidden the fact it doesn’t like Democratic Party primaries. “I do believe we’ve been transparent,” he said. But Gibbs sidestepped and evaded repeated questions on details of the contacts…. – NY Daily News, 6-4-10
  • White House defends using job prospect to sway Romanoff to quit Colorado Senate race: White House officials Thursday defended their effort to use a job prospect in the administration to entice Democrat Andrew Romanoff out of the Senate race in Colorado last September, while trying to recast Romanoff’s version of events, pointing out that he came to them looking for employment, albeit 10 months earlier…. – Denver Post, 6-4-10
  • LBJ and Sestak/Romanoff: Obama’s defenders have fastened on a case where LBJ’s White House offered a job to Congressman Joe Kilgore to get him out of a senate primary against Sen. Ralph Yarborough. Fair enough. This shows that this kind of horse-trading has a long pedigree. It’s also a sign of what’s become of Obama’s promises of a new kind of politics that his supporters are running back to LBJ for precedent. Here’s an interesting passage in one of the conversations between Kilgore and LBJ aide Walter Jenkins that shows they didn’t consider such a deal entirely appropriate, even back then: National Review, 6-4-10
  • Assessing the political fallout of the Andrew Romanoff revelationWaPo, 6-3-10
  • Sestak Job Offer Grounds for Impeachment?: SEAN HANNITY, HOST: There is big breaking news tonight in the Joe Sestak affair that has gripped Washington all week. And after months of questions, denials and finger-pointing the White House version of events basically comes down to this: Bill Clinton did it.
    Now White House counsel Bob Bauer who is married to former White House communications spin doctor Anita Dunn released a report this morning detailing what happened. Now it reads in part, quote, “Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a presidential or other senior executive branch advisory board which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with opportunity for additional service to the public in a high-level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified. The advisory position discussed with Congressman Sestak, while important to the work of the administration, would have been uncompensated. White house Staff did not discuss these options with Congressman Sestak. The White House chief of staff enlisted the support of former President Clinton who agreed to raise with Congressman Sestak options of service on a presidential or other senior executive branch advisory board. Congressman Sestak declined the suggested alternatives, remaining committed to his Senate candidacy.”… – Fox News, 6-1-10
  • Clinton-Sestak-White House Connection: Was There a Crime?Fox News, 5-29-10
  • Clinton’s Role in Sestak Controversy Stirs Questions About His and White House Motives: Like an aging sports star who can’t stay away from the game, Bill Clinton’s direct role in the firestorm over President Obama’s job offer to a lawmaker for a political favor has raised questions about whether the former president was used and abused by a cynical administration or whether he took advantage of the White House to burnish his legacy…. “It’s very clear that President Clinton doesn’t want to leave politics but more importantly that the White House wanted some sort of plausible deniability,” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who is calling for an FBI investigation, told Fox News on Friday. Issa added that President Nixon had deniability from the plumbers in the Watergate scandal that ultimately brought down his presidency until he became part of the coverup. “At this point, 10 weeks later, lots of witness tampering, or at least witness interrogation by people who are self serving, we’re beginning to go down that same road,” he said. “It’s now time for the president to say enough is enough, I promised to have higher integrity and that will include having someone on the outside tell us what we did right or wrong.”… – Fox News, 5-29-10
  • Sestak Case Puts Rahm Emanuel’s Backroom Politics Back in Spotlight: The White House official behind the controversial offer to Rep. Joe Sestak is no stranger to hard-nosed political horse trading. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who enlisted the help of his former boss Bill Clinton to approach a congressman about sitting out a Senate primary race, has been involved in several political controversies during his 20-year-plus career in Washington. And the current controversy is only the latest for Emanuel in the past 16 months, since he joined the Obama administration…. – Fox News, 5-29-10
  • Joe Sestak job offer? White House says it did nothing wrong: The GOP isn’t buying the White House assertion that it offered Rep. Joe Sestak only an unpaid position on an advisory board if he’d drop his effort to unseat Pennsylvania’s Sen. Arlen Specter.
