Progressive Era

Plutocracy Vs Representative Government: 1896 And 2012 Presidential Elections

Ronald 2 Comments

In the last election of the 19th century, the Presidential Election Of 1896, the corporate plutocrats of the time period—John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J P Morgan—gave financial support to the Republican Presidential nominee, William McKinley, to defeat Democratic nominee William Jennings Bryan, and threatened their workers with lost jobs and closed down industries if Bryan won. They succeeded in electing McKinley, but fortunately within five years, with the assassination of McKinley in 1901, they met their match in the new President, Theodore Roosevelt, who ushered in the Progressive Era, setting the standard for progressives and the later evolution of liberalism among members of Congress and numerous Presidents of both parties, who would work to copy TR’s vision of leadership for the people against the special interests, the powerful corporations. TR also made sure that corporations were unable, ever again, to wield the spending power in campaigns as they had done in 1896.

116 years later, the corporate plutocrats of 2012—including the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump and a small group of others led by Karl Rove—emboldened by a Supreme Court decision (Citizens United Case) allowing corporations unchecked power to do what was done in 1896, unlimited spending in political campaigns, set out to buy an election, as had occurred in 1896.

So corporate leaders threatened to lay off people if Barack Obama won, and they fully supported the ultimate plutocrat, Mitt Romney, a man who made his fortune destroying jobs and companies, a true Robber Baron, who did not contribute anything to American economic growth, but only his own economic growth!

And despite their massive spending and intrusion into the political process, these plutocrats FAILED MISERABLY!

Democracy won out with the second term victory of Barack Obama, who by winning a second majority popular vote victory, insured the legacy of what he had done on national health care, as well as all of the ideas and visions of TR and every progressive President and program ever since the time of TR, including the New Deal and Great Society.

So TR, belatedly, a century ago, and particularly in 1912, as well as Barack Obama in 2012, reaffirmed the massive victory of progressive ideas and programs, and sent a warning to the corporate plutocrats—YOUR DAYS OF ABSOLUTE CONTROL AND LAWLESSNESS ARE OVER! More government regulation and oversight is on the horizon! The people have won over special interests!

Traits We Need In Our President: Competence, Compassion, Empathy, Sincerity—Barack Obama Possesses All Four, While Mitt Romney “Maybe” At Most Has Competence!

Ronald 2 Comments

Essential qualities needed in an American President, particularly in this 21st century of a complex world, and a growing population of what is now 315 million people, would include:

Competence
Compassion
Empathy
Sincerity

We need a leader who demonstrates care about ALL of us, not just the elite and wealthy!

We need a leader who has known struggle in his life at some point–such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama—whether it is:

Family Problems And Issues While Growing To Adulthood—Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama
Personal Health Issues—Roosevelt, Kennedy
Major Challenges To Success—Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Obama

Only the two Bushes really did not have major family problems while growing to adulthood; personal health issues; or major challenges to success.

But even they had compassion and empathy for the disabled (the elder Bush), and for the victims of September 11 (the younger Bush), although later, both the elder and younger Bush botched up the emergency of Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Katrina in a massive wave of incompetence!

Barack Obama possesses all of these qualities mentioned above, while Mitt Romney has not proved his worth in these regards, even so much as competence as Massachusetts Governor, although he has rose colored glasses in looking back on what was, basically, a term in office that made him so unpopular he could not have won reelection as Governor of his state had he decided to run!

Mitt Romney, simply, does not have the qualities needed for our Presidency in the 21st century. He lacks, for sure, compassion, empathy, and sincerity!

He is much more like Herbert Hoover, and yet, even Herbert Hoover first became famous for reacting properly in human tragedies in the time of the Mississippi River Flood of 1927, the massive Soviet relief effort in the 1920s, and the Belgian relief effort in World War I!

So we would have to push Romney back to the Gilded Age of monopoly capitalism, before the Progressive Era ended the concept of a limited government, which had ignored the needs of its citizens en masse!

The 20th century dawned, and the battle for the federal government to play a major role in people’s lives began, and we are not about to revert to the late 19th century!

Sorry, Mr. Romney, your attempt to go back one hundred years and more to the worst times of the Gilded Age is rejected, and YOU ARE FIRED as a potential President of the United States this coming Tuesday, November 6, 2012!

The New Deal And Great Society At Stake In the Presidential Election Of 2012!

Ronald Leave a comment

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society are at stake in the Presidential Election of 2012!

