Two of Obama's claims from the SOTU:
We invented solar technology, but we've fallen behind countries like Germany and Japan in producing it.
and
I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.
After a period of prolonged study and meditation (ie, I consulted Wikipedia for 45 minutes after the speech), I have concluded that these claims are questionable at best and false at worst. Not quite sixteen words, we-invaded-Iraq-on-the-strength-of-this-information false. But probably false. Here is my evidence:
An English scientist by the name of Willoughby Smith first discovered that selenium was photoconductive, and a French scientist named Alexandre-Edmond Becquerel discovered the photovoltaic effect. That was the basis of "solar technology." That, and the English Chemist Edward Weston apparently holds the first American patent for a solar cell.
The history of automobiles is more complicated, but Wikipedia has the rundown here. In a nutshell: The British, French and Russians (!) had all developed some form of steam-powered automobile in the 18th century. (The British were apparently doing pretty well until something called the Locomotive Act of 1865 came along: It required that any motorized vehicle be preceded by a man waving a red flag. Talk about stifling innovation.) Anyway, here's the kicker: "It is generally acknowledged the first automobiles with gasoline-powered internal combustion engines were completed almost simultaneously by several German inventors working independently." German inventors, it must be observed, are not American.
So who cares? Well, I'm a little bit irked by Obama's claim for two reasons. First, it's gratuitous, unappealing boosterism. Yes, America is great and its people are highly inventive. God bless America! But it just happens to be true that, in the case of solar technology and the automobile, the Europeans got there first. Claiming otherwise is both desperate and unnecessary, like copying homework in kindergarten. We should learn to settle for the atom bomb.
Second, as an argument for why we should we should continue to support certain technologies, Obama's point is laughable. The value of technical innovation isn't nationally contingent. In fact, one of the best things about technical innovation is that it's so easy to steal: a great invention in Luxembourg is still a great invention in Cleveland. We should be investing in the technologies that are most useful or with which we have the most comparative advantage, not the ones that happen to come out Cleveland. Even if Cleveland is a great city with highly inventive people.
I would posit that one of the problems with our national economy today is the failure of manufacturing to move on. I agree that much of the blame goes to management in the manufacturing industry...but also to blame are the rank and file by way of the unions that have often hindered advancement in order to protect jobs for their members.
Perhaps Obama's call for everyone to take at least a year of post-secondary education will provide a spring board for those who are in the manufacturing sector to expand their skills for a new economy.
The modern silicon-based photovoltaic cell was invented in America (in Bell labs).
The President should not make this type of error in his speech. He should give a correction to his statements.
We can use modern technology even if it does not begin in this country. We need to look at programs in other countries to save our research dollars and use the most effecient programs available.
On the topic of the Atomic bomb we need to look a little at the history of it and see that Nazi Germany was working towards the bomb when Albert Einstein made the decision that the technology should be moved to the United States. The work was started by German immigrants to our country so I'm not sure we can even take 100% credit for the Atomic bomb. http://inventors.about.com/od/astartinventions/a/atomic_bomb.htm
The problem with our manufacturing industries is that they are run by lawyers and beancounters. It all started when the real estate folk took over the railroads and ran them into the ground. One industry after another has been taken over by people who think they contain assets more valuable than their original expertise.
The Boston Globe had a column today about a 73-year-old man who is suffering because he has had to close his furniture store. He LOVED being a furniture retailer. It's all he ever wanted to do. It used to be that was true of the folks who ran our manufacturing, too. The auto firms were run by "car guys", not bankers. The "car guys" wanted to build better cars, not just stuff on which they could make profitable loans.
It's sad.
I think the bigger problem is that the logic is completely faulty. England invented textile production -- does that mean that England should re-focus on textile production?
Whether the US has a comparative advantage in something is (almost) completely unrelated to whether they invented it as well.
Whether or not we support the production of solar technology will depend on its benefits to society (i.e. reduced pollution). If some magic technology appears from abroad that provides the same benefits for fewer costs, then we should be dropping solar like a hot potato.
Whether or not we bailout the auto industry depends on costs of the bailout versus the costs from all the laid-off autoworkers and the effects up the supply chain. If we could ensure that such workers were transitioned and the supply chain would adjust, then we should drop the auto industry.
National pride on these issues just makes the hard choices harder.
Cyd, there might be some technical, angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin way in which American invented some version of the automobile or some version of solar technology. But I still think (1) it's a unappealing to claim so, since it's not cut-and-dried and there are plenty of other things to celebrate; and (2) it's a really bad argument for why we should support a particular industry.
For a very smart guy, Marc, you completly missed the point (or maybe you were tired). Like it or not, these speeches are a big show packed with plenty of boosterism & I, for one, loved the way Obama's speech's practical patroitism was woven into his speech, namely now is not the time for Americans to quit (Obama's "fear itself" moment)
While Cyd is right about solar cells & being from Detroit I could make a case America inveted car culture if not the actual car, but that also misses the point & the point is, Obama used a (admittedly dubious) example to claim American industry "quit" innovating at a critical time & things need to change.