    After months of speculation, the White House has released an explanation of its effort to lure Rep. Joe Sestak (D) of Pennsylvania away from running for the US Senate. The two-page memo from White House counsel Robert Bauer, issued Friday, states that White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had enlisted former President Bill Clinton to approach Congressman Sestak last summer to discuss the possibility of unpaid service on a presidential advisory board, while retaining his seat in the House… – In his own statement, Sestak laid out the same scenario. “I said no,” he said of the advisory board offer. CS Monitor, 5-28-10
  • Bill Clinton has evolved into Obama’s Mr. Fix-It Network News: After Barack Obama won the White House, he and his aides wrestled for weeks over what to do about Bill Clinton if his wife joined the administration. They worried that the irrepressible former president might overshadow Hillary Rodham Clinton, or even Obama himself. That didn’t happen. Now, 18 months later, he has become indispensable in a way the new president probably did not anticipate. Clinton has become the “Michael Clayton” of the Obama White House, a roving, always on-call fixer who lends his political skills to help Obama and the Democrats in tough situations. Clinton is campaigning and raising money in places where Obama is less (or less than) welcome. And, as was revealed Friday, he has been an intermediary on sensitive, off-the-grid conversations with candidates such as Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), whom he tried — on behalf of the White House — to talk out of running for the Senate…. – WaP, 5-28-10
  • White House Used Bill Clinton to Ask Sestak to Drop Out of Race: President Obama’s chief of staff used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to see if Representative Joe Sestak would drop out of a Senate primary if given a prominent, but unpaid, advisory position, people briefed on the matter said Friday.
    Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, asked Mr. Clinton to explore the possibilities last summer, accordingto the briefed individuals, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the politically charged situation. Mr. Sestak said no and went on to win last week’s Pennsylvania Democratic primary against Senator Arlen Specter. NYT, 5-28-10
  • Obama Promises Response on Question of Job Offer: President Obama refused to say Thursday whether his White House offered a job to Representative Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania to drop out of a Democratic primary but promised that the administration would respond soon. “There will be an official response shortly on the Sestak issue, which I hope will answer your questions,” Mr. Obama told reporters at a White House news conference. “I can assure the public that nothing improper took place.” – NYT, 5-27-10
  • Sestak says his brother, White House met about alleged job offer: Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) said Thursday his brother has spoken with White House officials about the congressman’s allegation that he was offered an Obama administration job if he would stay out of a Democratic Senate primary… He told reporters Thursday that he would not expand upon his prior statements until the White House releases its report on the matter. President Obama said in his news conference such a report would come “shortly.” Richard Sestak, who has served as his brother’s top political adviser and campaign lawyer, spoke with administration officials Wednesday, Joe Sestak said.
    “They got ahold of my brother on his cellphone, and he spoke to the White House . . . about what’s going to occur,” said Sestak, who said he expects the White House will release its information Friday. He declined to elaborate on his discussions with his brother…. – WaPo, 5-27-10
  • Dig into alleged Joe Sestak job offer, GOP tells Justice Department: The White House backed Rep. Joe Sestak’s opponent in the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania. The GOP wants to know whether it offered Mr. Sestak a job to drop out of the race.
    “The allegations in this matter are very serious and, if true, suggest a violation of various criminal laws intended to safeguard our political process from the taint of bribes and political machine manipulation,” said Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee in a Wednesday letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.
    Those who signed the letter include Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Jon Kyl of Arizona, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Cornyn of Texas, and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma…. – CS Monitor, 5-26-10
  • Did the White House offer Joe Sestak a job?: Rep. Joe Sestak is in a tough primary race against Obama-backed Senator Arlen Specter. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs for the first time responded to questions about whether the White House offered Sestak a post to lure him out of the race…. – CS Monitor, 3-16-10