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan represent a threat to Social Security and the labor legislation of the New Deal, which recognized labor rights to collective bargaining, and basic conditions of work, including hours and wages.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan represent a threat to the Great Society and its civil rights laws, its promotion of Medicare and Medicaid, massive federal commitment to education funding, its advocacy of the environment and consumer protection, its establishment of a commitment to public radio and public television, and its commitment to the poor among us, as well as the advancement of women’s rights and gay rights, which began in the 1960s!

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan represent a return to the 1920s era which led to the Great Depression, and in many ways to the Gilded Age, before the reforms of the Progressive Era under Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson.

The setting back of a century of progress and reform cannot be allowed to happen, as it would destroy the “American Dream”!

What The Republican Party Used To Be And No Longer Is–Rest In Peace!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Republican Party of the past stood against slavery and slavery expansion, and for racial equality and civil rights, in the age of Abraham Lincoln.

The Republican Party of the past stood for progressive reform in the Progressive Era of Theodore Roosevelt, for conservation of natural resources, labor rights, and the rights of women.

The Republican Party of the 1960s and 1970s used the words “moderate” and “progressive” in its party platforms, and backed wage and price controls under Richard Nixon; support for an equal rights amendment for women; called for help for minority groups; federal funding for mass transit projects; advocated voting rights for Washington, DC in the House of Representatives and US Senate; promoted environmental standards; supported civil rights protesters; backed immigration and rights of workers in a broad context; supported expansion of Social Security; called for campaign finance reform to overcome the power and influence of political action committees; and avoided a stand on abortion rights, acknowledging the controversy over it after Roe V. Wade in 1973, but not condemning abortion until 1980.

The Republican Party of past eras—Lincoln, TR, and the 1960s and 1970s—was a moderate, mainstream party, and could work and negotiate with Democrats.

That is no longer true in the age of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, where even a “moderate” Republican in Massachusetts ten years ago is now selling his soul to the emergent right wing of the party, against all of the principles of the historic Republican Party!

One could say that the GOP is in a state where it could be declared RIP–Rest in Peace!

Triumph Of Progressivism: A Turning Point Challenge Fifty Years Apart: 1912, 1964, 2012!

Ronald 6 Comments

The battle between conservatism and progressivism/liberalism has been an never ending struggle throughout American history, going back to the time of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, and the creation of the first political party system in the Federalist Era of the 1790s.

After a half century of conservatism in charge in the Gilded Age and early Progressive Era, in 1912, we finally had the triumph of progressivism with the election of Woodrow Wilson, and the stellar second place finish of Theodore Roosevelt on the Progressive Party line. Wilson proceeded to promote economic and social reforms, partly based on Roosevelt’s ideas, and partly his own, and much of what was accomplished in the second decade of the 20th century remains with us today.

Reversion to Gilded Age mentality occurred under GOP Presidents in the 1920s and early 1930s, and the Great Depression led to a smashing landslide for Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and 1940s, with the New Deal expanding much of what TR and Wilson had advocated, and additional ideas growing out of the economic crisis.

Harry Truman attempted more reforms in the late 1940s and early 1950s, but most were stymied by a conservative resurgence, and a similar situation existed in the Eisenhower years, and the Kennedy Presidency.

But when Lyndon B. Johnson came in after the assassination of President Kennedy, he dedicated himself to accomplishment of what FDR, Truman, and Kennedy could not achieve, and to expand beyond the New Deal of FDR with the Great Society.

The Republican Party and conservatives saw an opportunity to negate all of the economic and social changes of TR, Wilson and FDR, and Barry Goldwater, the 1964 right wing opponent of Johnson, declared war on the New Deal, and the result was a landslide defeat, and the greatest expansion of progressivism yet in our history.

By the time that Ronald Reagan won a victory for conservatives in 1980, and continuing through George W. Bush leaving in 2009, Republicans and the right wing set out to reverse the Great Society and New Deal, one program at a time, with Democrats being able to stop complete destruction, but Republicans and conservatives nipping away at one area of policy after another, and in the process increasing our national debt from $1 trillion when Reagan became President to $10.5 trillion when George W. Bush left office.

Barack Obama came in with the intention of solidifying the New Deal and Great Society, and also bringing a new Progressive Era. And now Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are declaring war on everything that has been done by the federal government in the past century—from TR, to Wilson, to FDR, to Truman, even to Ike, to JFK, LBJ, even Nixon, Carter, even George H. W. Bush, to Clinton, to Obama–in their desire to make America ever more an oligarchy, a corporate dominated nation, and to destroy the middle class and the poor, and return us to the Gilded Age that began in the 1870s!

So 2012 is the most ideological election since 1964, as that election was the most ideological election since 1912!

