SUNDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2010 BookWorld TRAVEL


JET AGE The Comet, the 707, and the Race to Shrink theWorld By Sam Howe Verhovek Avery. 248 pp. $27


KLMNO


EZ BD


B5


The thrill of flying is gone. An airline,


an industry executive once said, is regarded by most of the traveling public as little more than a “glorified bus operation.” Just ponder: How many times during your last cross-country trip did you peer out at the prairie more than five miles below? Never mind. On your next flight, pass the time reading Sam Howe Verhovek’s new book, “Jet Age.” Verhovek definitively traces the


VAHID SALEMI/ASSOCIATED PRESS Women walk past anti-American graffiti painted on the wall of the formerU.S. Embassy in Tehran. IRANREVIEWBYHOOMANMAJD A country gives up its secrets


LET THE SWORDS ENCIRCLE ME Iran — A Journey Behind the Headlines By Scott Peterson Simon & Schuster. 732 pp. $32


by its nuclear ambitions or an attempt to unravel themysteries of its internal political and social dynamics. And every year we are treated to newbooks on the country,many of which purport to present a behind-the-scenes look, as does Scott Peterson’s “Let the Swords Encircle Me,” subtitled “Iran — A Journey Behind theHeadlines.” As aMiddle East correspondent for


A T


theChristian ScienceMonitorwhohas regularly traveled to Iran for the past 15 years—and has been afforded great latitude by his editors in his Iran coverage—Peterson brings a depth of experience and knowledge to his writ- ing that few Westerners can match. His meticulously researched book is filled with delectable details obtained from private conversations with “Be-


lmost every day the pages of our nation’s newspapers and magazines offer an- other tidbit of infor- mation about Iran, whether an update on the threat posed


lievers” (as he refers to pious, hard-line regime supporters) and encounters with the overtly secular, lost youth of Tehran. The awkward title, “Let the Swords


Encircle Me,” comes from a quote attributed to Imam Hossein, a Shiite saint martyred at Karbala in the 7th century — a death that defines Shiite existence. Peterson begins with an examination of U.S.-Iranian relations, the history of the antagonism and his ownexperiences trying to untangle the complexity of the love-hate feelings that Iranians seem to harbor toward their nemesis in the West. Like other writers, he points out the similarities between the American and Iranian mind-sets and emphasizes the coun- tries’ affinity for each other, and his scrupulous reportage raises the ques- tion of why these two nations can’t get along. It was the shah, after all, who once quipped that Iran is culturally more Western than Eastern and that onlybyanaccident ofgeography is it in the heart of theMiddle East. This is to a large extent true and helps explain why the Arabs, even Shiite Arabs, revile the Persians as much as, if not more than, they do the Israelis, the other alien culture in their midst, and why the Islamic revolution in Iran failed to inspire Arabs to rise up against their own dictators. That last question isn’t answered,


though. Peterson doesn’t offermuchin the way of his own opinion or advice, though he provides quotes from ex- perts who conclude that the hard-liner ideologues in Tehran need the United States as the “Great Satan” to justify their ideology and leadership. But left mostly unsaid is that the hard-liners and, indeed, all the Iranian revolution- aries, including the liberals and re- formists today, were hard-liners early on and have always been more inter- ested in achieving the opposite ofwhat the shah once proclaimed: that he wanted Tehran to become the “Paris of the Middle East.” Rather, they prefer that Paris one day lay claim to being the “Tehran of Europe.” Peterson, to his credit, doesn’t di-


minish the support these revolutionar- ies have among the population, a mistake made by some other writers, particularly Iranian exiles. He pro- vides plenty of evidence for the linger- ing adverse effects not just of the infamous 1953 CIA-backed coup against the democratically elected PrimeMinisterMohammadMossade- gh, but also of the Iran-Iraq war and U.S support of Iran’s enemy, which he rightly points out plays a large part in the political consciousness of Iranians of all stripes. As a historical record of Iranian