  • Andrew Romanoff Breaks Silence on White House Job Talks: On Friday’s Washington Unplugged, Bob Schieffer, moderator of CBS’ “Face the Nation,” spoke with Andrew Romanoff, the latest Senate candidate to acknowledge that he was contacted by the White House for discussions about various administration positions should he drop out of his primary race.
    Sestak: “I Stood Up to My Party”
    Romanoff said he “received a call from (White House Deputy Chief of Staff) Jim Messina. He informed me that the White House would support my opponent, Sen. (Michael) Bennet. I told Mr. Messina that I had decided to run for the Senate nonetheless. He told me three positions might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race and e-mailed me descriptions of the positions. I told him that I would not change course. That’s the last time I had any communication on this matter with Mr. Messina or anyone else in the White House.”
    “A number of folks have done their best to keep me from running for the Senate and similar efforts to prevent primaries that took place in Pennsylvania,” said Romanoff. “Those efforts did not have any effect on me.”
    Romanoff added, “The White House’s efforts made no impact on my decision to run.”… – CBS News, 6-4-10
  • Steele: DOJ should examine White House dealmaking: The Department of Justice should examine the White House dealmaking in Senate primary races with “an impartial referee” who can sort out the facts, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.
    The agency should assign “a special investigator or an independent counsel, who can sort out the facts and answer the burning question — what did the White House offer … , who authorized the offer, who else knew about it and what was the expected trade-off for accepting the offer?” Steele said in his party’s weekly radio and Internet address.
    “It’s one thing to keep that promise when you think it’ll help you politically,” Steele said. “The real test of a man’s word is if he keeps it when it’s inconvenient, embarrassing or potentially damaging. On this test, the president and his people have failed.”…. – AP, 6-4-10
  • Statement released by White House Press Secretary on Andrew Romanoff: STATEMENT FROM THE PRESS SECRETARY ON COLORADO SENATE RACE Andrew Romanoff applied for a position at USAID during the Presidential transition. He filed this application through the Transition on-line process. After the new administration took office, he followed up by phone with White House personnel.
    Jim Messina called and emailed Romanoff last September to see if he was still interested in a position at USAID, or if, as had been reported, he was running for the US Senate. Months earlier, the President had endorsed Senator Michael Bennet for the Colorado seat, and Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters.
    But Romanoff said that he was committed to the Senate race and no longer interested in working for the Administration, and that ended the discussion. As Mr. Romanoff has stated, there was no offer of a job. Denver Post, 6-3-10
  • Andrew Romanoff details contacts with White House over potential jobs: Andrew Romanoff statement:
    I have received a large number of press inquiries concerning the role the White House is reported to have played in my decision to run for the U.S. Senate. I have declined comment because I did not want – and do not want – to politicize this matter.
    A great deal of misinformation has filled the void in the meantime. That does not serve the public interest or any useful purpose.
    Here are the facts:
    In September 2009, shortly after the news media first reported my plans to run for the Senate, I received a call from Jim Messina, the President’s deputy chief of staff. Mr. Messina informed me that the White House would support Sen. Bennet. I informed Mr. Messina that I had made my decision to run.
    Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina’s assistance in obtaining one.
    Later that day, I received an email from Mr. Messina containing descriptions of three positions (email attached). I left him a voicemail informing him that I would not change course.
    I have not spoken with Mr. Messina, nor have I discussed this matter with anyone else in the White House, since then. WaPo, 6-3-10