The future of every social and economic reform of the past century is at stake in this election, and progressives and liberals cannot afford to sit on the sidelines, as this is as Theodore Roosevelt dramatically called it a century ago, an ultimate battle of Armageddon for the future of America!

A Liberal-Progressive Mount Rushmore And A Conservative Mount Rushmore: Who Would Be On Such Mount Rushmores?

Ronald 9 Comments

Last Friday, Joe Scarborough and MORNING JOE on MSNBC had distinguished historians assess which Presidents might be on a new, second Mount Rushmore, if such a monument were ever built.

This brought to mind the idea of who might be on a Liberal-Progressive Mount Rushmore, and who would be on a Conservative Mount Rushmore, if such were ever constructed anywhere in America.

This is mostly just interesting scholarly speculation, but here goes my suggestions for such honoring on both sides of the political spectrum.

LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE MOUNT RUSHMORE

Robert La Follette, Sr.–Republican Governor (1900-1906) and Senator (1906-1925) of Wisconsin–Mr. Progressive of the early 20th century and 1924 Progressive Party nominee for President.

George Norris–Republican Congressman (1902-1912) and Senator (1912-1942) of Nebraska–the most creative reform figure and longevity of the first half of the 20th century, a bridge between the Progressive Era of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Hubert H. Humphrey–Democratic Mayor Of Minneapolis (1945-1949), Senator (1949-1964, 1970-1978) of Minnesota, and Vice President of the United States (1965-1969) and Democratic Presidential nominee in 1968, who had the most creative record of promoting reform in the years after World War II throughout the 1960s.

Ted Kennedy–Democratic Senator (1962-2009) of Massachusetts, the fourth longest serving US Senator in American history, and the most creative reformer in the years from the 1970s until his death in 2009.

A possible alternative would be Democratic Senator George McGovern of
South Dakota (1922-2012), who ran for President in 1972, and was a major critic of the Vietnam War, one of the most decent men ever in American politics, serving in the Senate from 1963-1981.

CONSERVATIVE MOUNT RUSHMORE

Arthur Vandenberg–Republican Senator (1928-1951) of Michigan, who opposed the New Deal and was an isolationist in foreign policy through World War II, but then became an internationalist in support of the United Nations and President Harry Truman’s Cold War policy against the Soviet Union after World War II, and potential Presidential candidate twice.

Robert Taft–Republican Senator (1939-1953) of Ohio, son of President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft, promoted the anti labor union Taft-Hartley Act, promoted an isolationist foreign policy, and considered Mr. Conservative by his party, and a potential Presidential candidate numerous times.

Barry Goldwater–Senator (1952-1964, 1968-1986) of Arizona, succeeding Robert Taft as Mr. Conservative, and 1964 Republican nominee for President, becoming the hero of conservatives long term, and having an effect on President Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan–Republican Governor of California (1966-1974), and President of the United States (1981-1989), after a career as a movie actor, influenced by the principles and ideas of Barry Goldwater, who he publicly backed in a famous speech in 1964.

The author welcomes commentary on these selections!

Inevitable Result: Defeat Of Richard Lugar, And The Death Of Bi-Partisanship In The US Senate

Ronald Leave a comment

The inevitable defeat of Senator Richard Lugar in the Indiana Republican Senate primary by Richard Mourdock, a Tea Party favorite, is a major tragedy for Indiana and for the US Senate,and also, for the Republican Party’s history and future!

Lugar, without question, was one of the most brilliant, insightful, intelligent, and learned members of the US Senate, not just now, but for decades in the past.

Richard Lugar was a man who promoted bi-partisanship and reason, rather than yelling and screaming and gridlock and stalemate, and he will be greatly missed.

And with him being forced out of the Senate, and Maine Senator Olympia Snowe voluntarily leaving the Senate, the Republican Party in the Senate becomes a true disaster area, leaving who is left as easily the most disgraceful group under the party name that we have ever seen in American history, from the beginning of the history of the party in 1854!

The GOP was a party of reform in the Civil War-Reconstruction Era, in the Progressive Era, and in the post World War II period, at least in the Northeast and scattered cases elsewhere in the 1960s and 1970s.

The deterioration of the moderate and liberal Republicans began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and now is complete!

And to try to understand why Lugar was defeated is enough to make one wonder about the ignorance and stupidity of the voters who defeated him in Indiana.

What were their reasons to defeat him?

He is too old, being 80–totally ridiculous, as Lugar was a spry 80, fully in charge of his physical and mental faculties, more than most Republican Senate colleagues, who have far less ability at their younger ages than Lugar has always had.

Lugar spent most of his time in Virginia, and hardly ever was in Indiana for residence purposes–ridiculous as doing his job requires a Senator to spend most of his time in the DC area. This is such a totally phony issue and excuse to defeat a Senator who devoted his life to his state’s betterment.

Lugar was from Indianapolis, and the rest of the state resented his urban background–preposterous excuse to defeat him, but not uncommon in many states that the rural areas of a state resent the urban areas. But the thought that “country yokels” resent urban areas, and educated, intelligent people is an example of the problem of this country, that the “Know Nothing” hillbillies resent anyone who actually has brains and talent, and instead want a “good old boy”!

Lugar had the gall to do bi-partisan things, even with Barack Obama, when he was in the Senate–idiotic as that is the only way to get things done effectively, and Lugar always used principle over politics in his judgments, and was far from a liberal, but an honest, decent conservative.

Lugar specialized in foreign policy, and many rural people in Indiana hate foreign governments and the outside world in general–another example of the dangers of these”rural folk” having the ability to keep themselves and their fellow citizens out of touch with the “real world” out there. This anti foreign attitude is much too prevalent all over the country, and endangers our future in a complex world.

So the question arises over what Richard Lugar will do in 2013. He could go home to retirement, but does not seem like the type to want to do that. He could become a professor with specialty in international relations, and many universities would grab at the possibility of employing this brilliant statesman. He could write his memoirs, which would be fascinating.

But also, imagine this! As a good friend, and at times, supporter of Barack Obama on some issues, and with their common work on trying to prevent the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons when Obama was in the Senate in 2005-2006, and with Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department next year, there will be a vacancy that Lugar could fill very well!

Would the Republicans in the Senate oppose their long time colleague, with 36 years of experience, much of it in foreign policy, similar to the experience in foreign policy issues of Vice President Joe Biden, if Lugar wished to serve Obama as Secretary of State?

The assumption is that they would back him if Obama was re-elected and asked Lugar to serve his nation in another distinguished way, as Secretary of State.

So Indiana’s loss could be America’s and Barack Obama’s gain in 2013, and Lugar would richly deserve such an opportunity!

Vice Presidents Who Just Missed The Presidency: Hannibal Hamlin, Garret Hobart, John Nance Garner, Henry A. Wallace, Spiro Agnew, Nelson Rockefeller

Ronald Leave a comment

American history records that we have had 43 Presidents of the United States.

What is often NOT recorded is how six Vice Presidents came so close to the Presidency, but circumstances prevented them from doing so.

Three situations involved the timing of the death of the President; while two involved the fortune of two attempted Presidential assassinations failing to succeed; and one involved a Vice President being forced from office before the President in office resigned in disgrace.

Imagine if any of the following Vice Presidents had become President, how it would have changed history!

Hannibal Hamlin was the first term Vice President under Abraham Lincoln from 1861-1865, and then was replaced on the electoral ticket by Andrew Johnson. Six weeks after Hamlin left the Vice Presidency, Johnson became President, upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and is seen by many as a true disaster, possibly the worst President in American history, and in any case facing an unsuccessful impeachment in office which he survived. One might imagine that Hamlin, a former Senator from Maine, would have, somehow, avoided the fate of Andrew Johnson and dealt with Southern Reconstruction in a different way that would have affected the nation long term.

Garret Hobart was Vice President in the first term of William McKInley, but died in office in November 1899, after about two years, eight and a half months in office. He had been a leader in the New Jersey state legislature, and was considered to have added to the Vice Presidency by his regular presiding of the US Senate, his being considered a Presidential adviser, and his being often called an “assistant President”, a new term at the time. Had he not died in office, he would have been on the ticket with President McKinley in 1900, and would have succeeded McKinley as President when McKinley was assassinated in September 1901. Instead, Theodore Roosevelt became President, and changed the course of American history in massive ways, and ushered in the Progressive Era!

John Nance Garner had had a long career in the US House of Representatives, and was Speaker of the House, when chosen by Franklin D. Roosevelt to be his Vice President in the 1932 Presidential Election. As President-Elect, FDR was subjected to an assassination attempt in Miami, Florida, on February 15, 1933, just 17 days before the inauguration. Fortunately, the assassin’s bullets did not hit FDR, but instead Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak, and FDR was spared. Otherwise, Garner would have become President on March 4, 1933, but with his conservative and southern (Texas) heritage, it is highly doubtful that the New Deal would have occurred, denying us the most important and greatest President of the 20th century, and making one wonder how America would have dealt with the Great Depression.

