Archive for the 'History Regurgitates Forward' Category

They could’ve been contenders

Wednesday, September 8th, 2004

It’s kind of silly to think, but just about every presidential nominee for the opposing major party was seriously given a shot to win the thing.

It’s bizarre to think about, but moving into the 1936 election, this was what the “chattering classes” were working with:

The Literary Digest poll indicated that the majority of the people were opposed to the New Deal. The National Association of Manufacturers, the national Chamber of Commerce, and that supposedly influential association of the wealthy, the American Liberty League, stood opposed to the admiriistration. According to a Du Pont Company statistician, the President’s family life was considered offensive by large numbers of Americans, as was the sharpness and” amorality” of his advisers; the New Deal waemployed had not received jobs despite Roosevelt’s promises. Moreover, the statistician said, women did not like the abandonment of prohibition without safeguards for the young, and the majority of adults were beginning to tire of Roosevelt’s affected voice and manners.

And, of course, the nation’s most respected pollster predicted that Al Landon would defeat Franklin Roosevelt handily. As it turns out, Al Landon did in fact win big amongst that sector in the population who owned phones or automobiles, which was was where the Literary Digest got their registery of voters from.

Here the geniuses are, reporting their poll results.

Literary Digest went out of the polling business after that. Gallup, which managed to predict that Roosevelt would win — though their results still look absurdly pro-Landon — became the new most respected polling outfit.

Twelve year later, Gallup would botch the Harry Truman – Thomas Dewey result. They quit polling two weeks before the election. Harry Truman’s entire campaign was uphill in the polls, so they just failed to notice the late Harry Truman surge, and assumed from their very first poll result between Truman and Dewey that the election would end that way.

The publisher of Literary Digest would laugh at Gallup, because it was the only opportunity he had to laugh.

Abraham Lincoln was never a sure bet in his re-election bid — in his nomination or in the actual election. Franklin D. Roosevelt was not a sure bet against Thomas Dewey in 1944.

Those are the classic examples of “not jumping horses in mid-stream”, something that Americans have a proud history of doing. (wait a minute and it’ll jump you to the right entry… July 30th.)

Some polling snapshots shown here.

Carter was ahead of Reagan on Labor Day, though the fact that he was pretty far below the “50” threshold fortells his doomed situation. But, the editorials all reported a close race. The candidates who came closest to “pulling a Truman”: Gerald Ford and Hubert Humphrey… 12 and 11 points down, probably the paper trail from those campaigns held those campaigns to be doomed. The two candidates who tried to claim that mantle, but looked ridiculous doing so: George Bush and Bob Dole… theoretically, if a couple of things had gone right for those candidates, one of them might have won. (In Bush I’s case, things went right for him in 1988: he faced Michael Dukakis!)

McGovern, Mondale, Goldwater, and Dole (though Dole was in at least a position to be humoured) never really had a chance. Perhaps a better candidate would have pulled something off a more respectable showing. For example, it’s a testamont to the pure cynicism of the Democratic Party Hierarchy that they pulled Mondale to victory over Gary Hart in the nomination battle… Gary Hart would’ve still lost, but it would at least have not been so goddamned embarrassing… a candidate that doesn’t even have the noble purpose of Goldwater and McGovern facing their same electoral fate… which is something of a double whammy.

History’s Mysteries

Monday, September 6th, 2004

#1: Arnold Schwarzenegger.

When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes. I remember the fear we had when we had to cross into the Soviet sector. Growing up, we were told, “Don’t look the soldiers in the eye. Look straight ahead.” It was a common belief that Soviet soldiers could take a man out of his own car and ship him off to the Soviet Union as slave labor.

My family didn’t have a car — but one day we were in my uncle’s car. It was near dark as we came to a Soviet checkpoint. I was a little boy, I wasn’t an action hero back then, and I remember how scared I was that the soldiers would pull my father or my uncle out of the car, and I’d never see him again. My family and so many others lived in fear of the Soviet boot. Today, the world no longer fears the Soviet Union and it is because of the United States of America!

This entire story is a lie.

Schwarzenegger, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born on July 30, 1947, when Styria and the neighboring province of Carinthia belonged to the British zone. At the time, postwar Austria was occupied by the four wartime allies, which also included the United States, the Soviet Union and France.

The Soviets already had left Styria in July 1945, less than three months after the end of the war, Karner noted.

The defense?

“Never in there did the governor reference that the tanks were where he grew up. It was a reference to visiting Soviet-occupied Austria,” she said.

When the Schwarzennagers made their cross-country roadtrips once a year?

Sayseth Schwarzennager:As a kid I saw the socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left. I love Austria and I love the Austrian people – but I always knew America was the place for me.

Yep. That’s a lie. But Martin Polaschek, a law history scholar and vice rector of Graz University, told Kurier that Austria was governed by coalition governments, including the conservative People’s Party and the Social Democratic Party. Between 1945 and 1970, all the nation’s chancellors were conservatives — not Socialists.

What’s more, when Schwarzenegger left in 1968, Austria was run by a conservative government headed by People’s Party Chancellor Josef Klaus, a staunch Roman Catholic and a sharp critic of both the Socialists and the Communists ruling in countries across the Iron Curtain.

No “third way” politics there.

More from the Governor that Enron Built: I finally arrived here in 1968.I had empty pockets, but I was full of dreams. The presidential campaign was in full swing. I remember watching the Nixon and Humphrey presidential race on TV. A friend who spoke German and English, translated for me. I heard Humphrey saying things that sounded like socialism which is what I had just left. But then I heard Nixon speak. He was talking about free enterprise, getting government off your back, lowering taxes, and strengthening the military. Listening to Nixon speak sounded more like a breath of fresh air.

Apparently, in the California Governor campaign he made explicit what he’s learned to make implicit here: that he was watching a presidential debate between Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon. There were no debates between Nixon and Humphrey; Nixon nixed them because they’d damper his uber-safe strategy. (As an aside, it’s interesting to note that Hubert Humphrey very nearly “pulled a Truman” — even with the same circumstance Truman had of having two wings of his party deserting him… had he had one more week, he probably would have pulled it off.) But, the networks did air half hour question and answer sessions with each of them, so it’s possible to give this Austrian some leeway here. But, a correction has altered his storyline subtley.

Except for the fact that… Schwarzenegger did not leave a Socialist country. Perhaps Austria had nationalized medical care like most industrialized countries do… but …

#2: Zell Miller

In 1940 Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their “private plans” than this good man.

He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between “here lies a president” or “here lies one who contributed to saving freedom”, he would prefer the latter.

It’s a little ironic that Zell Miller picks out Wendell Willkie as the Republican hero … Wendell Willkie was the very epitmoe of a political party picking out a candidate for pragmatic reasons, to paraphrase Howard Dean “Democratic Lite”.

The situation is described here, and I quibble with just one piece of it.

My quibble would be merely to point out that Wendell Willkie himself was actually a Democrat right up until he started seeking the Republican nomination… so it’s even worse than a matter of pre-aligned politics of selecting a member of the Liberal wing of the party… the Republicans were in such desparate shape that they essentially nominated a Democrat. But the point stands…

The point, at any rate, is that it’s very easy to put party aside for the sake of national unity when — like Willkie in 1940 or Miller in 2004 — you don’t actually disagree with the other party’s agenda.

Other than that, I tend to view John McCain’s recent comments about Vietnam rearing its ugly head in the election as another example of the powers that be trying to defeat “Vietnam Syndrome”. “Vietnam Syndrome”, you see, is an ugly eclipse that blocks the sunny disposition that comes with “WWII Syndrome”… we end up ignoring the lessons of one of them, and not taking heed of lessons from both of them.

#3: George W Bush

America has done this kind of work before and there have always been doubters. In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to allied forces, a journalist wrote in the New York Times, “Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. [European] capitals are frightened. In every [military] headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed.” End quote. Maybe that same person’s still around, writing editorials. Fortunately, we had a resolute president named Truman, who with the American people persevered, knowing that a new democracy at the center of Europe would lead to stability and peace. And because that generation of Americans held firm in the cause of liberty, we live in a better and safer world today.

Interesting. Apparently Bush ripped the paragraphs out of context.

The president distorted the columnist’s dispatch. (download a PDF of the original column)The “moral crisis” and failure she described were in the British and French sectors. She reported that the Americans were doing better because of their policy to “encourage initiative and develop self-government.” She wanted the U.S. to commit more troops and stay the course – not cut and run.

Also notice the date. 1946. The Marshall Plan had yet to be proposed.

Added to the beuracratic struggle facing Europe at the time and Iraq now, not seen in Europe: guerilla fighters…

Other than that, their version of the events leading into Iraq tend to blur 9/11 into it, and … I may as well add this to the list:

#4: George Bush sayseth: After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make.

The inspectors were on the ground…

In A Time of War

Saturday, September 4th, 2004

I started to piece together a modest directory of political speeches. I stopped when I couldn’t figure out my point… having no “mission statement” to speak of… it’d end up a scattershot of speeches that inspire me personally (to show how odd I am: I find Jimmy Carter’s political-suicide address “A Question of Confidence” inspiring), some historically fascinating addresses (Malcolm X), and some “WTF” speeches of demogaugory (Buchanan and Zell). No unification, thus… not worthy of an effort.

Looking through the American Rhetoric page — found on my sidebar under “Keepers of the File”*, the “Rhetoric of 9/11” page pops out at me. The speeches have the twilight-quality to them — a dual nature of being both faded and starkly driven into my memory. Do I dare read the speech he gave before the Joint-Congress? I guess Bush’s “finest moment” — the bullhorn speech — wasn’t formal enough to be included. Otherwise… yep! There it is! The 1 year anniversary speech at Ellis Island, stagecrafted agitprop to propell us into Iraq… as infuriating now as it was then.

Here’s Barbara Lee‘s speech upon providing the lone dissenting vote for authorizing force against Afghanistan. Yes, I would’ve voted yes, but I can’t say that much of what she said didn’t bounce through my mind at the time. I’d be curious to see some of the words behind a handful of the yes votes — the less jingoistic ones who could keep a general sense of perspective and a realization that how we proceed must be measured a wee bit more carefully. Ron Paul, I’m looking in your direction.

It then pops into my mind that someone online must have whatever words Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin entered into the Congressional Record upon giving her “no” vote to the Declaration of War for World War II. A google search yields nothing. I see a mention that a copy of the Congressional Record is on display at the Jeanette Rankin Library — which, I must say, I would hope would be the case.

Other than that, there’s this:

Among the NBC Memovox recordings of December 8th, is the beginning of a commentary by Earl Godwin at approximately 1:41pm Eastern time 12/8/41 (I think it was on Red), who begins ranting against Jeanette Rankin, saying “The fact that Jeanette Rankin, who would just as soon see the Japanese sweep over the country and kill everyone on the street…” . He was cut off at that point, with the network switching back to the House, ostensibly for a news bulletin concerning the vote on the war resolution which had just been completed. I wonder if cutting him off was a coincidence or did he go too far, in the network’s eyes?

And I see some reference to her being shouted down in the House, and her vote — either by her choosing or by the choosing of the Keepers of the Record — recording her vote as “present” and not “no.”

And I find the oh-so-endearing term “congresscreature” being used to describe Lee and Rankin… I don’t know if this is expanded to include all women.

Other than that, I find confusing accounts — a suggestion that she voted no not so much because she was opposed so much as to expressly remind the inherent cost of war. Or that she voted out of stupidity, someone claiming she said that she didn’t know if Japan striked Pearl Harbor. Or, the somewhat more cryptic When it came her turn to vote in 1941 she replied “God Bless America!” This was recorded as “Present” in the Congressional Record. And I find the quotation “You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.” And I find some reference to the “Jeanette Rankin Brigade” as being a “Communist front group” during the 60s… which may or may not be the case, as seemingly everyone not establishment politician was called a communist in those days (as opposed to the fifties when establishment politicians were called communists as well), but then again… a quarter-decent number were indeed communists.

Ah well. It’s mostly a blight of curiosity. Maybe it’s online somewhere, deep in the bowels of cyberspace. Or maybe it’s not.

…..
*If anyone knows of a website that keeps the transcripts of all of the Nixon tapes that find its way into the news every so often — let me know.

Alfred Smith: “Betrayal of the Democratic Party”

Thursday, September 2nd, 2004

January 25, 1936 […]

Further than that I have no axe to grind. There is nothing personal in this whole performance so far as I am concerned. I have no feeling against any man, woman or child in the United States. I was born in the Democratic party and I expect to die in it. […]

It is not easy for me to stand up here tonight and talk to the American people against the Democratic Administration. This is not easy. It hurts me. But I can call upon innumerable witnesses to testify to the fact that during my whole public life I put patriotism above partisanship. And when I see danger, I say danger, that is the “Stop, look, and listen” to the fundamental principles upon which this Government of ours was organized, it is difficult for me to refrain from speaking up.

What are these dangers that I see? The first is the arraignment of class against class. It has been freely predicted that if we were ever to have civil strife again in this country, it would come from the appeal to passion and prejudices that comes from the demagogues that would incite one class of our people against the other.

In my time I have met some good and bad industrialists. I have met some good and bad financiers, but I have also met some good and bad laborers, and this I know, that permanent prosperity is dependent upon both capital and labor alike.

And I also know that there can be no permanent prosperity in this country until industry is able to employ labor, and there certainly can be no permanent recovery upon any governmental theory of “soak the rich” or “soak the poor.” .[…]

Millions and millions of Democrats just like myself, all over the country, still believe in that platform. And what we want to know is why it wasn’t carried out. […]

My friends, these are what we call fighting words. At the time that that platform went through the air and over the wire, the people of the United States were in the lowest possible depths of despair, and the Democratic platform looked to them like the star of hope; it looked like the rising sun in the East to the mariner on the bridge of a ship after a terrible night.

But what happened to it?[…]

As a young man in the Democratic Party, I witnessed the rise and fall of Bryan and Bryanism, and I know exactly what Bryan did to our party. I knew how long it took to build it after he got finished with it. But let me say this to the everlasting credit of Bryan and the men that followed him, they had the nerve and the courage and honesty to put into the platform just what their leaders stood for. And they further put the American people into a position of making an intelligent choice when they went to the polls.

Why, the fact of this whole thing is — I speak now not only of the executive but of the legislature at the same time — that they promised one set of things; they repudiated that promise, and they launched off on a program of action totally different.

Well, in 25 years of experience I have known both parties to fail to carry out some of the planks in their platform. But this is the first time that I have known a party, upon such a huge scale, not only not to carry out the plank, but to do the directly opposite thing to what they promised. […]

Sixth: I suggest that from this moment they resolve to make the Constitution the Civil Bible of the United States, and pay it the same civil respect and reverence that they would religiously pay the Holy Scripture, and I ask them to read from the Holy Scripture the Parable of the Prodigal Son and to follow his example.

Stop! Stop wasting your substance in a foreign land, and come back to your Father’s house.

Now, in conclusion let me give this solemn warning. There can be only one Capitol, Washington or Moscow!

There can be only one atmosphere of government, tl1e clear, pure, fresh air of free America, or the foul breath of Communistic Russia.

There can be only one flag, the Stars and Stripes, or the Red Flag of the Godless Union of the Soviet.

There can be only one National Anthem. The Star Spangled Banner or the Internationale.

There can be only one victor. If the Constitution wins, we win. But if the Constitution — stop. Stop there. The Constitution can’t lose! The fact is, it has already won, but the news has not reached certain ears.

Ike: How Quaint

Tuesday, August 31st, 2004

May 31, 1956

President’s Liking for Office Growing […]

Summarizing his politial experience three years after he returned from Paris to seek the Republican Presidential nomination, the President told reporters at his seventieth news conference that he “still didn’t like politics” — in the derogatory sense of the term — but that working with and influencing people in the cause of world peace was “a fascinating business.”

“It is the kind of thing,” he added, working up enthusiasm for the subject, “that would engage the interest, intense interest, of any man alive.”

He continued:

“There are in this office thousands of unique opportunities to meet especially interesting people because the Government here in Washington has become the center of so many things that, again, you have a very fascinating experience in meeting scientists, people that are leaders in culture, in health, in governmental action, and from all over the world.

“There are many things about the office and the work, the work with your associates that are, well, let’s say, at least intriguing, even if at times they are very fatiguing. But they are — it is a wonderful experience.”

Shrillness

Tuesday, August 31st, 2004

October 5, 1972

Striking back after weeks of silence, President Nixon dismissed with calculated contempt today Senator George McGovern’s charge that the administration was the most corrupt and deceitful in history.

Mr. Nixon, who appeared before a news conference in his Oval Office this morning, addressed the corruption issue in measured and at times almost inaudible tones that seemed deliberately designed to contrast with what he suggested was the shrill and irrespsonsible campaign tactics of his opponent.

“I think the responsible members of the Democratic party will be turned off by this kind of campaigning.” he said, “and I would suggest that responsible members of the press, following the single standard to which they are deeply devoted, will also be turned off by it.”

The news conference was Mr. Nixon’s first since Aug. 19, when he met newsmen in California. Whether by coincidence or by design, both news conferences have come on days when Mr. McGovern, the Democratic Presidential nominee, has been making major campaign statements, first on taxes and welfare, and today, on foreign policy.

Roosevelt Era Politics

Friday, August 27th, 2004

April 30, 1932
Around Smith will rally the big Democratic chiefs of plutocracy — the Wall Street crowd, that always finances the various Tammanies of both parties, Republican and Democratic. These plutocratic leaders, for all their plug-hat respectability, are fundamentally responsible for the corruption that stigmatizes civil governments in American towns that pass the million mark.

Roosevelt is not sufficiently liberal to attract and to hold Bryan’s following. As a rabble-rouser he is badly infected with weasel words. He has a charming sense of balance, and when he seems to be going well as a progressive or a liberal he checks himself with a string of “althoughs”, “buts”, “on the other hands”, and “on the conteraries” which takes the heart out of Western liberals.

The West will take Roosevelt in the Democratic Convention not because it loves Roosevelt but because it hates Tammany and distrusts the plutocratic aristocracy in the Old South. So Roosevelt’s Western followers will not be a last-ditch crowd as McAdoo’s was.

The agrarian West is ready for a rabble-rouser. Roosevelt does not fill the bill, but he is the only one in sight. […]

Just now, the West wouble probably vote against the president because it wants to vote against somebody and it isn’t particular about who shall be the object of its wrath. But, given a row in the Democratic Convention, let Smith and his Tammany plutocrats defeat Roosevelt and nominate a reactionary like Ritchie, and the protest vote of the West will be divided. They have two men to vote against, and Hoover may win. He probably will.

June 10, 1936
Hoover Acclaimed in Days of Ovations

Former president Hoover arrived here today to become the center of a series of rousing demonstrations leading up to his speech tonight before the Republican convention. As a result his political stock again was put on a rising market.

Following his attack on the New Deal and, for him, the virtually unprecedented demonstration which came after he called his party members to a “Holy Crusade for freedom”, the California delegation went into session to discuss, among other things, the possibility of placing Mr. Hoover’s name before the convention for the Presidential nomination. […]

Chairman Snell tried to aquiet the crowd but could not be heard. The former President stood out on the platform, making no attempt for the moment to stop a demonstration far greater than that accorded him in the same hall when he appeared here in October, 1932, as a candidate for re-election. […]

AMr Snell finally appealed to Mr. Hoover. The former President walked to the lectern and held up his hand for silence, but the crowd would not stop even then for several minutes. It did not understand that radio time was flying fast. […]

Soon after he arrived supporters in his own delegation from Clifornia raised the new slogan: “Hoover or his choice.”

June 18, 1940
As in a wartime “blackout” started by air raid sirens supporters of most of the Republican Presidential candidates groped in some perplexity today as they sought to explain the rapidly growing sentiment in behalf of Wendell L. Willkie and to arrive at a general conclusion that he was “the man to beat” at the convention next week.

Representative Halleck of Indiana, Mr. Willkie’s only spokesman in the vanguard of delegates and campaign managers, was somewhat baffled by the wide sweep of the Willkie talk, but he was about the only one of the official or semi-official campaign chiefs on the ground who was thoroughly enjoying himself.

J Russel Sprague of New York, campaign manager for District Attorney Dewey, reached Philadelphia too late in the day to get at first hand an idea of the number of times the question, “What are you going to do about Willkie?” was being asked.

May 27, 1944
Deep down in the Wllace opposition is a contest for control of the Democratic party organization. Renomination of the Iowan would be an undeniable signal that Franklin D. Roosevelt still hopes to throw the party to its liberal wing, as revived, enlarged, and to a great extent, created during his incumbency, when he steps down from the Presidential chair. […]

The current search for a Vice Presidential candidates in the Democratic party is, frankly, more of a stop-Wallace movement than it is a “start” movement for anyone else. If the political leaders finally center on some one name, it will be more because of the feeling that they can succeed in substituting this particular one in the President’s favor than anything else. […]

They know, for instance, that he has become the symbol of the ultra-New Dealers and CIO labor in their resistance to the recent so-called “rightist” tendencies within the party and the Administration.

June 28, 1944
The change in Administration, Dewey confidently predicted, would bring “an end to one-man government in Washington.”

After Jan 20, Inaguration Day, he said, the Government would have a Cabinet of the “ablest men and women to be found in America” who would receive full delegation of the powers of their office.

He made an appeal time after time to youth – youth to win the war, youth to keep the peace.

No organization of peace can last if it is slipped through by “stealth or trickery”, he said. Making and keeping the peace was “not a task for men who specialize in dividing our people.”

“It is no task to be entrusted to stubborn men, grown old and tired and quarrelsome in office,” he said. “We learned that in 1919.”

FDR

Thursday, August 26th, 2004

I’ve nothing to say on politics. Perhaps the goop I tossed in my eye to cure my pink eye is making a bit too drowsy. And Perhaps the ongoing media obsession with Swift Boat Veterans for Obfuscation has me shrugging and bored… (for a better explanation to the shift to Kerry’s protest phase Mark Evanier says thus.

In lieu of anything else, here’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936, days before the election, at the high-point in his presidency. Perhaps I’ll turn around and see if I can find a Ronald Reagan speech days before the 1984 election, and compare and contrast.

Senator Wagner, Governor Lehman, ladies and gentlemen:

ON THE eve of a national election, it is well for us to stop for a moment and analyze calmly and without prejudice the effect on our Nation of a victory by either of the major political parties.

The problem of the electorate is far deeper, far more v1tauhan the continuance in the Presidency of any individual. For the greater issue goes beyond units of humanity-it goes to humanity itself.

In 1932 the issue was the restoration of American democracy; and the American people were in a mood to win. They did win. In 1936 the issue is the preservation of their victory. Again they are in a mood to win. Again they will win.

More than four years ago in accepting the Democratic nomination in Chicago, I said: “Give me your help not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people.”

The banners of that crusade still fly in the van of a Nation that is on the march.

It is needless to repeat the details of the program which this Administration has been hammering out on the anvils of experience. No amount of misrepresentation or statistical contortion can conceal or blur or smear that record. Neither the attacks of unscrupulous enemies nor the exaggerations of over-zealous friends will serve to mislead the American people.

What was our hope in 1932? Above all other things the American people wanted peace. They wanted peace of mind instead of gnawing fear.

First, they sought escape from the personal terror which had stalked them for three years. They wanted the peace that comes from security in their homes: safety for their savings, permanence in their jobs, a fair profit from their enterprise.

Next, they wanted peace in the community, the peace that springs from the ability to meet the needs of community life: schools, playgrounds, parks, sanitation, highways- those things which are expected of solvent local government. They sought escape from disintegration and bankruptcy in local and state affairs.
They also sought peace within the Nation: protection of their currency, fairer wages, the ending of long hours of toil, the abolition of child labor, the elimination of wild-cat speculation, the safety of their children from kidnappers.

And, finally, they sought peace with other Nations-peace in a world of unrest. The Nation knows that I hate war, and I know that the Nation hates war.

I submit to you a record of peace; and on that record a well-founded expectation for future peace—peace for the individual, peace for the community, peace for the Nation, and peace with the world.

Tonight I call the roll—the roll of honor of those who stood with us in 1932 and still stand with us today.
Written on it are the names of millions who never had a chance—men at starvation wages, women in sweatshops, children at looms.

Written on it are the names of those who despaired, young men and young women for whom opportunity had become a will-o’-the-wisp.

Written on it are the names of farmers whose acres yielded only bitterness, business men whose books were portents of disaster, home owners who were faced with eviction, frugal citizens whose savings were insecure.

Written there in large letters are the names of countless other

Americans of all parties and all faiths, Americans who had eyes to see and hearts to understand, whose consciences were burdened because too many of their fellows were burdened, who looked on these things four years ago and said, “This can be changed. We will change it.”

We still lead that army in 1936. They stood with us then because in 1932 they believed. They stand with us today because in 1 936 they know. And with them stand millions of new recruits who have come to know.
Their hopes have become our record.

We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.
For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

The American people know from a four-year record that today there is only one entrance to the White House—by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket.

Those who used to have pass-keys are not happy. Some of them are desperate. Only desperate men with their backs to the wall would descend so far below the level of decent citizenship as to foster the current pay-envelope campaign against America’s working people. Only reckless men, heedless of consequences, would risk the disruption of the hope for a new peace between worker and employer by returning to the tactics of the labor spy.

Here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.

Every message in a pay envelope, even if it is the truth, is a command to vote according to the will of the employer. But this propaganda is worse—it is deceit.

They tell the worker his wage will be reduced by a contribution to some vague form of old-age insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar of premium he pays for that insurance, the employer pays another dollar. That omission is deceit.

They carefully conceal from him the fact that under the federal law, he receives another insurance policy to help him if he loses his job, and that the premium of that policy is paid 100 percent by the employer and not one cent by the worker. They do not tell him that the insurance policy that is bought for him is far more favorable to him than any policy that any private insurance company could afford to issue. That omission is deceit.

They imply to him that he pays all the cost of both forms of insurance. They carefully conceal from him the fact that for every dollar put up by him his employer puts up three dollars—three for one. And that omission is deceit.

But they are guilty of more than deceit. When they imply that the reserves thus created against both these policies will be stolen by some future Congress, diverted to some wholly foreign purpose, they attack the integrity and honor of American Government itself. Those who suggest that, are already aliens to the spirit of American democracy. Let them emigrate and try their lot under some foreign flag in which they have more confidence.

The fraudulent nature of this attempt is well shown by the record of votes on the passage of the Social Security Act. In addition to an overwhelming majority of Democrats in both Houses, seventy-seven Republican Representatives voted for it and only eighteen against it and fifteen Republican Senators voted for it and only five against it. Where does this last-minute drive of the Republican leadership leave these Republican Representatives and Senators who helped enact this law?

I am sure the vast majority of law-abiding businessmen who are not parties to this propaganda fully appreciate the extent of the threat to honest business contained in this coercion.

I have expressed indignation at this form of campaigning and I am confident that the overwhelming majority of employers, workers and the general public share that indignation and will show it at the polls on Tuesday next.

Aside from this phase of it, I prefer to remember this campaign not as bitter but only as hard-fought. There should be no bitterness or hate where the sole thought is the welfare of the United States of America. No man can occupy the office of President without realizing that he is President of all the people.

It is because I have sought to think in terms of the whole Nation that I am confident that today, just as four years ago, the people want more than promises.

Our vision for the future contains more than promises.

This is our answer to those who, silent about their own plans, ask us to state our objectives.

Of course we will continue to seek to improve working conditions for the workers of America—to reduce hours over-long, to increase wages that spell starvation, to end the labor of children, to wipe out sweatshops. Of course we will continue every effort to end monopoly in business, to support collective bargaining, to stop unfair competition, to abolish dishonorable trade practices. For all these we have only just begun to fight.

Of course we will continue to work for cheaper electricity in the homes and on the farms of America, for better and cheaper transportation, for low interest rates, for sounder home financing, for better banking, for the regulation of security issues, for reciprocal trade among nations, for the wiping out of slums. For all these we have only just begun to fight.

Of course we will continue our efforts in behalf of the farmers of America. With their continued cooperation we will do all in our power to end the piling up of huge surpluses which spelled ruinous prices for their crops. We will persist in successful action for better land use, for reforestation, for the conservation of water all the way from its source to the sea, for drought and flood control, for better marketing facilities for farm commodities, for a definite reduction of farm tenancy, for encouragement of farmer cooperatives, for crop insurance and a stable food supply. For all these we have only just begun to fight.

Of course we will provide useful work for the needy unemployed; we prefer useful work to the pauperism of a dole.

Here and now I want to make myself clear about those who disparage their fellow citizens on the relief rolls. They say that those on relief are not merely jobless—that they are worthless. Their solution for the relief problem is to end relief—to purge the rolls by starvation. To use the language of the stock broker, our needy unemployed would be cared for when, as, and if some fairy godmother should happen on the scene.

You and I will continue to refuse to accept that estimate of our unemployed fellow Americans. Your Government is still on the same side of the street with the Good Samaritan and not with those who pass by on the other side.

Again—what of our objectives?

Of course we will continue our efforts for young men and women so that they may obtain an education and an opportunity to put it to use. Of course we will continue our help for the crippled, for the blind, for the mothers, our insurance for the unemployed, our security for the aged. Of course we will continue to protect the consumer against unnecessary price spreads, against the costs that are added by monopoly and speculation. We will continue our successful efforts to increase his purchasing power and to keep it constant.

For these things, too, and for a multitude of others like them, we have only just begun to fight.

All this—all these objectives—spell peace at home. All our actions, all our ideals, spell also peace with other nations.

Today there is war and rumor of war. We want none of it. But while we guard our shores against threats of war, we will continue to remove the causes of unrest and antagonism at home which might make our people easier victims to those for whom foreign war is profitable. You know well that those who stand to profit by war are not on our side in this campaign.

“Peace on earth, good will toward men”—democracy must cling to that message. For it is my deep conviction that democracy cannot live without that true religion which gives a nation a sense of justice and of moral purpose. Above our political forums, above our market places stand the altars of our faith—altars on which burn the fires of devotion that maintain all that is best in us and all that is best in our Nation.

We have need of that devotion today. It is that which makes it possible for government to persuade those who are mentally prepared to fight each other to go on instead, to work for and to sacrifice for each other. That is why we need to say with the Prophet: “What doth the Lord require of thee—but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.” That is why the recovery we seek, the recovery we are winning, is more than economic. In it are included justice and love and humility, not for ourselves as individuals alone, but for our Nation.

That is the road to peace.

Estes Kefauver

Tuesday, August 17th, 2004

Who is Estes Kefauver? What made him tick? How did he situate himself for a run at the presidency in 1952 and 1956?

Well… We start with 3 factoids gathered at an online encyclopedia:

He led a U.S. Senate committee investigating organized crime in 1950 that brought him national attention.
In 1952 he defeated President Harry S Truman in the New Hampshire Primary, but was eventually defeated for the Presidential nomination by governor of Illinois Adlai E. Stevenson.
Although a Southerner, Kefauver was hated by many his fellow Southerners for his liberal position on civil rights and his independence (the Southern Senators usually voted in a bloc).

And then there’s:

due no doubt in part to Kefauver’s trademark, a coonskin cap which so effectively connected him with the Davy Crockett craze of the 1950’s.

Support for civil rights probably puts him ahead of Adlai Stevenson… and for that matter, John Kennedy for the 1950s — whose 1960 run for the presidency was considered a rightward shift for the Democratic Party — Eleanore Roosevelt spoke out against him at the DNC Convention.

The much heralded committee investigating organized crime (which, apparently, made legendary “The Mob”… without Kefauver there would be no “Sopranos”) set him up to investigate juvenile crime, which set him up to the more obscure (except in certain, more geeky circles) hearings against comic books — and that lead to the publisher of Archie Comics creating this governing body to punish the publisher of EC Comics… (Note that General Standards B 1 bans the name of the latter company’s best selling titles.) Interesting stuff, I say.

Kefauver: This seems to be a man with a bloody ax holding a woman’s head up which has been severed from her body. Do you think that is in good taste?

Gaines: Yes sir; I do, for the cover of a horror comic. A cover in bad taste, for example, might be defined as holding the head a little higher so that the neck could be seen dripping blood from it and moving the body over a little further so that the neck of the body could be seen to be bloody.

Kefauver: You’ve got blood coming out of her mouth.
Gaines: A little.

Kefauver: This is the July one. It seems to be a man with a woman in a boat and he is choking her to death here with a crowbar. Is that in good taste?

Gaines: I think so.

Beyond that, his political enemies accused him of being a Communist (I wonder if his name was on that list that Joe McCarthy’s waved around):

It was during the Democratic primary campaign in 1948 that Crump attempted to identify Kefauver in the minds of Tennessee voters as a fellow-traveler with communists and liberals by characterizing him as an instrument of unsavory “pinkos and communists” who worked on their behalf like the stealthy, nocturnal raccoon. Kefauver responded in a speech delivered in Crump’s stronghold of Memphis. Pulling on a coonskin cap, Kefauver retorted, “I may be a pet coon, but I’m not Boss Crump’s pet coon.”

And he and Senator Al Gore were staunchly pro – civil rights:

he and his colleague from Tennessee, former U.S. Senator Albert Gore Sr., were the only members of the Senate from the South who categorically refused to sign the so-called Southern Manifesto in 1957, which the reactionary Southern congressional bloc issued in response to the United States Supreme Court’s desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

So, that’s Estes Kefauver.

He ended Truman’s career. He popularized the Mob. He kept Tennessee from being a majour boiling point in the Civil Rights struggle. And he wore a Davy Crokett Coonskin hat.

Am I missing anything?

The Moment Clinton Won

Sunday, August 1st, 2004

So, we had Clinton in June of 1992– about to put the final death knell in the Democratic Party. (We could argue that he did that anyway, but never mind…). Third place. 9 electoral votes. Negatives up the yahoo.

How did Clinton get himself out of this morass?

He appeared on the Arsenio Hall Show, with a loud tie, sunglasses, playing a saxophone.

Today, everyone appears on these shows — Bob Dole spurred the entire process forward in 1996 by basically announcing his presidential run on Letterman. But back then? It just seemed undignified to Pull a Nixon.

Here was a stab for something more gut-level than any policy. See: the cool man generally wins the presidential election… Eisenhower is cooler than Stevenson, Kennedy is cooler than Nixon, Reagan is cooler than Carter and Mondale… the only reason Bush got in was by default: nobody is dorkier than Dukakis!

From there, he kept the momentum going with a well-planned vice-presidential announcement. Youth and vigor! … If Al Gore can be called “vigor”.

Followed up by a well-scripted convention. Which, theoretically, shouldn’t mean anything, except for the biggie:

Ross Perot jumped out of the race and endorsed Clinton.

Damned it all: I think that pretty much clinched the election!

Clinton then filled the post-convention lag with a bus-trip. Carville didn’t like this idea, thinking it was too “Old DNC”, “the boys of the bus” of the long-ago. But, my guess is Carville’s rejection of the idea masks why it worked: connect with the blue-collar.

After that, it was pretty much a case of holding on tight.

On the other side: when did Bush lose?

It probably started when he vomitted on the Japanese prime minister’s lap — perhaps unfairly putting a dent in his perceived strength (foreign policy). It kicked into full gear when Dan Quayle took a brave stand against Murphy Brown — the yen to the yang of Clinton’s Arsenio appearance — the attack which ensured that the Bushes were going to be fighting the culture war even if they didn’t terribly want to… hitting its fevered pitch at his speech at the convention — coming on like an Avenging Angel.

From there it was just a matter of pretending to be Harry Truman, riding a train through the midwest. A lot of presidential candidates compare themselves to Truman, evoking the 1948 comeback upset he pulled over Dewey. George Bush. Hubert Humphrey. Bob Dole. Gerald Ford. A veritable posse of winners. Watch for Bush or Kerry to portray themselves as Truman: it’s a sure-fire sign.