  • Myths and falsehoods about the Sestak and Romanoff controversies: Media Matters for America has compiled a list of the myths and falsehoods about the White House’s conversations with Democratic Senate candidates Joe Sestak and Andrew Romanoff concerning those candidates taking positions in the administration…. – Media Metters, 6-3-10
  • Clinton’s Role in Sestak Controversy Stirs Questions About His and White House Motives: “This is the way politics operates and almost all former presidents, key public leaders, party leaders do this for the president,” Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, told Fox News.
    “Also keep in mind, this is an unusual administration,” he said. “It’s a merger of the Obama wing and Clinton wing. We’ve seen that since the Cabinet was formed. Yes, former President Clinton does political duties for Obama and Rahm Emanuel.”… – Fox News, 5-29-10

Top Young Historians: 106 – Jeffrey A. Engel


Edited by Bonnie K. Goodman

106: Jeffrey A. Engel, 6-7-10

Basic Facts

Teaching Position: Associate Professor and Verlin and Howard Kruse ’52 Founders Professor and the Director of Programming, Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs at the Bush School of Texas A&M University.
Area of Research: Engel teaches courses in American foreign policy and the evolution of international strategy, with primary research interests including diplomacy’s domestic and localized effects, technology and foreign policy, and economic warfare.
Education: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Ph.D. in American History, 2001
Major Publications: Engel is the author of Cold War at 30,000 Feet: The Anglo-American Fight for Aviation Supremacy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007). American Historical Association’s 2008 Paul Birdsall Prize, awarded biannually to the outstanding work published in European Military and Strategic History. Jeffrey Engel JPGEngel is the editor of Rethinking Leadership and “Whole of Government” National Security Reform, with Joseph R. Cerami, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2010).” Authored the chapter: “Change is Hard… But Even Small Steps Matter,” 187-208;
Diplomatic History, Guest Editor of Special Edition, “The End of the Cold War: New Evidence and Interpretations from the First Bush Administration,” 34(1), January 2010;
The Fall of the Berlin Wall: The Revolutionary Legacy of 1989, Jeffrey A. Engel, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009). Excerpted in Foreignpolicy.com, November 9, 2009, authored the chapter: “1989: An Introduction to an International History,” 1-35;
The China Diary of George H.W Bush: The Making of a Global President (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008). Excerpted in Newsweek, December 24, 2007;
Local Consequences of the Global Cold War, Jeffrey A. Engel, ed. (Palo Alto and Washington, DC: Stanford University Press and Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2008), authored with Katherine Carté Engel the chapter: “On Writing the Local within Diplomatic History: Trends, Historiography, Purpose,” 1-32.
Engel is also the author of numerous scholarly journal articles, book chapters and reviews including among others: “‘A Better World…but Don’t Get Carried Away’: The Foreign Policy of George H.W. Bush Twenty Years On,” Diplomatic History, 34(1), January 2010, 25-46;
“Leadership and National Security Reform,” A Strategic Studies Institute Colloquium Brief, Joseph R. Cerami, Jeffrey A. Engel, and Lindsey Pavelka,” Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, December 2009;
“Forty-One Minus Forty-Three is Not a Negative Number: Thinking Like an Historian about the First Bush Presidency,” Historically Speaking (Forthcoming, 2010);
“The Democratic Language of American Imperialism: Race, Order, and Theodore Roosevelt’s Personifications of Foreign Policy Evil,” Diplomacy and Statecraft 19(4), December 2008, 671-689;
“Over There…To Stay this Time: The Forward Deployment of American Basing Strategy in the Cold War and Beyond,” in Luis Rodrigues and Sergiy Glebov (eds.), Political and Social Impact of Military Bases: Historical Perspectives, Contemporary Challenges (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2008), 17-28;
“A Shrinking World: Transport, Communication, and Towards a Global Culture,” in Gordon Martel, ed., Companion to International History, 1900-2001 (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 52-64; “The American Tendency to Personify Foreign Threats, from Thomas Jefferson to George W. Bush: A Note on American Diplomatic Rhetoric,” Political Internacional 25(2), 2002, 197-230;
“‘Every Cent from America’s Working Man’: Fiscal Conservatism and the Politics of International Aid after World War II,” The New England Journal of History 58(1), 2001, 20-60.
Engel is currently writing Seeking Monsters to Destroy: Language and War from Thomas Jefferson to George W. Bush (Oxford University Press, forthcoming)
Awards: Engel is the recipient of numerous awards and fellowships including among others:
Texas A&M University System Chancellor’s Teaching Excellence Award, 2010;
Verlin and Howard Kruse ’52 Founders Professor, 2009-Present;
Program to Enhance Scholarly and Creative Activities Grant, Texas A&M University, 2008;
2008 Paul Birdsall Prize in European Military and Strategic History for Cold War at 30,000 Feet, American Historical Association;
Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations Summer Institute Participant, 2008;
Bush Faculty Excellence Award (Annually Awarded to Outstanding Faculty Member), 2007;
Evelyn and Ed F. Kruse ’49 Faculty Fellow, Awarded to Outstanding GBS Assistant Professor, 2006-2009;
Visiting Fellow, International Security Studies, Yale University, 2007;
Silver Star Award, Awarded by Graduating Students to Outstanding Bush School Professor, 2006;
John M. Olin Postdoctoral Fellow, International Security Studies, Yale University, 2001-2003;
Visiting Fellow, Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy, Temple University, 2000-2001;
Guggenheim Research Fellow (renewed), National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, 2000;
Guggenheim Research Fellow, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, 1999-2000;
W. Stull Holt Memorial Fellowship of the Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations, 2000;
United States Military Academy, West Point, Summer Teaching Fellow in Military History, 1999;
Research Fellow, Harry S Truman Presidential Library Institute, 1999;
Dissertation Research Fellow, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Foundation, 1999;
Visiting Research Fellow, Eisenhower World Affairs Council (Eisenhower Library), 1999;
University of Wisconsin-Madison Vilas Fellow, 1997;
Blattberg Writing Award, University of Wisconsin Department of History, 1997;
Andrew W. Mellon Fellow in the Humanistic Studies, 1995-1996.
Additional Info:
Formerly a lecturer in history and international relations at the University of Pennsylvania (2003-2004), a Visiting Assistant Professor at Haverford College (2004), and an Olin Postdoctoral Fellow in International Security Studies at Yale University (2001-2003).
Engel is the Co-Director, Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations Summer Institute, 2010, “Decision-making and the Uses of History”;
Engel serves on the Editorial Board for Diplomatic History and the Journal of Transatlantic Studies, and has published in numerous journals including Diplomatic History, The International Journal, and Enterprise & Society.