During FDR’s third term as President, Henry A. Wallace, formerly Secretary of Agriculure, became his Vice President, and actively pursued the issue of civil rights, and also the issue of relations with our World War II ally, the Soviet Union. He alienated conservatives and Southerners in the Democratic Party, and when FDR decided to run for a fourth term, he replaced Wallace with Harry Truman, who became President 82 days after the fourth term began with FDR’s death, and changed the course of history. One has to wonder how Wallace would have conducted himself as President, particularly since he was highly critical of Truman’s Cold War policy toward the Soviet Union after World War II.

Spiro Agnew was Vice President for four and a half years under Richard Nixon from 1969-1973, and was loyal to Nixon, making himself controversial as he attacked liberals and the news media in Nixon’s behalf. But Agnew was forced out by personal financial corruption in the office of the Vice Presidency, as well as revelations about earlier such corruption in the office of the Maryland Governor and Baltimore County Executive in his years in public office before the Vice Presidency. Nixon, himself under attack in the Watergate scandal, did nothing to support Agnew, and Agnew resigned. Had this corruption not been revealed, Agnew would have become President upon the resignation of Richard Nixon on August 9, 1974. Instead, we had the Presidency of Gerald Ford for two years, five and a half months, after Ford had been a member of the US House of Representatives from Michigan, and Minority Leader of the House for almost nine years, with only a goal of someday being Speaker of the House.

When Gerald Ford was President, he chose Nelson Rockefeller , former Governor of New York and three time Presidential aspirant, as his appointed Vice President under the 25th Amendment. Then, Ford was subjected to TWO assassination attempts in Sacramento and San Francisco, California, seventeen days apart in September 1975. Both assassins missed the President, but had either been successful, Rockefeller would finally have achieved what he wanted the most, the Presidency of the United States.

So imagine how Hamlin, Hobart, Garner, Wallace, Agnew and Rockefeller MIGHT have changed the course of American history has they become President–instead of Andrew Johnson, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Gerald Ford!

The Total Hypocrisy Of Christian Conservatives: Not Interested In Social Justice!

Ronald 2 Comments

President Obama spoke this morning at the National Prayer Breakfast, giving the usual impressive speech he is capable of, and spoke of his Christian beliefs including the need to care for others, and give up some of what he has to help others.

For this, he was immediately attacked by Christian conservatives led by Ralph Reed, who used to work with the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition led by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, as Reed asserted that Obama is distorting the message of Christianity by promoting activism to assist those less fortunate. Obama endorsed Social Justice Christianity, something advocated as early as a century ago during the Progressive Era by such ministers as Washington Gladden, Walter Rauschenbusch, and Josiah Strong.

Reed, now associated with the Faith and Freedom Coalition, argued that Christianity had nothing to do with what Obama advocated: caring for the least among us (the poor), being your brother’s keeper, and demanding much of those to whom much has been given.

The Republicans intend to make religion, their conservative Christianity, an issue, as they declare war on Barack Obama, who they claim is out to destroy religion. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich have made this a key issue specifically. Their sick view of religion would be enough for anyone of conscience to wish to be an atheist, rather than a hypocrite!

Two Year Anniversary Of Citizens United Supreme Court Case: The Corruption Of American Politics A National Tragedy

Ronald Leave a comment

Two years ago, the Supreme Court, controlled by a conservative majority of 5-4, made a decision considered among the worst ever in their history.

After a century of regulation of corporate involvement in political campaign fundraising and advertising, the majority, claiming freedom of speech, allowed corporations and labor unions to have totally free access to spend and promote candidates and parties.

On first blush, some might have thought that it was not such a bad decision, as labor unions were permitted to do the same as corporations. On second thought, it became noticeable that labor unions could not compete with corporate money, and the result was the distorted political atmosphere of the midterm 2010 Congressional and state elections, which led to the success of the Tea Party Movement and the right wing direction of many state governments and the US House of Representatives. This has created a stalemate in Congress, and attacks on labor, the elderly, the poor, minorities, and the environment in many state legislatures, and the widespread attempt to limit the right to vote by discriminatory voter registration laws.

We have witnessed the damage done, and the continual enrichment of the top one percent in America, and the Super PACs are in operation, poisoning the political atmosphere for the 2012 election campaigns for President and the Congress, as well as many state governments.

Our democracy is being lost, negating a century of reforms under the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society.

A move is on to attempt a constitutional amendment to overrule the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, but that is not going to be easy, and meanwhile, or maybe for good, we are seeing corporations regain complete control of government at all levels, and bringing us back to the Gilded Age of the late 19th century.

This is a national tragedy of massive proportions!