politics, from the rise of the reformists under Mohammad Khatami to their


fall with the election of neoconserva- tiveMahmoudAhmadinejad to the fits and starts in U.S.-Iran relations over the past 15 years, “Let the Swords Encircle Me” is enlightening, but one sometimes wishes thatPetersonwould tell us what he thinks. For instance, he quotes an Iranian exile who asserts that the hard-liners in Tehran have a worldview“that it is much better to be feared than loved.” But this point is contradicted by the author’s inter- views with the hard-liners themselves, and Peterson does not step in to mediate the conflict. Early in the book, Peterson intro-


duces us to a Tehran residentwhomhe calls “the Sage.” He has endless cups of tea in the Sage’s apartment and goes back to him often to get a read on virtually any political story.The Sage is seemingly full of wisdom, and it would be hard to dispute some of what he imparts, but Peterson’s reliance on him as the all-knowing Iranian “veter- an observer” gets tiresome, particular- ly as we don’t know who this individu- al is. Despite its shortcomings, howev- er, “Let the Swords EncircleMe” deliv- ers exactly what Peterson promises: a journey behind the headlines. bookworld@washpost.com


Hooman Majd is the author of “The Ayatollah Begs to Differ” and “The Ayatollahs’ Democracy.”


humble beginnings of commercial air travel and introduces its cast of characters, among them a cowboy test pilot named “Tex” who was really from Kansas; a suave and exotic Miami airline magnate; and Howard Hughes, the eccentric billionaire flying enthusiast who made Hollywood films on the side. The stars of the book, however, are the de Havilland Comet, the world’s first commercial jetliner, and the Boeing Dash 80, a hulking machine that came to be known as the 707. The Comet’s progenitor, Geoffrey de


Havilland, had designed fighter planes for the British air forces and was determined to push the boundaries of conventional air travel by introducing jet technology to the public. On May 2, 1952, the first passenger-laden Comet, in BOAC livery (now British Airways), took off from London bound for Johannesburg. The jet arrived two minutes ahead of schedule. U.S. manufacturers tried to catch up,


but two years went by before airline passengers could board an American- made jet, the Boeing 707, which was developed under unusual circumstances. In the 1950s, Congress enacted an excess profits tax “intended to prevent military companies from making out too well because of increased demand during [the KoreanWar].” Under the new system, Boeing would have ended up giving 82 cents on every dollar of profit to the government. Seeing an opportunity for both a deep investment and a tax deduction, Boeing’s president, Bill Allen, called for the development of the 707 and allotted $15 million to the project— nearly a quarter of the company’s net worth. While the Comet was the first jetliner


to take to the skies, the 707 turned out to be the better-designed plane. A fatal flaw with the Comet’s square windows caused three of the jets to lose cabin pressure and explode in mid-flight. The success of the 707, meanwhile, transformed Boeing. Before the “jet age” the company had less than 1 percent of the market share, and now it is one of the leading manufacturers in the world. As Verhovek points out, the president of the United States flies on a Boeing jet.


—T. Rees-Shapiro shapirot@washpost.com


HISTORYREVIEWBYROSEMARIEZAGARRI The people take a chance on a new form of government


he preamble to theU.S. Consti- tution, which asserts “the peo- ple’s” right to establish a “more perfect union,” is more often invoked than understood. It


was the states, not the people of the states, that were represented under the Articles of Confederation.The state legis- latures had been the agents for appoint- ing delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Yet the Phil- adelphia convention decreed that it should be the people acting through state ratifying conventions, not the state legis- latures, who should decide whether or not to accept the proposed new govern- ment. In this sense, theU.S. Constitution represented a wholly original form of government in which ultimate authority rested with the people rather than with the states. Pauline Maier, the William R. Kenan


Jr. professor of American history at M.I.T. and one of the nation’s foremost scholars of the American Revolution, explores howthe process of ratification worked in each of the 13 states. In doing so, she transforms our understanding of what representative government means. Eschewing a traditional focus on great


men and their political ideas, Maier investigates the complex route to ratifi- cation in each state. After receiving the Philadelphia Convention’s proposal for a new Constitution, the Confederation Congress, in accordance with procedures described in the document itself, recom- mended that the people (meaning white, male property holders) in each of the 13 states hold elections for delegates to state


ratifying conventions. (Always contrari- an, Rhode Island held a referendum instead.) Again according to the docu- ment itself, it would take ratification by nine states for the Constitution to go into effect. Representatives ran on a platform of support for or opposition to the docu- ment.What was at stake was nothing less than this: Did ordinary people believe that an entirely new system of govern- ment, never tried before in history, was the best means of ensuring the country’s future—or was it a too-risky experiment that they dared not accept? Far from the apathy that too often


characterizes politics today, interest in the Constitution in 1787-89 was wide- spread. In print and at public meetings, would-be delegates to the state ratifying conventions waxed eloquent about the document’s meaning. According to Mai- er, popular sentiment at the time resem- bled the present-day American “obses- sion with the final games of the World Series, but with greater intensity because everyone understood that the results would last for more than a season.” In each state, newspapers scrambled to publish articles on the Constitution and sometimes faced public disapproval for publishing unpopular views. People de- bated the document’s meaning in tav- erns, on street corners and at polling places, where they sometimes came to blows. At the state conventions, dele- gates dissected the Constitution clause by clause while citizens crammedspecta- tor galleries to witness the proceedings. The outcome of the process, Maier emphasizes, was far from certain. Many


people needed to be convinced that the proposed system offered the best solu- tion to the country’s problems. The pre- cise issues differed from place to place, often influenced by local circumstances. In some states, opponents of the Consti- tution most feared the newgovernment’s power to tax people directly; in others, its power to create standing armies. Still others opposed the protection of slavery or argued that slavery was not protected enough. For many, however, the biggest stumbling block was the lack of a bill of rights. Although the Constitution gave the national governmentmany newpow- ers and significantly strengthened feder- al authority, it did not contain protec- tions for individual rights and liberties. This was a troubling problem. Drawing on the newly completed, multi-volume “Documentary History of theRatification of theConstitution,”Mai- ershowsin grippingdetailhowaseries of key compromises at the state conven- tions kept the ratification process on track. In Massachusetts, for example, opponents of the Constitution agreed to ratify the document without imposing conditions or requiring amendments af- ter its supporters promised that amend- ments would be added as soon as the new government went into operation. With this issue resolved, supporters secured just enough votes to win approval, with 187 delegates in favor, 168 against and nine absent. Despite such compromises, when the new government went into operation inMarch 1789, North Carolina and Rhode Island still remained outside the union.


delegates in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania promoted an alternative process of amendment, advocating the calling of a second Constitutional Con- vention. Only Congress’s timely submis- sion of amendments to the states pre- vented the second-convention move- ment from gaining momentum. Despite their defeat, former oppo-


RATIFICATION The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 By Pauline Maier Simon & Schuster 589 pp. $30


nents of the Constitution quickly recon- ciled themselves to the new system. However disgruntled they might have been, unlike political losers in many other times and places, they did not resort to arms or call for secession. In fact, many former anti-federalists chose to run for Congress. In contrast to historians who see the


Maier also highlights other unexpect-


ed twists and turns in the ratification process. Initially, for example, James Madison and many other Federalists regarded the notion of amendments to secure individual liberties as unneces- sary and superfluous. Critics of the Con- stitution, however, helped persuade Madison that such amendments would go a long way toward alleviating popular reservations about the proposed govern- ment and, not coincidentally, would pre- clude more substantial changes that might weaken the central government’s authority. At the same time, certain


ratification of the Constitution as a result of elites’ manipulation of the masses, Maier tells a far more suspenseful and complex story.Her superb work provides an object lesson in the value of the deliberative process and the extent to which moderation and compromise are at the very foundation of our govern- ment. As Maier convincingly shows, the Constitution’s preamble did not simply represent a rhetorical flourish or an abstract philosophical theory. It was the very means by which “we the people” chose toembrace a peaceful revolution in government.


bookworld@washpost.com


Rosemarie Zagarri is a professor of history at George Mason University and the author, most recently, of “Revolutionary Backlash: Women and Politics in the Early American Republic.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156