Personal Anecdote

I did not set out to write my first book. At least, I did not set out to write the book that finally appeared a decade after I began graduate school. The overarching topic never changed. It remained from beginning to end a study of Anglo-American diplomatic competition for control of the vital aerospace marketplace after World War II.

The topic never changed. But the book itself changed wholly, completely, and unexpectedly. I like to think for the better.

It began, as did I in many ways, as a good example of Wisconsin new-left revisionism. Not only was a I trained by disciples of this powerful strain of diplomatic history, as an undergraduate by Walt LaFeber and in graduate school by Tom McCormick, but revisionism’s ingrained bias towards economic considerations and concerted policymaking by elite interests fit well my own red-diaper upbringing. Seminars and books that concluded, to crudely paint with a broad brush, that moneyed interests helped dictate Washington’s international priorities simply made intuitive sense following years of similar intergenerational invectives from the host of New York Jewish socialists who gathered around the family dinner table (even after we moved to Nebraska).

My dissertation proposal fit this model. Having arrived in Madison-and really, where else would a would-be leftist historian go for grad school?-determined to study what I termed the local impact of diplomacy, that is the measurable human, social, and economic costs and benefits of foreign policy upon communities, I quickly chose Anglo-American aviation diplomacy as my broad topic. Planes during the Cold War were built largely in single sites, thus ensuring that one could quickly discern the effects of plane sales, or their dearth, on the well-being of cities from Seattle to Farnborough. It had to be a topic politically-sexy enough to have garnered the attention of Prime Ministers and Presidents, thus ensuring that diplomacy and sales interacted and produced an extant documentary record. Finally, it had to be an Anglo-American study as well, because good diplomatic work of the era was invariably comparative and transnational, and having studied in England as and undergrad I was determined to get back as quick as possible.