Here's the proof--the line that immediately follows the section that offended you & just a few examples of Obama's "America does not quit" theme:
"Well I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders - and I know you don't either. It is time for America to lead again. ...
"And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country - and this country needs and values the talents of every American. ...
We are not quitters.
"These words and these stories tell us something about the spirit of the people who sent us here. They tell us that even in the most trying times, amid the most difficult circumstances, there is a generosity, a resilience, a decency, and a determination that perseveres; a willingness to take responsibility for our future and for posterity..."
I am all for a spirit of optimism and perseverance and not-quitter-ism. And I thought Obama gave a good speech. But I also find these disingenuous and unnecessary paeans to nationalism to be rather off-putting. Nothing mutually exclusive about that!
Not "some version" of solar technology---solar technology *as we know it today*. The criteria for assigning credit for technical inventions must of course be "technical"---how else would you do it? The various 19th and early 20th century versions of the solar cell were essentially scientific curiosities, whereas the modern photovoltaic cell, invented at Bell Labs, had clear technological implications and is essentially identical to the photovoltaics in use today.
Here's a very closely related example: credit for the invention of the transistor is universally given to Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley, who discovered the modern version of the transistor at Bell Labs in the late 1940s (and later won the 1956 Nobel physics prize). However, there is a history of various field-effect-transistor-like devices dating back to the 1920s. The reason for giving the credit to Bardeen et. al., rather than their predecessors, is that they invented something that was actually useful. What they invented is essentially the same device (albeit in microminiaturized form) that powers the computer you're reading this on.
Cyd, how would you characterize the following general claim: "We invented solar technology." Is it (a) obviously true; (b) obviously false; or (c) questionable?
It seems obvious to me that it's questionable. Are you saying it's obviously true?
Actually Conor, your fact-checking skills need work. Or perhaps your idea of who "invented" something is a bit too limited. Saying that the folks who discovered the photovoltaic effect are the inventors of solar technology is like saying the Wright Brothers invented the jet plane.
According to Wikipedia, Charles Fritts (an American) invented the first working solar cell in 1884.
Russell Ohl (also American) first patented the modern solar cell.
And in 1954, three American researchers (Gerald Pearson, Calvin Fuller and Daryl Chapin) built the first efficient silicon solar cells.
As far as the automobile, there is some dispute over what counts as the "first" car. According to Wikipedia, George B. Selden created a one-cylinder, 400-pound automobile in 1878, eight years before Benz in Germany. Due to delays, his patent wasn't granted until 1895. The internal combustion engine was invented by George Brayton (an American) in 1872.
So yes, Obama has enough facts to back up his claims.
Btw, fwiw, the second general claim -- "we invented the automobile" -- strikes me as obviously false. Does anyone disagree with that?
Thanks for the comments!
I will try this again. It seems to me that:
(1) The very best you can say for Obama's two claims is that they're true only under limited definitions of "invent," "automobile," and "solar technology." So, saying they're true requires some linguistic torturing.
(2) If that's true, why bother saying it? Seems like gratuitous rah-rahing for America. Why not praise America for things that are obviously and generally true?
(3) And anyway, it's a terrible argument for supporting a particular industry. Who cares if we happened to invent something?
My sense is that some commenters are getting hung up on (1) and not addressing (2) and (3). I am happy to talk about hang-ups on (1), but it would also be fun to debate (2) and (3). (At least for me.)
Marc, you're reaching.
Discovering a fact or a principle does not mean that you developed solar technology.
Like exitenz said, everyone wants credit for the automobile.
Stop trying to be a Debbie Downer.
You even made reference to "sixteen words". You're banned for 24 hours.
Actually, it would be like saying that Daniel Bernoulli, who elucidated the aerofoil principle in 1738, invented airplanes. (I suppose Conor Clarke could dispute the Wright brothers' priority along these lines...)
I can't comment on automobiles. Speaking as someone who works in solid-state physics, the statement that solar technology was invented in America seems pretty uncontroversial. It's actually disputing this statement that requires torturous arguments.
Conor is mistaken if he believes identifying the inventor is clear cut. We all agree the Wright brothers invented the airplane. But I was taught in law school that the patent office said, gliders have already been invented, internal combustion engines have already been invented, and putting them together was obvious. Ergo, no invention. Eventually, they received a patent on the design of the flaps on the wings. Same thing with Edison and the electric light. His contribution was a more efficient filament. With respect to automobiles, Ransom Olds and Henry Ford pioneered the mass production techniques that made the automobile practical as something widely available. This created the demand for roads and gave birth to the myriad industries necessary to support an automotive culture. Conor is right that science prides itself on being trans-national. But Obama is right that America is justly proud of its tradition of technical inventiveness, and that we need to be inspired to get up off the mat and keep on keepin' on.
Error alert: after the phrase "here is my evidence:" in the above post, you have the same couple of paragraphs repeated twice - it's 23 lines from "An English scientist by the name of Willoughby Smith first discovered...." to "Even if Cleveland is a great city with highly inventive people."
I'm glad you're on the lookout for excessive and unnecessary boosterism, and you're probably right about the automobile, but I agree with commenters who pointed out that discovering the photovoltaic effect isn't the same as inventing a working solar cell. Now, if that American patent held by the Englishman Edward Weston was issued for something invented overseas, or if there was a foreign patent filed first, then you would have a point.
Certainly, Americans did not invent the automobile, and the speech could have been clearer on that point. But Obama's larger point, I think is that it was Americans who first successfully mass-produced and mass-marketed automobiles--which is perhaps an even more significant (even if somewhat different in nature) achievement. Try looking up some information on Henry Ford, and you'll see what I mean. So, to be historically accurate, Obama could have said something along the lines of: "we were the first nation to mass-produce cars for the average consumer."
Pretty ironic that the guy whom the right was (is?) convinced is an America-hating pal of terrorists is getting slammed for being overly boosterish about American greatness.
Conor, I get your point. But imagine Obama saying "America! We know how to make out like a bandit using other countries good ideas, mass producing them to they sky, marketing them like wizards, laughing all the way to bank! God bless America! Woot!"
The logic behind this kind of talk is that we need more education, so that we can invent more original things. We don't. America has (and most likely will continue to have) a solid lock on fast talking opportunists, none of whom need to be inventors- innovating is one thing, profiting is another.
What Arthur said. Besides, if you didn't already know the answers to these issues, you should spend less time watching speeches on TV and more time reading. Also, if you had to spend more than 3 minutes researching these questions, you should work on your research skills. Finally, you missed the forest in your rush to count leaves. I'm suspecting nuanced conversation is challenging for you...
Cyd and others exemplify the boosterism Marc decries in Obama. Have some more Kool-Aid?
I, for one, don't watch SOTUs precisely for that reason.
I also don't vote for the left-hand side of the two-party duopoly (let alone the right-hand side) for that among many other reasons. It's why Obama's BS "we don't torture" line is more vacuous boosterism.
Arthur, mass production in general (as you try to shift tables), isn't necessarily an American invention, and it has a long pedigree of many steps.
Marc, that all said, you commit another error on solar power. Weston moved to America in 1870, at the age of 20. I believe we'd call him an American inventor.
I agree with you on the auto, and I think other ppl here who try to spin that one are all wet.
That said, though, given that we beat the hell out of Muhammad Binyam just before releasing him from Gitmo to the UK, makes Obama's boosterish "we don't torture" like the elephant in the corner.
Talk about that, OK?
Hi, thanks again for the comments. A couple of quick things that occur to me:
1. Marc Ambinder did not write this post. I did. I don't know whether some RSS readers are feeding in the wrong byline -- there have been some problems with that. But whatever the case, Marc Ambinder is a different person, and I wouldn't want him to live with the burden of being imputed to hold my views.
2. @cyd, I confess that I don't work in solid-state physics. I further confess that I would struggle do give you a definition of solid-state physics. So of course I must defer to your expertise on the particulars. But if you're saying it's obviously true that the claim "America invented solar technology" doesn't rely on particular definitions of "America," "invented," and "solar technology," then I think we will have to agree to disagree.
3. @ Weber, seems like it would be ironic only if I had suggested earlier or elsewhere that Obama was not American enough. To the best of my knowledge I haven't suggested that.
4. @kamajii, I have no idea what point you were trying to make. I certainly feel that I've tried to be nuanced in responding to these comments. On the other hand, I'm not sure that insulting me is particularly nuanced. But we can agree to disagree on that too.
5. The point of the post was not (primarily) historical. It was emotional and logical. First, I think these claims are a form of nationalistic boosterism that I find unappealing. Second, I think that such historical claims bear no logical relation to whether we should support certain industries. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with that second point.
Thanks again,
Conor
Hi Conor,
Speaking to point 5. I appreciate your discomfort with Obama’s speech stroking nationalistic pride, but cut him a little slack. First, the automobile flub is obviously a fact checker issue (not that Obama doesn’t rightly take the heat, but it’s decidedly low flame). And, anyway, who can argue that the United States defined the automobile? (Well, probably a lot of people.)
Second, Nationalism is tricky and dangerous, obviously. Europe in the 1930s, particularly Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain, and even Great Britain turned darkly xenophobic and fascist during the last worldwide depression. And it’s not hard to appreciate the parallels between then and now. But I think Obama understands the nescient social dangers of an economic collapse. He’s a student of history (not a master, I’ll grant). Let me suggest that not only does his nod to the prideful “Made in the USA” cohort intend to bring them into economic recovery game plan, but the rhetoric you detest is meant to turn them, I think, toward their better angles rather then their worse. It seems inevitable that a populist anger will be mixed into our country's economic healing process, particularly in the South. Who do you want controlling that national discussion, Obama or hotheaded social conservatives blindly whipping up any discontent that brings them power?
Perhaps Obama’s logic here is to head off the extreme nationalism that leads to xenophobia that leads jingoism that leads to, well, you know what that leads to.
Oh, and obvious;y Great Britain didn't turn fascist, but there was a "Brown Shirt" element of it during the 1930s. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Woefully missing from this whole discussion is America's contribution to the automobile industry: Henry Ford and mass production. Obama obviously wasn't making that point but the point need be made nonetheless.