I thus wrote what I thought to be a rather eloquent dissertation proposal befitting the best of what I understood to be the Wisconsin tradition. This would be a story of economic competition for markets, I posited. It would show British and American diplomats battling throughout the world to secure sales for their domestic producers, thereby ensuring prosperity at home and influence abroad. Policymakers would invariably ensure that trade followed the flag, I expected to show. And if their Special Relationship took a beating for the sake of national sales, well this was exactly the type of economic primacy trumping allied solidarity I expected to find once I hit the archives.

The dissertation proposal proved a beautifully constructed piece of tripe. I was not in England 48 hours, immersed in the documents for the second day of an expected year-long cruise through the archives, when I realized I had the story entirely wrong. This was not a tale of export promotion, the records revealed. It was instead one of export-constraint. The story of Anglo-American aviation diplomacy was not a tale of diplomats fighting to open markets for their own producers. It was instead a saga of policymakers vainly struggling to hold back the tide of eager salespeople, whose lust for exports paid little concern for the potential loss of strategically valuable aviation technologies to communist foes. It was a also, I ultimately discovered, a tale of divergent and contradictory British and American strategies for waging and winning the Cold War, one in which strategic concerns trumped economic considerations; though I first had to accept how wrong I’d originally been before I could see this story emerge.

In short, I had it wrong. I won’t say the experience of watching my expectations dashed and then reborn destroyed my revisionist leanings in one fell swoop, because in truth these had already begun to both decline in zeal in favor of a (hopefully) more complex worldview colored by different and even contradictory theories of analysis. At the least, it taught a valuable lesson: history is not always what we expect, but more often what we discover. First, however, one has to be willing to look. And to change one’s mind, no matter how the final product is received around the dinner table.


By Jeffrey A. Engel

  • The world changed in 1989.
    At the start of the year, the globe’s strategic map looked much like it had since the end of World War II. The Fall of the Berlin Wall JPGCommunist leaders in China and the Soviet Union held power. Their American counterparts, skeptical of the sincerity of recent calls for change throughout the Communist world, prepared for a reinvigorated Cold War of unknown duration and ferocity. Europe prepared for another year divided along fault lines imposed by conquering armies nearly a half-century before.
    A year later, communism would be dead in Eastern Europe and dying in the Soviet Union itself. China would be once more in the grip of hard-liners wary of reform, and once more on the precipice of isolation. Washington would be looking to capitalize on its Cold War victory. Europe would soon by rejoined. The future-our twenty-first century present-would be at hand. And no one had seen it coming. — Jeffrey Engel in “The Fall of the Berlin Wall: The Revolutionary Legacy of 1989” (Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 1.
  • This is a story about power. Power enough to shape nations and the world. It is an examination of the bitter Cold War at 30,000 Feet JPGbattles fought by British and American officials over the proper maintenance of the international system following the horrors of World War II, and ultimately of their contest to see which nation would lead the Western crusade against global Communism during the ensuing Cold War. The contest would determine which nation was best equipped to lead the world in its long search for stability, peace, and prosperity in the second half of the twentieth century. The competitors were not always in conflict. Rarely have two allies worked more closely than the United States and the United Kingdom, bonded by a common language, political tradition, and the burdens of combating common enemies. Yet with a fervor rarely appreciated owing to their frequent and public displays of intimacy, behind closed doors they fought bitterly-not only for their different visions of their “Special Relationship,” in which the two nations famously operated as a tighter partnership than either capital enjoyed with any other nation, but more dramatically for their different visions of the future.” — Jeffrey Engel in “Cold War at 30,000 Feet: The Anglo-American Fight for Aviation Supremacy” (Harvard University Press, 2007), p. 1.

About Jeffrey A. Engel

  • This brilliant book contributes to both the history of the airplane industry and Cold War history. Great Britain and the United States competed for supremacy and clashed over sales in the industry as leaders in each nation believed they alone knew how to strike the proper balance between the demands of security and the needs of commerce. It is a fascinating and important story, and Engel tells it well. — Richard S. Kirkendall, University of Washington about “Cold War at 30,000 Feet”
  • This book recounts Britain’s challenge to American hegemony in the production of airliners during the years after the Second World War. Ho hum, you’d think. But with a cast of colorful characters–among them Ernest Bevin, Dean Acheson, and John Maynard Keynes–and acute glimpses into how things worked in postwar Washington, this chronicle of an intense commercial struggle gives readers a fascinating glimpse into a forgotten cranny of history. — The Atlantic about “Cold War at 30,000 Feet”
  • Jeffrey A. Engel’s study of Anglo-American rivalry in aviation provides a fascinating look at the underlying issues that strained the alliance during the first two decades of the Cold War. Building on existing historiography regarding the allies’ different strategic visions during this period, Engel develops a fascinating new approach by demonstrating how conflicts over aviation policy illuminate these differences. Employing an impressive array of archival research, the author details how the allies endured a number of potentially serious disagreements regarding the diffusion of aviation technology. While Engel may overestimate the damage that these disputes had on the alliance, as no real crises developed from the cases he explores, he does an exceptional job of showing how important airpower was in the conflicting worldviews of the two great English-speaking powers. — Daniel C. Williamson (American Historical Review) about “Cold War at 30,000 Feet”
  • Jeffrey A. Engel’s book is a fascinating read, especially for those who maintain that international relations are defined by “high politics” (as in global alliances and security issues) that take precedent over “low politics” (such as financial and trade issues). In examining Anglo-American differences over the trade in aeronautics (engines and aircraft), Engel shows just how much low politics mattered-and how they could be defining moments of high politics when international relations collided with economic and trade interests…Cold War at 30,000 Feet is an important addition to our understanding of the Cold War. — Marc Dierikx (The Journal of American History) about “Cold War at 30,000 Feet”
  • “[B]ush’s year in China laid the foundations for the pragmatic, prudent, personal foreign policy that would characterize his presidency. With superb annotations and analysis by Jeffrey Engel, a professor of history and public policy at Texas A&M, Bush’s daily diary sheds light not only on ‘the making of a global president’ but on two nations in transition: late Maoist China, as it moved, tentatively, toward engagement with the international community; and the United States, as it absorbed the implications of defeat in Vietnam.” — Glenn C. Altschuler, Baltimore Sun about “China Diary of George H.W. Bush”
  • “George H. W. Bush’s China diary captures a pivotal moment when Americans were reintroduced to the Middle Kingdom after a generation of estrangement. It also reveals much of the humanity, humor, and light foreign policy touch of a future president and presidential father. We can be grateful to Jeffrey Engel for putting this important document into its rich historical context and making it accessible.” — Timothy Naftali, author of George H. W. Bush
  • “Engel’s historical editing is the perfect frame to this lucid window on late-Maoist China. In the Bush diary’s candid entries the reader can ‘eavesdrop’ on a statesman educating himself for the personal, pragmatic diplomacy that would change the world.” — Walter A. McDougall, author of Pulitzer Prize-winning The Heavens and the Earth
  • Jeffrey A. Engel’s and Katherine Carté Engel’s introduction by itself is worth acquiring the book for. Students and teachers of Cold War history alike will be grateful for such a nuanced account of methodology of and approaches to Cold War historiography. By discussing the achievements of earlier research and naming desiderata, the authors pave the way for the case studies to fill some of the voids left by traditional accounts, many of which ignore ‘small’ stories taking place in seemingly remote areas in favour of the ‘big picture’. — Corinna R. Unger, Journal of Contemporary History about “Local Consequences of the Global Cold War”

Posted on Sunday, June 6, 2010 at 10:41 AM

%d bloggers like this: