Nothing short of brilliant, Heather, and an early night for you for once. I am so grateful to be reading you every day and I know I speak for thousands. Thank you From the bottom of our hearts!
"This (economic growth better under Democrats) should not come as a surprise to anyone."
This is obvious to me Dr. Richardson.
Here is what I have observed only in my own adult lifetime, beginning in 1980 (yikes!)
In 1980, Jimmy Carter, after having run a balanced budget and continued to pay down WWII debt, but, having been demonized by Reagan as running giant "wasteful welfare" programs lost the election (I BELIEVED Carter was irresponsible and I BELIEVED Reagan would be responsible).
However, I DO remember that I graduated with a ChE degree in 1982 and HALF of my classmates could not get jobs and a large fraction of that graduating class NEVER was able to get a good job under Reagan and left the field.
At the end of Reagan's EIGHT years (supported by me twice I shamefully admit), the United States had acquired an extra $2.1 TRILLION ($5.5 TRILLION in today's dollars) in additional debt, almost all of it having gone to military contractors who were Reagan's main donors.
For the first time since WWII a President, REAGAN, ran a giagantic deficit. NOT Carter.
So, in fact, after a long postwar period of "responsible" spending (because even during the wasteful Vietnam adventure the US kept reducing WW II debt) REAGAN was the first President to actually begin a NEW WELFARE PROGRAM: WELFARE FOR MILITARY CONTRACTORS.
Big money for Military Contractors is essentially "Welfare for White People" because, until very, very, very recently (and even now to a large extent) those contractors only hired WHITE engineers and managers. This explains, completely, why the only bipartisan vote that ever happens is for the military budget every year.
Welfare for white people is popular.
But, the story continues. In 1998 in a bipartisan disaster, the Glass Steagall Act was repealed which prevented banks from betting in the markets with your personal money and then in 2001 DERIVATIVES were legalized by the Bush administration for the first time in history.
And, so began the 2008 debacle in the housing market which resulted in banks betting, with derivatives (mortgage backed securities) on assets that simply did not exist. A huge fraud on the American people then preceded as we gave Federal Money to banks to "bail them out" for a drunken gambling spree legalized by Republicans under Bush.
Now, at this point we could have just let the economy tank and let people starve in the streets. THAT would have helped more people understand Republican Party economic failures.
But No!. Obama then spent 8 TRILLION dollars of deficit, on the books, soft landing the economy which DID get him elected twice. BUT, the consequence was: We all forgot how bad Republican leadership crashes the economy and how much debt is necessary to bail out Republican policy failures.
Plus, off the books the Fed literally, without anyone voting, put another $5 Trillion of the worthless mortgage assets on its books by buying them from banks at inflated prices.
Yep. On purpose, we kept people from starving in the streets on the backs of something like $14 Trillion dollars in printed money. If that seems like a bad idea, well, it is even worse than you think because:
Everyone forgot how BAD Republican Policy is for the economy. But, not me. I was paying attention.
Every time a Republican gets in office said Republican will directly or indirectly add a gigantic amount to the deficit and even then, the economy will fail.
Like it did under Reagan (yes, 1982 to 1986 was disaster that everyone forgot about),
Like it did under Bush (complete disaster)
and like it did under Trump (although Pubs are blaming the Coronavirus) but Trump ended up his Presidency with massively increased debt and an economic disaster to give to Biden.
JUST in my adult lifetime, Republicans have always been a complete economic catastrophe for America and, to me, it is mind boggling that ANYONE would do anything but vote against any Republican running for any position, including dogcatcher at the local town.
I remember ALL this, also read, on Twitter, the following “All recessions during the last 100 years happened during republican administrations, every one!” I believe this to be true, but didn’t check it out. However, have seen plenty of graphs that are well “graphic” and support this statement. I never blamed Obama for bailing out the evil, considering the alternative. But I never expected the Tea Party nuts to lay it on him, considering how obvious the Bush horror was. That’s when I knew how low republicans would go. They have not disappointed. There is no bottom, also proved what Churchill said about a five-minute chat with the average voter.
Exactly why the Dems promise to go high is a recipe for disaster.. as long as Rupert is considered other than 100% propaganda. If they really did a "both sides" argument, Democrats would look like the only way to go. Call repubs what they are, a cult of evil. They would have to do more than follow Fox down their latest rabbit hole.
Mike, Reading your of your experience, i can only conclude that the real underlying support for gop comes perniciously from white supremacist adherence. The gop strategists were spot on identifying abortion and guns to be the perfect cover issues to signal and corral otherwise negatively impacted (because of gop supply-side policies) supporters. “Prosperity Gospel”, “Family Values”, “Pro-Life”, “ Tough on Crime” and “Guns-Don’t-Kill-People”. The dog-whistle truth behind all of these “beliefs” is white power. The results of policies created from these positions always disproportionally, negatively impact POC. But they are not good for any common citizen. They never level the playing field. Since the 2022 midterms will, once again, be an “It’s-the-Economy-Stupid” election, we need to double down on the push back against the dog-whistles. We need to have on loop, the scene from “The Wizard of Oz” where the curtain is ripped back to reveal an inept little man, mixed with scenes of the January 6th “legitimate public discourse”.
"the real underlying support for gop comes perniciously from white supremacist adherence."
Michele, I guess I don't really feel good about agreeing with you, but, I do.
The tropes Reagan rolled out about wasting money on "welfare for black people", which, is what he definitely did, really appealed to a lot of people.
But, lying, as Reagan did about Carter, and, creating a fake trope about a woman Chicago that had umpteen adresses?
That was appealing to those whites who want to believe they are superior to those lazy blacks. Yes it was.
But, the truth is, the largest government largesse goes to white people (Military Contractors (overwhelmingly white employees), Government Employees (overwhelmingly white), consulting firms (yep, mostly white), etc.
By the time you add up all the welfare going to white people in this country?
It simply dwarfs any social assistance given to any person of color whose grandparents were beaten because they wanted their kids in school.
I agree with you, Mike. This, I'm sure, is out of the wheelhouse (so to speak) of most commenters here, however - in another issue, the welfare subsidies still being handed out to livestock producers on our (OUR) public lands & forests AND national monuments - the contracts handed to a few chosen contractors paid very well to round up Wild Horses on those lands, the warehousing of those same Wild Horses - if they are lucky & not sold to slaughter. Then there is the destruction & damage done to these lands and forests and national monuments by livestock? THEN the slaughter of our wild predators - to protect livestock (of course) with the added "benefit" of killing off any other animal that wanders into the wrong place. Yet another government agency: Wildlife "Services" - a misnomer if there ever was one. And still, with the many lawsuits against the BLM & Forest Service - this all continues. The excuse is: all those advocates are just too emotional!
I'm sure that SS Dbl. isnt just for "white" people, Mike. And I really wouldnt call it welfare - not positive about this in particular, but we all pay into SS, & I kind of think SS dbl works the same way. You know, what the naysayers call socialism, right?
People who think the insurrection of 01/06 was due to Trump are ignoring our history. The Confederate state house in Montgomery is still standing. The people who engineered the sedition of 1861 are still in business, having never faced accounting for their sedition. They still need the support of the church. Their combined whining and lying are their only hope of winning an election.
Thanks to the electoral college we are ruled by an insurrectionist religious minority.
"An attempted coup unpunished is an exercise." Rick Wilson
We will have more. What Wilson meant was that it was an exercise at getting better at overthrowing the government. The implication of that is 'practice makes perfect.' Their hope for success depends on our determination to maintain the democracy.
Our ability to play depends on the outcome of the next election. If the fascist win, then all resistance is immediately outlawed. We can, and we will, still play, but at a much-limited level. Our best hope is to win now.
Hitler failed on his first attempt. It was an exercise.
I know a black young man who needs SSDI desperately, has for years. He didn’t want to be on welfare, but finally did apply. Having one hell of a time, I live too far away to help him, but seems like stonewalling to me.
All true. What I have never understood, is why Obama continued Bush’s approach of bailing out the banks directly. An indirect bank bailout, with the government paying off all those mortgages at a reasonable discount, would have helped so many more people.
I believe, that as a black man, Obama carried a heavier burden, in the office of the Presidency, than any other President; and carried it with grace and tact. Qualities that the opposing party have forgotten.
Patricia, In the (almost, they let me in) all Black school I attended, the fundamental principle was "Twice as Good" -- which means that a Black graduate has to be twice as good in order to make it in a White world....
Mike. C'mon let's not go there with accusations and innuendo. You know both Obamas had record breaking book sales, speaking engagements and other endeavors after leaving office.
I had hoped when I joined this comments section of this blog stuff like this wouldn't happen. Yet here we are.
You, Sir have made my day. We all from time to time in the heat of the political environment make verbal missteps. I'll follow your example in the future.
Mike, I remember much the same as you from this period. A small technical issue I wondered about--I thought Carter was paying down the Vietnam war debt instead of WWII debt, but that's a technical issue which carries little importance. The important thing is that Carter was responsibly paying down war debt. A side issue which most Americans don't know about or remember is that President Johnson proposed a surtax of 10% on Americans to help pay for the war. He proposed it in early 1967, and Congress finally passed it about a year later. That only lasted some months as I recall because it was very unpopular. Lesson learned: Americans enjoyed the temporary economic benefits of war (i.e., from increased employment and wages), but they didn't want to pay for the war. That demonstrates how little Americans understand about the financial costs of war.
Back to Carter responsibly paying down war debt. That led to high inflation (20% or so) which was one big reason Reagan was elected. Reagan's proposed economic plan said essentially: "Don't worry about paying for the war debts. Let your children and grandchildren pay them." Bush Sr. was running against Reagan for the repub. nomination, and he told the American people that Reagan's economic plan was "Voodoo economics." He was right, but the American people didn't listen. Corporate power was behind Reagan, and he got the nomination and won the election. He allowed the creation of "Junk bonds" by Michael Milken. Then, we had corporate hostile takeovers and their results. (Remember Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wall Street" and his mantra, "Greed is good.") That represented repub. Reagan's 1980s. Social Security tax was increased under Reagan on the premise that it would beef up the Social Security fund. The tax was collected but then borrowed back by Reagan and Congress (leaving IOU's to the American people) in what the administration declared "a bipartisan victory"--a term which still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Back in 1980, Reagan also made a deal with the Iranians to sell them missiles in exchange for the American prisoners there. That led to the Iran-contra crimes, and Reagan's war in Central America. The Iran-Contra perpetrators under Reagan were prosecuted, but when Bush Sr. became president in 1988, he pardoned all of them. Another disgusting move just as pardoning President Nixon had been. No accountability for the crimes of the high rollers.
The combination of Clinton's destruction of the Glass-Steagall act and Bush Jr.'s allowance of Wall Street's rape of the economy led to the 2008 economic crisis. Then Obama bailed them out and obligated Americans to much more debt. He bailed them out dollar for dollar, not to mention also salvaging their huge bonuses. The American people lost again, and not one banker was prosecuted. In Iceland, a country with 1% of the U.S. population and probably 1% of the economy, 29 bankers were sent to prison for their role in that scam. U.S. administrators rarely face penalties for their crimes. No wonder that the U.S. congress is further enriching themselves by stock trading on insider information. They face no penalties for it.
Then came Trump, and things got even worse. Woe is us if we don't get a grip on reality and take charge.
I wonder, was it really "paying down (WWII AND Vietnam) war debt" that led to inflation?" Is it really so easy to pin down the origins? Because, we had been paying down War debt since 1945 without inflation.
Remember, businesses raise prices not Jimmy Carter or the government.
At the time, an 80lb box of baling wire for our balers cost almost as much as gold. I remember hating on US Steel in a BIG way back then. Big time.
I wonder: Maybe business was just gauging Americans?
Yes on the inflation at 15%. I believe the 20% I mentioned was the interest being paid on CDs at the worst of the inflation. And, yes, it is hard to pin down the exact cause(s) of inflation.
"I wonder: Maybe business was just gauging Americans?"
That makes sense. However, I would add that business was not just gauging Americans but also gouging them.
I also graduated in 1982. So many of my classmates could not get jobs.
I went on to graduate school because I sort of had brainwashed myself into thinking that because I did well in school a Ph.D. might be a good thing, but, that is another story.......EXCEPT
When I started my meager income was not taxed, but, REAGAN began taxing it even though he LIED about cutting taxes.
He only meant cutting taxes on the RICH. Grad students making nothing?
Had to pay tax all of a sudden.
Ridiculous to penalize those making nothing and reward billionaires. No lie.
Mike I have a sincere and genuinely curious question. In light of what you have just eloquently written why did you keep voting Republican? What were the other factors besides financial policies? What is that magic nugget that keeps people voting against their own best interests? I have my own thoughts but I wanted to hear from someone who has voted Republican.
Barbara, first, after George W. Bush openly and obviously lied about both Afghanistan and Iraq and invaded both, I DID, permanently stop voting Republican. Also, in the same time frame I googled a graph of the Federal deficit and realized everything I had BELIEVED had been wrong. The data did not support what I believed.
Before that it was more difficult to get data AND.....
BEFORE that I used my belief system more than my analytic system even though I had grown that analytic system in many ways in other areas.
After 2001, I have applied my analytic system to the area of our politics and now clearly understand that Republicans exist because a large fraction of America is BELIEF based, not DATA BASED.
Thanks for sharing this, Mike. It's easy to forget that data was not readily accessible the way it is now. I grew up in a family that read 5 daily papers, all points of view, because they understood that history repeats itself, and were so horrified by the Nazi uprising, and then Viet Nam. Grew upm8n university town, so this was common. It wasn't until college that I realized my peers were so uninformed.
But 2 points: 1) storytelling has always been the way to communicate, and 2) why are the Dems so awful at it?
I will also throw out another theory on another subject on the rise of Trump: since the Viet Nam war, we've had decade after decade of vets returning with PTSD, and children have been raised in unstable environments. I think to a large segment of the population (not a majority, but enough to have an impact ) have been raised in an erratic, abusive home. Trump's behavior is the norm for them.
I honestly don't think the Democrats are bad at messaging. This misconception sure is part of the enduring fabric of our Country. I believe the Democrat's message of Democracy at work, decency and fair play is just plain boring to most people. The Republican's messages of chaos, fear and hatred is much more interesting to the public. Hence it sells.
In other words decency=boring and chaos=excitement.
Point 2: RE Dems messaging. We got lazy when the bulk of media supported the progressive agreement established under FDR and then continued under Eisenhower. In the meantime, Rs built up a propaganda system to contest the Progressive norm. And Dems acquiesced to that under the concept of “Freedom of Speech”. The starvation of the educational system and the development of the internet spread “Alternative facts” exponentially, and here we are. Within just a few states of being able to hold a constitutional convention to alter said constitution.
That being said, perhaps Dems and some Rs naively thought that Democracy would naturally prevail. Since all of this is merely my opinion, it can be taken with a grain of salt if desired.
I believed Ronald Reagan's accusations that Carter was irresponsible with money AND.......
I believed his tropes about faked black woman in Chicago.
I was from a poor farm. I had worked 12 hour days since I was 12 years old.
The thought of someone getting money for no work? Was anathema to me. BUT, I still did not yet know that nobody in America would HIRE a black person into almost any job. That was not known to me.
However, I did have other experiences that tempered this but ..... only later.
Don't leave out the Nixon administration, ending the gold standard, creating the stagflation during the Carter administration. Carter's one-term presidency ended under the shadow of a national loss of confidence, but he also added 9.3 million jobs, one of the largest increases of any president.
Republicans never failed to leave a gigantic mess for Democrats. The only other goal while they were in power was to make sure the mess looked like it was a Dem mess. NEVER failed.
I remember this as well. And an overview of history only reveals more. Kudos to HCR for her giant education project! And kudos to you for having the wisdom to see through the rhetorical fog!
Mike, your story is important because you are a real person who went through this transformation, not an abstraction. And you very clearly and transparently express the process. That makes your story real to people.
My ignorance of American history appalls me — and I thought I’d had a good education. Thank you, HCR, for educating this 75 year old graduate of one of the Seven Sisters colleges and a law school dropout to boot. I am much obliged and very grateful to you.
I can't claim to clearly remember (at 71) everything I was taught in my youth. But I feel confident that the last part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century were glossed over. No exaggeration, I've learned more about those tumultuous periods in our country from the professor than I did in the classroom.
I actually have a very good education in history, and just got a good history lesson tonight. Mostly the connections she made. I knew the events.
Tonight's history reminded me of two things:
1. Harry Truman was right in 1948 when he said "The only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies." As HCR demonstrated, they've been scum for 150 years. Not just the past 40.
2. Adlai Stevenson was right back in 1952, when he said: “The strange alchemy of time has somehow converted the Democrats into the truly conservative party of this country — the party dedicated to conserving all that is best, and building solidly and safely on these foundations.”
Yea TC. My favorite HST quote “Socialism is the name they give almost anything that helps all the people.” Favorite Stevenson quote “I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my republican friends, that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.” Great men who knew republicans well. (However I did like Ike, but he should have been a Dem).
You did read HCR's history lesson did you not? Truman was right back in 1948 that "the only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies." Look at every single thing HCR listed in that history lesson and tell me the people in the story are not scum. Scum who were willing to sell their mothers if it made them a dime. They were willing to bring on the Panic of 1893 to advance their political power, an act that is the exact same as what they have done every day since Obama took the oath of office. Just as one example.
Of course I read it. Your comment about scum seemed to apply to all Republicans during that long period, or that's how I interpreted it. that's what I object to.
Have to appreciate Adlai. To your point about HCR ... experience and learning do cause us to make the connections of events and antecedents 😌. Like that. Therein is the role of intelligence coming to fore.
I went to high school in Arkansas and university in Texas. My American history classes pretty much ended at the Civil War (states rights!) with a smattering of Reconstruction and even smaller smattering beyond that.
Sara, I hope you hung in there for most of the first year of law school for the history of contracts, torts & constitutional law. If not, a read of Marbury vs Madison is always well worth it. Our courts founded in the common law going back centuries say what the Law is.
For those of us, myself included, who don't know the case: "Summary: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the precedent of judicial review. This judicial review power allows the Supreme Court to invalidate or declare unconstitutional actions or laws created by levels of government." https://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/marbury-v-madison-1803/
I didn't attend law school. But by far the best subject I studied as an undergraduate majoring in political science was political history of constitutional law. The two five-hour courses taught me so much and provided the context of much of what is happening today. Of course Marbury v. Madison was a focus. It's safe to assume that the present Supreme Court will honor that ruling as a precedent not to be ignored.
Michael, my first introduction to Marbury vs. Maddson was as a UCLA undergrad in my Constitutional Law political science course. My professor spent an hour lecture on it. The case law was referenced throughout the class. The casec is foundational near the very beginning of SCOTUS.
A main reason the classes have stayed with me all these decades later is, predictably, the professor — his ability to enliven the key cases and their significance, as well as his passion.
Reading that book back in the early '90's was the moment I knew why smatterings of the history I was taught in school seemed so biased compared to what my adopted grandmother would teach me when we would travel around the southwest visiting Indian reservations. I was stunned how they lived on such barren land and yet were such kind people to us. She grew up in New Mexico in a very small, humble canyon. Am thinking that her lovely, very wrinkled face looked quite Indian even though she had red hair and blue eyes. I now wonder if, like my biological father, she had Native ancestors but no one knew or talked about it, for shame. We spent many hours looking for pottery shards, arrowheads, geodes and squaw tears in the southwest and in the Hesperia desert where we stayed in her beloved vacation cabin, in nature, away from the world. She thought I had an "eagle eye" for scanning. Feels like I am still piecing "shards" together of my family history. It gets clearer and clearer as I age and "feel" the impact of the lying, controlling, white patriarchy on my family and country—on both sides. I thank her and my mother, in this moment, for instilling in me, the only female in my generation, to be alert, strong, respectful, question authority and fight for equality for all people. Witnessing the rise of fascism so blatantly in 2016. Violent Nazis in the open in Florida. I truly hope our laws will put a stop to all this tyranny and seditious uprising. Squaw tears...for us and the planet, otherwise.
(I am very aware that "squaw" is derogatory today, but that is part of history and the adjective of my little, obsidian, pile of tears).
It appears that historical lessons about what works is to pay workers enough to buy the products they make (e.g., Ford). The impoverishment of workers savages the economy. The concentration of wealth impoverishes the workers. It seems so simple, no?
'Advanced' capitalism trashes Earth as well as the beings who populate it. Extinction, anyone? The shame of profit off the backs of the elderly, the workers, the habitat of co-existing beings, planetary health, etc., appears to be water off a duck's back to the greedy profiteers.
The tragedy of the greed gene will continue to evidence in the changed climate catastrophes.
I would like to see this theme get much more play. "The persistence of the myth that Democrats are bad for the economy is an interesting example of the endurance of political rhetoric over reality." I am not a historian but took notice when the Reagan Administration became known for dominating publicity with its skilled communication team and the promotion of a message of the day. That administration was criticized for running every day as a campaign. The most outrageous Republican pronouncements have the same effect, to dominate attention. Again, although not a historian, I noticed this with the Tea Party's antics. Trump's feverish Twitter posts and his outlandish lies took up all of the oxygen in the room. And the monolithic Republican media juggernaut combined with politicians who are disciplined in repeated messaging and outrage from the national stage down to the local school board continue to get much more notice. Meanwhile Democrats plan to win by governing better. How's that working? If Democrats refuse to focus on disciplined messaging that captures attention, we'll continue to lose, when doing so is increasingly disastrous. I'm sure that there is more history behind this.
Evidence supporting your argument is how Republicans consistently crow about infrastructure projects for their states and districts that they voted against. And get away with it.
Because they haven't been punished for it electorally. Yes, the media calls them out for their vile hypocrisy but not prominently. And does the news resonate with large swathes of Republican voters?
And they are not being called out politically because the media loves the chaos of the Republican's lies and anger much more that the calmness of the Democratic Party (some hyperbole here for making my point.)
Unfortunately Americans quit investigating, researching and questioning for themselves. I am not sure when this began in earnest but I suspect it coincides with the rise of corporate media and the internet.
It was under Reagan that the cost of housing began to rise at a ridiculous rate. The cost of housing has made a middle class life impossible for tens of millions of people. Does anyone know of a book about the rise in housing costs since the eighties?
Nope. Wrong!! Housing prices started going "nuts" in the mid-70s, 1972 to be specific (I know because I bought a house for the amazing high price of $36,000 in 1974 and sold it for the ridiculous price of $60,000 in 1978 and by 1980 the guy who bought it for $69 sold it for $95K). It's why California passed Proposition 13 in 1978 (although it was more Republican bait-and-switch, since the only way to have it work for you is to not sell your property for a very long time. And the only part of the economy that does that is corporations and their property. Residential property is taxed much higher here than corporate as a result, because nobody keeps their house longer than 3-5 years (and much less right now while they're playing Monopoly with houses).
LFFA,Greenpeace, Democratic Party, The Xerces Society and hundreds more progressive organizations would benefit by uniting in a common cause to push back against the Republican media juggernaut. Without Democratic victories in 2022 and 2024 what these organizations stand for will be doomed.
The media is not helping either. I’ve seen so many interviews of Trump folks’ opposition-very few interviews with Democrats touting their satisfaction with the Biden administration.
Gina, you're reinforcing my point. The MAGA folks are making so much noise around the same simplistic messaging that they are dragging the media along with them. Democrats need to drive the messaging so that the media will have to cover it in a way that we get heard.
Democratic messaging also fails because it's poorly crafted. Messages need to stick. Compare "tax and spend" and "Make America Great Again" with its MAGA acronym and American flags, and "shining city on a hill" to "Build Back Better." The latter includes the word "back." It's not even forward-moving, and repeats three "b's" that take a bumpy ride before it rolls out of your mouth. Democrats are the party of democracy. We stand for one person, one vote. We create opportunity. We are building the future. Is there anyone driving Democratic messaging at all levels of government?
Another high-impact Republican strategy -- a form of misinformation really -- is blaming Democrats for Republican bad behavior that is either planned or underway. "Stop the steal" is an effective example of this. Democrats need to name Republican misbehavior. They've even stolen our momentum on education by making so much noise about CRT and parental rights to influence what their children are learning instead of teaching the truth, because the truth sets you free. We have no unified arguments to their banning books and censoring teachers instead of supporting them?
And then there's the matter of charisma. We need to promote more candidates who are orators like Raphael Warnock.
This is the comment of the day! The Democrats' messaging, especially in this era of colliding tsunamis of instant communication, undermines achievements and keeps the party perpetually on the defensive.
Another successful Republican strategy is defining Democrats before Democrats define themselves. Republicans anticipate what Democrats will promote. They develop unified messaging to smear Democrats and promote it in a unified way across all of their platforms. 97+% of the BLM protests were peaceful. But Dems are branded for wanting to "defund the police" and for causing riots in the streets because of a few inevitable exceptions. Democrats are associated with Antifa. Republican "patriots" opposed Democratic "lawlessness" even as we try to weaken the influence of a former president who is in Putin's pocket. Democrats are believed to have cheated at the ballot box when that's a Republican excuse for doing exactly that. "Liberal" is now a tainted word. How did we let that happen?
When we elect a national trifecta and gain the bully pulpit, that pulpit is not just a president speaking at a podium. It's using the power of an elected government to get the message out.
Excellent points. I've read that the Republicans, a top-down organization if there ever was one, send out daily talking points. And they all recite them throughout the daily news cycle. And certainly Fox News receives them, too.
We blame the immovable Republican base. The base only exists because of the GOP messaging juggernaut. Fox News, OAN, AM talk radio, etc. have even replaced the pulpit in the Evangelical community.
Such riveting reading, Heather! While I have tried hard to become well-versed in US history during my thirty years as an immigrant, nothing has educated me more deeply nor more fully than your letters. Sometimes, I have to read them more than once to fill my heart and mind with your uncanny acuity.
This letter, filled with such profound sensitivity, is one for the books:
"And yet, of course, it has been Republican economic policies that opened up the possibility for Democrats to try new approaches to the economy, to make it serve all Americans, rather than a favored few. As FDR put it: 'It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.'"
Heather, you always give us a spin on history. As is the case tonight, we often see that everything old is new again. Thanks for your knowledge and wisdom.
Well! This is altogether not what I have understood to be the path of political history of the Democrats and Republicans that I learned in school, albeit MANY years ago. I am not a historian nor do I claim to be particularly well read on this topic, but I would not get into a spitting contest over something like this with Heather Cox Robinson!
This is exactly why I do read material like this. It isn’t simply because it reinforces my own attitudes, but even more, it explains clearly and informs me with facts that are backed up with footnotes for the statements made in the article.
What Prof. Cox Richardson does with her letters is akin to magic! She will take a topic of the day expound on the matter at hand, then point by point, she will break everything down to its constituent parts so the reader can understand what is happening, why it is happening, and if it is possible, she will offer pathways for avoiding calamity.
I am so grateful for the Letter to an American! I am even more grateful that Heather Cox Richardson is willing to make the tremendous effort to write these letters for us with full annotations daily. Saying thank you is not adequate to express my full gratitude for this effort. Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!
Why don’t we own it? With pride? If having complex moral emotions like empathy, sympathy, compassion for others is ‘socialism,’ if wanting those who have much share with those who have little is ‘socialism,’ if justice, fairness, access and equality are words in one’s active vocabulary is ‘socialism,’ then I’m a proud socialist. A democratic socialist. Move over, Bernie!
Gus I am proud to be a ‘socialist.’ I benefit from Medicare, Social Security, and FEMA-subsidized insurance on my property. My cousin, who was with the Marine 1st Division, that landed on Guadalcanal in 1942, was the first major ‘socialist’ in my family. He survived the deadly island hopping and, under the GI Bill, was the first in my immediate family to complete college.
I am proud to be associated with other ‘socialists’ who have been provided unemployment benefits, child care benefits, had their pensions covered when corporations finagled themselves into bankruptcy, and all those citizens and companies that received ‘hand outs’ to permit them to survive through a prolonged pandemic. I am a proud ‘socialist’ when Obamacare [officially the Affordable Health Care Act] has provided health care to tens of millions of Americans who deserve health coverage.
I am a reluctant ‘socialist’ when I see pork barrel agriculture payments that often go to large corporate farmers. More so, when Trump provided tens of billions of dollars to farmers to offset farm losses due to his misguided China tariff war. I am an extremely reluctant ‘socialist’ when Trump provides $1.7 trillion in tax benefits overwhelmingly for very wealthy citizens and corporations, while the middle class and others were paying more than their fair share in taxes.
The word socialism has been a Republican bugaboo since before I was born. Treasury Secretary Mellon (part of the ultra wealthy elite) was clearly anti-socialist during his tenure under Coolidge and Hoover. The Republicans were apoplectic at FDR’s New Deal and other initiatives intended to enhance the livelihood of citizens during the Great Depression and to curb some of free wheeling by the wealthy elite.
I am proud to be a SOCIALIST, as should any American who cares about his country and their fellow citizens. Incidentally, I believe that some of the most vociferous anti-socialists come from states that are heavily rewarded with ‘federal funds’ that come from states that provide a disproportionately large amount of tax money.
Democratic Socialist would be the term in Europe, Gus. Words have a meaning. Socialism as such has a meaning and it's not just about caring for the people and providing for the poor....it's a totally different economic system of "collective", i.e. government ownership of everything and whenever tried has ended up very undemocratic and has impoverished the people. For instance, Venezuela is hardly a good advertisement for "socialism" but proclaims itself to be pursuing that "ideal".
Stuart, Though your comment was not addressed to me, I felt compelled to write seeing how Republicans, in my view, are able to incite fear of any policy aimed at redressing inequities because of a tendency in the States to conflate socialism and democratic socialism. A critical consequence is that we’re losing elections we should be winning.
i trust that you are not telling me that thereby their winning. Is illegitimate...and only the democrats should win if everybody played by democrats rules...gerrymandering is of course practiced by both sides.
Stuart, I wrote, initially, merely to note my observation that Republicans are able to incite fear of any policy aimed at redressing inequities because of a tendency in the States, at least among some, to blur the distinction between Democratic Socialism, that merely calls for a more equitable distribution of a nation’s wealth, and Socialism, that advocates for government control and ownership of the means of production. My point about elections was meant to underscore how people not armed with knowledge are susceptible to manipulation aimed at serving interests that are not necessarily their own. Hence, my belief that we’re losing elections we should be winning.
I understood you perfectly, Barbara, but I'm afraid I used your response as an excuse...a platform... to add something that you quite evidently didn't say...that it is often construed that people vote against you because they are ignorant, uneducated or simply panicked. Some are quite evidently, but many are not .This often underestimates the degree of free choice in opponents that simply don't want what you are proposing. Many didn't vote for Biden, they just didn't want Trump. That doesn't mean they are in agreement with his program.
No, no! Don’t ever doubt the Republicans’ ability! There definitely some loud mouths who have more volume than brains (see: January 6, 2021), but simply because I disagree with almost everything they say and do, there are absolutely well- educated Republicans out there. I’m sure you were joking when you made your comment, but underestimating one’s opponent can be lead to unforeseen consequences. Most people underestimated TFG and look where we are now!
After what we've seen over the past five years, it would seem that any well-educated Republicans are ill-intentioned. And absolutely not to be underestimated. Know your enemy.
"Ill" being of course a judgement based upon personal values....their intentions are contrary to yours and probably destructive of yours but from the point of view of their values, they are well intentioned.
It wouldn't surprise you to learn that most people proclaiming ideologies supposedly based on their works haven't read them either....evidenced by the theories and practice of governance and attendant policies that they proclaim.
Before there was a question of whether wealthy Northerners would support the Union, there was the question of whether they would sign the Declaration of Independence.
And in fact John Dickinson, Delegate to the Continental Congress of Pennsylvania - one of the most eloquent writers in defense of colonists' interests and articulators of their grievances, and one of the wealthiest men in the Colonies - did not. Although his motives were as much loyalty to England and a wish for reform through reconciliation. He resigned from Congress rather than sign, and then headed up a militia to join Washington's troops in battle. And of course, it was Dickinson's "Letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania, to the inhabitants of the British Colonies" which inspired the title of HCR's letters.
Before there was "Hamilton" there was the 1969 play "1776" which depicted all this. The play was was performed in 1970 in the White House for Pres. Nixon who demanded of his friend Jack Warner that the song depicting Dickinson's position be cut from the 1972 film version.
"In the musical “1776,” the song “Cool, Cool, Considerate Men” depicts Revolutionary War era conservatives as power-hungry wheedlers focused on maintaining wealth. So it’s not surprising that then-President Richard Nixon, who saw the show at a special White House performance in 1970, wasn’t a big fan of the number.
What is surprising is that according to Jack L. Warner, the film’s producer and a friend of the president, Nixon pressured him to cut the song from the 1972 film version of the show–which Warner did. Warner also wanted the original negative of the song shredded, but the film’s editor secretly kept it intact." - LA Times
. . .
"and Howard Da Silva, who played Ben Franklin. The last time Da Silva had received an invitation from Nixon, it was to testify before 1947’s House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), the anti-communist star chamber that Nixon helped to revivify during his time in Congress. Da Silva refused to talk and was subsequently blacklisted from Hollywood for many years." - LA Times
No wonder Nixon objected. (And if you watch the youtube film clip, please note the rather goose-steppy minuet.) And in the category of political rhetoric over reality, Dickinson's retort to Hancock just about sums up the GOP's successful, if baffling, strategy of ensnaring the working class populists to serve the 1% plutocrats.
[DICKINSON, spoken]
But why, sir? For personal glory? For a... place in history? Be careful, sir. History will brand Mr. Adams and his followers as traitors
[HANCOCK, spoken]
Traitors, Mr. Dickinson? To what? The British crown? Or the British half-crown? Fortunately, there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy
[DICKINSON, spoken]
Well, perhaps not. But don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they will follow us!
Though I cannot begin to calculate the immeasurable benefits of receiving LFAA’s near daily historical accountings shaping contemporary perspectives, considering we have but a small window to effect the mood of the country if, next fall, we’re to have a shot at retaining both the House and the Senate, I wish to fast forward to the immediate present.
Though there likely are a number of factors that could help explain why the Administration’s accomplishments are not resonating with enough of the public (e.g., recent polls show that 60+% of Republicans are enthused about the November midterms compared with only 40% of Democrats), my comment today will address just one factor I deem mighty critical. I submit that Democrats ought to focus far more on rendering their story as opposed to talking about abstract legislation and non relatable numbers and data. One example is the $20 billion federal investment in semi-conductors in Ohio replete with stories from people about what these manufacturing and construction jobs have meant to them and to their families. Note I haven’t even touched on how said investment helps to remedy a dependence on South Korea and Taiwan, a dependence that has contributed to mounting supply chain hang-ups at our ports. My point is that Dems need to gin up their constituents’ enthusiasm with a host of stories related to the impact of the American Rescue Plan and the Bipartisan Infrastructure legislation for which Republicans are taking credit, despite the legislation not receiving a single House Republican vote. On a final note, people also should understand what they’re losing while the human infrastructure piece of the President’s BBB agenda remains stalled in the Senate.
Sadly, many people view that "human infrastructure" piece of that legislation as essentially a plan that gives money to "undeserving" (in their minds) people. I see this constantly from my "conservative" friends (who are no more conservative than the folks receiving benefits are undeserving, but I digress...) and bleat the "socialism" theory until it bleeds.
Ally, Excluding the far right, I would submit that Americans overall would mobilize around a much tougher, much stronger Biden, who both amplified his accomplishments and also pressed to advance a good amount of the human infrastructure piece currently stalled in the Senate. I state this because, nationwide, I hear a broad spectrum of people asking for: universal child care and Pre-K, reinstatement of the child tax credit, expanded healthcare, investments in housing, in home and community-based care, and in climate.
Which modern Presidents left a surplus in the treasury? Which ones spent it to deficits, lavishing debt to buy more arms for senseless wars? It’s not just $ they are spending ( robbing?), but the blood and promise of the young.
You make our collective history a novel, an exploration, a window (of discovery) and a great reading experience. You’re not just a great teacher, you’re an incredibly talented writer. The way you weave history into current events is seamless and beautiful.
Nothing short of brilliant, Heather, and an early night for you for once. I am so grateful to be reading you every day and I know I speak for thousands. Thank you From the bottom of our hearts!
"This (economic growth better under Democrats) should not come as a surprise to anyone."
This is obvious to me Dr. Richardson.
Here is what I have observed only in my own adult lifetime, beginning in 1980 (yikes!)
In 1980, Jimmy Carter, after having run a balanced budget and continued to pay down WWII debt, but, having been demonized by Reagan as running giant "wasteful welfare" programs lost the election (I BELIEVED Carter was irresponsible and I BELIEVED Reagan would be responsible).
However, I DO remember that I graduated with a ChE degree in 1982 and HALF of my classmates could not get jobs and a large fraction of that graduating class NEVER was able to get a good job under Reagan and left the field.
At the end of Reagan's EIGHT years (supported by me twice I shamefully admit), the United States had acquired an extra $2.1 TRILLION ($5.5 TRILLION in today's dollars) in additional debt, almost all of it having gone to military contractors who were Reagan's main donors.
For the first time since WWII a President, REAGAN, ran a giagantic deficit. NOT Carter.
So, in fact, after a long postwar period of "responsible" spending (because even during the wasteful Vietnam adventure the US kept reducing WW II debt) REAGAN was the first President to actually begin a NEW WELFARE PROGRAM: WELFARE FOR MILITARY CONTRACTORS.
Big money for Military Contractors is essentially "Welfare for White People" because, until very, very, very recently (and even now to a large extent) those contractors only hired WHITE engineers and managers. This explains, completely, why the only bipartisan vote that ever happens is for the military budget every year.
Welfare for white people is popular.
But, the story continues. In 1998 in a bipartisan disaster, the Glass Steagall Act was repealed which prevented banks from betting in the markets with your personal money and then in 2001 DERIVATIVES were legalized by the Bush administration for the first time in history.
And, so began the 2008 debacle in the housing market which resulted in banks betting, with derivatives (mortgage backed securities) on assets that simply did not exist. A huge fraud on the American people then preceded as we gave Federal Money to banks to "bail them out" for a drunken gambling spree legalized by Republicans under Bush.
Now, at this point we could have just let the economy tank and let people starve in the streets. THAT would have helped more people understand Republican Party economic failures.
But No!. Obama then spent 8 TRILLION dollars of deficit, on the books, soft landing the economy which DID get him elected twice. BUT, the consequence was: We all forgot how bad Republican leadership crashes the economy and how much debt is necessary to bail out Republican policy failures.
Plus, off the books the Fed literally, without anyone voting, put another $5 Trillion of the worthless mortgage assets on its books by buying them from banks at inflated prices.
Yep. On purpose, we kept people from starving in the streets on the backs of something like $14 Trillion dollars in printed money. If that seems like a bad idea, well, it is even worse than you think because:
Everyone forgot how BAD Republican Policy is for the economy. But, not me. I was paying attention.
Every time a Republican gets in office said Republican will directly or indirectly add a gigantic amount to the deficit and even then, the economy will fail.
Like it did under Reagan (yes, 1982 to 1986 was disaster that everyone forgot about),
Like it did under Bush (complete disaster)
and like it did under Trump (although Pubs are blaming the Coronavirus) but Trump ended up his Presidency with massively increased debt and an economic disaster to give to Biden.
JUST in my adult lifetime, Republicans have always been a complete economic catastrophe for America and, to me, it is mind boggling that ANYONE would do anything but vote against any Republican running for any position, including dogcatcher at the local town.
I remember ALL this, also read, on Twitter, the following “All recessions during the last 100 years happened during republican administrations, every one!” I believe this to be true, but didn’t check it out. However, have seen plenty of graphs that are well “graphic” and support this statement. I never blamed Obama for bailing out the evil, considering the alternative. But I never expected the Tea Party nuts to lay it on him, considering how obvious the Bush horror was. That’s when I knew how low republicans would go. They have not disappointed. There is no bottom, also proved what Churchill said about a five-minute chat with the average voter.
There is no bottom for a Republican. No low that a Republican will not stoop below to go even lower to bottom fish ethics and responsible behaviors.
Exactly why the Dems promise to go high is a recipe for disaster.. as long as Rupert is considered other than 100% propaganda. If they really did a "both sides" argument, Democrats would look like the only way to go. Call repubs what they are, a cult of evil. They would have to do more than follow Fox down their latest rabbit hole.
That, Sir, is an insult to Catfish! 🙀 Ha! Ha!
Absolutely!
Yes, Mike. You must know that crabs and bottom fish consume the dregs and that Republicans are indeed bottom fish.
You made me do a little research. 😎
https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151
Here is another view of your data
https://zfacts.com/national-debt/
Didn't know that quote, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Is that true today?
He also said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others”.
Putting his finger on the most intractable problem any society faces.
Well, that quote works for sure with all who vote for Republicans and many who refuse to vote, and many who vote for Democrats. Here is another quote:
"Ignorance is bliss."
Mike, Reading your of your experience, i can only conclude that the real underlying support for gop comes perniciously from white supremacist adherence. The gop strategists were spot on identifying abortion and guns to be the perfect cover issues to signal and corral otherwise negatively impacted (because of gop supply-side policies) supporters. “Prosperity Gospel”, “Family Values”, “Pro-Life”, “ Tough on Crime” and “Guns-Don’t-Kill-People”. The dog-whistle truth behind all of these “beliefs” is white power. The results of policies created from these positions always disproportionally, negatively impact POC. But they are not good for any common citizen. They never level the playing field. Since the 2022 midterms will, once again, be an “It’s-the-Economy-Stupid” election, we need to double down on the push back against the dog-whistles. We need to have on loop, the scene from “The Wizard of Oz” where the curtain is ripped back to reveal an inept little man, mixed with scenes of the January 6th “legitimate public discourse”.
"the real underlying support for gop comes perniciously from white supremacist adherence."
Michele, I guess I don't really feel good about agreeing with you, but, I do.
The tropes Reagan rolled out about wasting money on "welfare for black people", which, is what he definitely did, really appealed to a lot of people.
But, lying, as Reagan did about Carter, and, creating a fake trope about a woman Chicago that had umpteen adresses?
That was appealing to those whites who want to believe they are superior to those lazy blacks. Yes it was.
But, the truth is, the largest government largesse goes to white people (Military Contractors (overwhelmingly white employees), Government Employees (overwhelmingly white), consulting firms (yep, mostly white), etc.
By the time you add up all the welfare going to white people in this country?
It simply dwarfs any social assistance given to any person of color whose grandparents were beaten because they wanted their kids in school.
I agree with you, Mike. This, I'm sure, is out of the wheelhouse (so to speak) of most commenters here, however - in another issue, the welfare subsidies still being handed out to livestock producers on our (OUR) public lands & forests AND national monuments - the contracts handed to a few chosen contractors paid very well to round up Wild Horses on those lands, the warehousing of those same Wild Horses - if they are lucky & not sold to slaughter. Then there is the destruction & damage done to these lands and forests and national monuments by livestock? THEN the slaughter of our wild predators - to protect livestock (of course) with the added "benefit" of killing off any other animal that wanders into the wrong place. Yet another government agency: Wildlife "Services" - a misnomer if there ever was one. And still, with the many lawsuits against the BLM & Forest Service - this all continues. The excuse is: all those advocates are just too emotional!
Just in case you think I was exaggerating?
Osher: Feds hold monthly grazing fee to Reagan-era minimum
https://newsregister.com/article?articleTitle=osher-feds-hold-monthly-grazing-fee-to-reagan-era-minimum--1644005879--42369--commentary&fbclid=IwAR3WLfOiTx-gTijxOUcAqG-dp_qffGXz1sxMMyKOdsHY5yKA2QiGoI-HXVU
I assume people are telling their truth unless otherwise indicated.
Thank you, oh thank you!
You are more than welcome - Its nice to know someone shares my opinion on this subject!
Maggie, RIGHT! I am only vaguely aware of this. We are all probably in the dark about the many welfare programs out there for white people.
I'm sure that SS Dbl. isnt just for "white" people, Mike. And I really wouldnt call it welfare - not positive about this in particular, but we all pay into SS, & I kind of think SS dbl works the same way. You know, what the naysayers call socialism, right?
People who think the insurrection of 01/06 was due to Trump are ignoring our history. The Confederate state house in Montgomery is still standing. The people who engineered the sedition of 1861 are still in business, having never faced accounting for their sedition. They still need the support of the church. Their combined whining and lying are their only hope of winning an election.
Thanks to the electoral college we are ruled by an insurrectionist religious minority.
"An attempted coup unpunished is an exercise." Rick Wilson
Correct. We had an exercise. We may have more.
But, next time we can all play. Right??
We will have more. What Wilson meant was that it was an exercise at getting better at overthrowing the government. The implication of that is 'practice makes perfect.' Their hope for success depends on our determination to maintain the democracy.
Our ability to play depends on the outcome of the next election. If the fascist win, then all resistance is immediately outlawed. We can, and we will, still play, but at a much-limited level. Our best hope is to win now.
Hitler failed on his first attempt. It was an exercise.
Social Security disability is White mans welfare.
Seriously? I realize there likely are people taking advantage - but sorry, H A, I know too many who are disabled & this HELPS them survive!
I know a black young man who needs SSDI desperately, has for years. He didn’t want to be on welfare, but finally did apply. Having one hell of a time, I live too far away to help him, but seems like stonewalling to me.
According to people I know, its quite a long drawn out process - and yeah, does seem like stonewalling - no matter what color you are.
Got data?
Probably, but I don't know much about it. I would not be surprised.
Michele, I can see that split screen in my head, with a shrunken tfg behind the curtain. The controls all have republican heads in them.
All true. What I have never understood, is why Obama continued Bush’s approach of bailing out the banks directly. An indirect bank bailout, with the government paying off all those mortgages at a reasonable discount, would have helped so many more people.
Jail time for just a few of the CEOs responsible would have gone a long way as well.
I believe, that as a black man, Obama carried a heavier burden, in the office of the Presidency, than any other President; and carried it with grace and tact. Qualities that the opposing party have forgotten.
Patricia, In the (almost, they let me in) all Black school I attended, the fundamental principle was "Twice as Good" -- which means that a Black graduate has to be twice as good in order to make it in a White world....
This is also said of women. Really, its the fate of all who have no privilege.
deleted
Mike. C'mon let's not go there with accusations and innuendo. You know both Obamas had record breaking book sales, speaking engagements and other endeavors after leaving office.
I had hoped when I joined this comments section of this blog stuff like this wouldn't happen. Yet here we are.
OK. I agree. I deleted my comment.
You, Sir have made my day. We all from time to time in the heat of the political environment make verbal missteps. I'll follow your example in the future.
Mike, I have deleted one or two myself. You're a mensch. (Does that make me one too?)
Mike, I remember much the same as you from this period. A small technical issue I wondered about--I thought Carter was paying down the Vietnam war debt instead of WWII debt, but that's a technical issue which carries little importance. The important thing is that Carter was responsibly paying down war debt. A side issue which most Americans don't know about or remember is that President Johnson proposed a surtax of 10% on Americans to help pay for the war. He proposed it in early 1967, and Congress finally passed it about a year later. That only lasted some months as I recall because it was very unpopular. Lesson learned: Americans enjoyed the temporary economic benefits of war (i.e., from increased employment and wages), but they didn't want to pay for the war. That demonstrates how little Americans understand about the financial costs of war.
Back to Carter responsibly paying down war debt. That led to high inflation (20% or so) which was one big reason Reagan was elected. Reagan's proposed economic plan said essentially: "Don't worry about paying for the war debts. Let your children and grandchildren pay them." Bush Sr. was running against Reagan for the repub. nomination, and he told the American people that Reagan's economic plan was "Voodoo economics." He was right, but the American people didn't listen. Corporate power was behind Reagan, and he got the nomination and won the election. He allowed the creation of "Junk bonds" by Michael Milken. Then, we had corporate hostile takeovers and their results. (Remember Gordon Gekko in the movie "Wall Street" and his mantra, "Greed is good.") That represented repub. Reagan's 1980s. Social Security tax was increased under Reagan on the premise that it would beef up the Social Security fund. The tax was collected but then borrowed back by Reagan and Congress (leaving IOU's to the American people) in what the administration declared "a bipartisan victory"--a term which still leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Back in 1980, Reagan also made a deal with the Iranians to sell them missiles in exchange for the American prisoners there. That led to the Iran-contra crimes, and Reagan's war in Central America. The Iran-Contra perpetrators under Reagan were prosecuted, but when Bush Sr. became president in 1988, he pardoned all of them. Another disgusting move just as pardoning President Nixon had been. No accountability for the crimes of the high rollers.
The combination of Clinton's destruction of the Glass-Steagall act and Bush Jr.'s allowance of Wall Street's rape of the economy led to the 2008 economic crisis. Then Obama bailed them out and obligated Americans to much more debt. He bailed them out dollar for dollar, not to mention also salvaging their huge bonuses. The American people lost again, and not one banker was prosecuted. In Iceland, a country with 1% of the U.S. population and probably 1% of the economy, 29 bankers were sent to prison for their role in that scam. U.S. administrators rarely face penalties for their crimes. No wonder that the U.S. congress is further enriching themselves by stock trading on insider information. They face no penalties for it.
Then came Trump, and things got even worse. Woe is us if we don't get a grip on reality and take charge.
Thank you for your nice reply.
"Back to Carter responsibly paying down war debt. That led to high inflation (20% or so) which was one big reason Reagan was elected. "
Peak inflation looks like it was 15%.
https://www.businessinsider.com/historical-cpi-in-one-chart-2013-11
I wonder, was it really "paying down (WWII AND Vietnam) war debt" that led to inflation?" Is it really so easy to pin down the origins? Because, we had been paying down War debt since 1945 without inflation.
Remember, businesses raise prices not Jimmy Carter or the government.
At the time, an 80lb box of baling wire for our balers cost almost as much as gold. I remember hating on US Steel in a BIG way back then. Big time.
I wonder: Maybe business was just gauging Americans?
Yes on the inflation at 15%. I believe the 20% I mentioned was the interest being paid on CDs at the worst of the inflation. And, yes, it is hard to pin down the exact cause(s) of inflation.
"I wonder: Maybe business was just gauging Americans?"
That makes sense. However, I would add that business was not just gauging Americans but also gouging them.
I completely agree with your very succinct analysis! I am the same age and have watched this unfolding since graduating college in 1982.
I also graduated in 1982. So many of my classmates could not get jobs.
I went on to graduate school because I sort of had brainwashed myself into thinking that because I did well in school a Ph.D. might be a good thing, but, that is another story.......EXCEPT
When I started my meager income was not taxed, but, REAGAN began taxing it even though he LIED about cutting taxes.
He only meant cutting taxes on the RICH. Grad students making nothing?
Had to pay tax all of a sudden.
Ridiculous to penalize those making nothing and reward billionaires. No lie.
Mike I have a sincere and genuinely curious question. In light of what you have just eloquently written why did you keep voting Republican? What were the other factors besides financial policies? What is that magic nugget that keeps people voting against their own best interests? I have my own thoughts but I wanted to hear from someone who has voted Republican.
Barbara, first, after George W. Bush openly and obviously lied about both Afghanistan and Iraq and invaded both, I DID, permanently stop voting Republican. Also, in the same time frame I googled a graph of the Federal deficit and realized everything I had BELIEVED had been wrong. The data did not support what I believed.
Before that it was more difficult to get data AND.....
BEFORE that I used my belief system more than my analytic system even though I had grown that analytic system in many ways in other areas.
After 2001, I have applied my analytic system to the area of our politics and now clearly understand that Republicans exist because a large fraction of America is BELIEF based, not DATA BASED.
That's it.
Thanks for sharing this, Mike. It's easy to forget that data was not readily accessible the way it is now. I grew up in a family that read 5 daily papers, all points of view, because they understood that history repeats itself, and were so horrified by the Nazi uprising, and then Viet Nam. Grew upm8n university town, so this was common. It wasn't until college that I realized my peers were so uninformed.
But 2 points: 1) storytelling has always been the way to communicate, and 2) why are the Dems so awful at it?
I will also throw out another theory on another subject on the rise of Trump: since the Viet Nam war, we've had decade after decade of vets returning with PTSD, and children have been raised in unstable environments. I think to a large segment of the population (not a majority, but enough to have an impact ) have been raised in an erratic, abusive home. Trump's behavior is the norm for them.
I honestly don't think the Democrats are bad at messaging. This misconception sure is part of the enduring fabric of our Country. I believe the Democrat's message of Democracy at work, decency and fair play is just plain boring to most people. The Republican's messages of chaos, fear and hatred is much more interesting to the public. Hence it sells.
In other words decency=boring and chaos=excitement.
Fox News is just better at making up titillating news and presenting with fake blondes showing lots of legs.
It is sort of like giving the news from a stip joint really.
And every time I see the women on FOX I think this: Another giant step backward for womankind.
Also true!
Point 2: RE Dems messaging. We got lazy when the bulk of media supported the progressive agreement established under FDR and then continued under Eisenhower. In the meantime, Rs built up a propaganda system to contest the Progressive norm. And Dems acquiesced to that under the concept of “Freedom of Speech”. The starvation of the educational system and the development of the internet spread “Alternative facts” exponentially, and here we are. Within just a few states of being able to hold a constitutional convention to alter said constitution.
That being said, perhaps Dems and some Rs naively thought that Democracy would naturally prevail. Since all of this is merely my opinion, it can be taken with a grain of salt if desired.
Well said! Thanks.
Karen, I like your origins of being fooled hypotheses. They make sense to me.
Wow! Astute! No irony intended. Congratulations!
I'll repeat my question. What made you vote Republican in the first place? What was your belief system?
I understand:
I believed Ronald Reagan's accusations that Carter was irresponsible with money AND.......
I believed his tropes about faked black woman in Chicago.
I was from a poor farm. I had worked 12 hour days since I was 12 years old.
The thought of someone getting money for no work? Was anathema to me. BUT, I still did not yet know that nobody in America would HIRE a black person into almost any job. That was not known to me.
However, I did have other experiences that tempered this but ..... only later.
Thanks.
No problem.
Don't leave out the Nixon administration, ending the gold standard, creating the stagflation during the Carter administration. Carter's one-term presidency ended under the shadow of a national loss of confidence, but he also added 9.3 million jobs, one of the largest increases of any president.
Jeff,
Excellent, EXCELLENT point! I remember Nixon's move to what libertarians call "fiat" money.
Republicans never failed to leave a gigantic mess for Democrats. The only other goal while they were in power was to make sure the mess looked like it was a Dem mess. NEVER failed.
I remember this as well. And an overview of history only reveals more. Kudos to HCR for her giant education project! And kudos to you for having the wisdom to see through the rhetorical fog!
Well, I wonder what I am missing now??
We all find out what we missed sooner or later — whether we wanted to or not!
May I post elsewhere with attribution?
Sure, you don't have to attribute. No big deal. All public knowledge.
Mike, your story is important because you are a real person who went through this transformation, not an abstraction. And you very clearly and transparently express the process. That makes your story real to people.
I only admit my mistakes to those who I am NOT married to. I am a guy after all.
:-)
My ignorance of American history appalls me — and I thought I’d had a good education. Thank you, HCR, for educating this 75 year old graduate of one of the Seven Sisters colleges and a law school dropout to boot. I am much obliged and very grateful to you.
I can't claim to clearly remember (at 71) everything I was taught in my youth. But I feel confident that the last part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century were glossed over. No exaggeration, I've learned more about those tumultuous periods in our country from the professor than I did in the classroom.
I actually have a very good education in history, and just got a good history lesson tonight. Mostly the connections she made. I knew the events.
Tonight's history reminded me of two things:
1. Harry Truman was right in 1948 when he said "The only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies." As HCR demonstrated, they've been scum for 150 years. Not just the past 40.
2. Adlai Stevenson was right back in 1952, when he said: “The strange alchemy of time has somehow converted the Democrats into the truly conservative party of this country — the party dedicated to conserving all that is best, and building solidly and safely on these foundations.”
Yea TC. My favorite HST quote “Socialism is the name they give almost anything that helps all the people.” Favorite Stevenson quote “I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my republican friends, that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them.” Great men who knew republicans well. (However I did like Ike, but he should have been a Dem).
All Republicans scum? Too strong, though it's true for today's version of the party except for a few precious exceptions. Love the Stevenson quote.
You did read HCR's history lesson did you not? Truman was right back in 1948 that "the only 'good Republicans' are pushing up daisies." Look at every single thing HCR listed in that history lesson and tell me the people in the story are not scum. Scum who were willing to sell their mothers if it made them a dime. They were willing to bring on the Panic of 1893 to advance their political power, an act that is the exact same as what they have done every day since Obama took the oath of office. Just as one example.
Of course I read it. Your comment about scum seemed to apply to all Republicans during that long period, or that's how I interpreted it. that's what I object to.
Have to appreciate Adlai. To your point about HCR ... experience and learning do cause us to make the connections of events and antecedents 😌. Like that. Therein is the role of intelligence coming to fore.
I went to high school in Arkansas and university in Texas. My American history classes pretty much ended at the Civil War (states rights!) with a smattering of Reconstruction and even smaller smattering beyond that.
Sara, I hope you hung in there for most of the first year of law school for the history of contracts, torts & constitutional law. If not, a read of Marbury vs Madison is always well worth it. Our courts founded in the common law going back centuries say what the Law is.
Bryan, I did! I also had criminal law and ethics. I guess lots of attorneys in the previous administration missed these. 😉
For those of us, myself included, who don't know the case: "Summary: Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, was a U.S. Supreme Court case that established the precedent of judicial review. This judicial review power allows the Supreme Court to invalidate or declare unconstitutional actions or laws created by levels of government." https://sites.gsu.edu/us-constipedia/marbury-v-madison-1803/
Thank you Judith.
I didn't attend law school. But by far the best subject I studied as an undergraduate majoring in political science was political history of constitutional law. The two five-hour courses taught me so much and provided the context of much of what is happening today. Of course Marbury v. Madison was a focus. It's safe to assume that the present Supreme Court will honor that ruling as a precedent not to be ignored.
Michael, my first introduction to Marbury vs. Maddson was as a UCLA undergrad in my Constitutional Law political science course. My professor spent an hour lecture on it. The case law was referenced throughout the class. The casec is foundational near the very beginning of SCOTUS.
A main reason the classes have stayed with me all these decades later is, predictably, the professor — his ability to enliven the key cases and their significance, as well as his passion.
Absolutely, like Professor Richardson.
Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History of the United States" was not written until 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States
Reading that book back in the early '90's was the moment I knew why smatterings of the history I was taught in school seemed so biased compared to what my adopted grandmother would teach me when we would travel around the southwest visiting Indian reservations. I was stunned how they lived on such barren land and yet were such kind people to us. She grew up in New Mexico in a very small, humble canyon. Am thinking that her lovely, very wrinkled face looked quite Indian even though she had red hair and blue eyes. I now wonder if, like my biological father, she had Native ancestors but no one knew or talked about it, for shame. We spent many hours looking for pottery shards, arrowheads, geodes and squaw tears in the southwest and in the Hesperia desert where we stayed in her beloved vacation cabin, in nature, away from the world. She thought I had an "eagle eye" for scanning. Feels like I am still piecing "shards" together of my family history. It gets clearer and clearer as I age and "feel" the impact of the lying, controlling, white patriarchy on my family and country—on both sides. I thank her and my mother, in this moment, for instilling in me, the only female in my generation, to be alert, strong, respectful, question authority and fight for equality for all people. Witnessing the rise of fascism so blatantly in 2016. Violent Nazis in the open in Florida. I truly hope our laws will put a stop to all this tyranny and seditious uprising. Squaw tears...for us and the planet, otherwise.
(I am very aware that "squaw" is derogatory today, but that is part of history and the adjective of my little, obsidian, pile of tears).
Ditto all of this from another elder Seven Sister.
It appears that historical lessons about what works is to pay workers enough to buy the products they make (e.g., Ford). The impoverishment of workers savages the economy. The concentration of wealth impoverishes the workers. It seems so simple, no?
'Advanced' capitalism trashes Earth as well as the beings who populate it. Extinction, anyone? The shame of profit off the backs of the elderly, the workers, the habitat of co-existing beings, planetary health, etc., appears to be water off a duck's back to the greedy profiteers.
The tragedy of the greed gene will continue to evidence in the changed climate catastrophes.
Eloquently stated!
Great comment Kim! And SO true. Tragically so.
Well said.
I would like to see this theme get much more play. "The persistence of the myth that Democrats are bad for the economy is an interesting example of the endurance of political rhetoric over reality." I am not a historian but took notice when the Reagan Administration became known for dominating publicity with its skilled communication team and the promotion of a message of the day. That administration was criticized for running every day as a campaign. The most outrageous Republican pronouncements have the same effect, to dominate attention. Again, although not a historian, I noticed this with the Tea Party's antics. Trump's feverish Twitter posts and his outlandish lies took up all of the oxygen in the room. And the monolithic Republican media juggernaut combined with politicians who are disciplined in repeated messaging and outrage from the national stage down to the local school board continue to get much more notice. Meanwhile Democrats plan to win by governing better. How's that working? If Democrats refuse to focus on disciplined messaging that captures attention, we'll continue to lose, when doing so is increasingly disastrous. I'm sure that there is more history behind this.
Evidence supporting your argument is how Republicans consistently crow about infrastructure projects for their states and districts that they voted against. And get away with it.
They have been called by Biden. his Administration and the media on numerous occasions. What made you think they were getting away with it?
Because they haven't been punished for it electorally. Yes, the media calls them out for their vile hypocrisy but not prominently. And does the news resonate with large swathes of Republican voters?
And they are not being called out politically because the media loves the chaos of the Republican's lies and anger much more that the calmness of the Democratic Party (some hyperbole here for making my point.)
Unfortunately Americans quit investigating, researching and questioning for themselves. I am not sure when this began in earnest but I suspect it coincides with the rise of corporate media and the internet.
It was under Reagan that the cost of housing began to rise at a ridiculous rate. The cost of housing has made a middle class life impossible for tens of millions of people. Does anyone know of a book about the rise in housing costs since the eighties?
Nope. Wrong!! Housing prices started going "nuts" in the mid-70s, 1972 to be specific (I know because I bought a house for the amazing high price of $36,000 in 1974 and sold it for the ridiculous price of $60,000 in 1978 and by 1980 the guy who bought it for $69 sold it for $95K). It's why California passed Proposition 13 in 1978 (although it was more Republican bait-and-switch, since the only way to have it work for you is to not sell your property for a very long time. And the only part of the economy that does that is corporations and their property. Residential property is taxed much higher here than corporate as a result, because nobody keeps their house longer than 3-5 years (and much less right now while they're playing Monopoly with houses).
yes, Reagan began the massive deficit spending that brought on massive inflation.
LFFA,Greenpeace, Democratic Party, The Xerces Society and hundreds more progressive organizations would benefit by uniting in a common cause to push back against the Republican media juggernaut. Without Democratic victories in 2022 and 2024 what these organizations stand for will be doomed.
The media is not helping either. I’ve seen so many interviews of Trump folks’ opposition-very few interviews with Democrats touting their satisfaction with the Biden administration.
Gina, you're reinforcing my point. The MAGA folks are making so much noise around the same simplistic messaging that they are dragging the media along with them. Democrats need to drive the messaging so that the media will have to cover it in a way that we get heard.
Democratic messaging also fails because it's poorly crafted. Messages need to stick. Compare "tax and spend" and "Make America Great Again" with its MAGA acronym and American flags, and "shining city on a hill" to "Build Back Better." The latter includes the word "back." It's not even forward-moving, and repeats three "b's" that take a bumpy ride before it rolls out of your mouth. Democrats are the party of democracy. We stand for one person, one vote. We create opportunity. We are building the future. Is there anyone driving Democratic messaging at all levels of government?
Another high-impact Republican strategy -- a form of misinformation really -- is blaming Democrats for Republican bad behavior that is either planned or underway. "Stop the steal" is an effective example of this. Democrats need to name Republican misbehavior. They've even stolen our momentum on education by making so much noise about CRT and parental rights to influence what their children are learning instead of teaching the truth, because the truth sets you free. We have no unified arguments to their banning books and censoring teachers instead of supporting them?
And then there's the matter of charisma. We need to promote more candidates who are orators like Raphael Warnock.
This is the comment of the day! The Democrats' messaging, especially in this era of colliding tsunamis of instant communication, undermines achievements and keeps the party perpetually on the defensive.
Another successful Republican strategy is defining Democrats before Democrats define themselves. Republicans anticipate what Democrats will promote. They develop unified messaging to smear Democrats and promote it in a unified way across all of their platforms. 97+% of the BLM protests were peaceful. But Dems are branded for wanting to "defund the police" and for causing riots in the streets because of a few inevitable exceptions. Democrats are associated with Antifa. Republican "patriots" opposed Democratic "lawlessness" even as we try to weaken the influence of a former president who is in Putin's pocket. Democrats are believed to have cheated at the ballot box when that's a Republican excuse for doing exactly that. "Liberal" is now a tainted word. How did we let that happen?
When we elect a national trifecta and gain the bully pulpit, that pulpit is not just a president speaking at a podium. It's using the power of an elected government to get the message out.
Excellent points. I've read that the Republicans, a top-down organization if there ever was one, send out daily talking points. And they all recite them throughout the daily news cycle. And certainly Fox News receives them, too.
We blame the immovable Republican base. The base only exists because of the GOP messaging juggernaut. Fox News, OAN, AM talk radio, etc. have even replaced the pulpit in the Evangelical community.
Such riveting reading, Heather! While I have tried hard to become well-versed in US history during my thirty years as an immigrant, nothing has educated me more deeply nor more fully than your letters. Sometimes, I have to read them more than once to fill my heart and mind with your uncanny acuity.
This letter, filled with such profound sensitivity, is one for the books:
"And yet, of course, it has been Republican economic policies that opened up the possibility for Democrats to try new approaches to the economy, to make it serve all Americans, rather than a favored few. As FDR put it: 'It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.'"
"If you want to live like a Republican, vote for the Democrats." -- President Harry Truman
Heather, you always give us a spin on history. As is the case tonight, we often see that everything old is new again. Thanks for your knowledge and wisdom.
Well! This is altogether not what I have understood to be the path of political history of the Democrats and Republicans that I learned in school, albeit MANY years ago. I am not a historian nor do I claim to be particularly well read on this topic, but I would not get into a spitting contest over something like this with Heather Cox Robinson!
This is exactly why I do read material like this. It isn’t simply because it reinforces my own attitudes, but even more, it explains clearly and informs me with facts that are backed up with footnotes for the statements made in the article.
What Prof. Cox Richardson does with her letters is akin to magic! She will take a topic of the day expound on the matter at hand, then point by point, she will break everything down to its constituent parts so the reader can understand what is happening, why it is happening, and if it is possible, she will offer pathways for avoiding calamity.
I am so grateful for the Letter to an American! I am even more grateful that Heather Cox Richardson is willing to make the tremendous effort to write these letters for us with full annotations daily. Saying thank you is not adequate to express my full gratitude for this effort. Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!
I believe I’ll send this onto my republican family members. Socialism is their new word of the day…
Why don’t we own it? With pride? If having complex moral emotions like empathy, sympathy, compassion for others is ‘socialism,’ if wanting those who have much share with those who have little is ‘socialism,’ if justice, fairness, access and equality are words in one’s active vocabulary is ‘socialism,’ then I’m a proud socialist. A democratic socialist. Move over, Bernie!
Gus I am proud to be a ‘socialist.’ I benefit from Medicare, Social Security, and FEMA-subsidized insurance on my property. My cousin, who was with the Marine 1st Division, that landed on Guadalcanal in 1942, was the first major ‘socialist’ in my family. He survived the deadly island hopping and, under the GI Bill, was the first in my immediate family to complete college.
I am proud to be associated with other ‘socialists’ who have been provided unemployment benefits, child care benefits, had their pensions covered when corporations finagled themselves into bankruptcy, and all those citizens and companies that received ‘hand outs’ to permit them to survive through a prolonged pandemic. I am a proud ‘socialist’ when Obamacare [officially the Affordable Health Care Act] has provided health care to tens of millions of Americans who deserve health coverage.
I am a reluctant ‘socialist’ when I see pork barrel agriculture payments that often go to large corporate farmers. More so, when Trump provided tens of billions of dollars to farmers to offset farm losses due to his misguided China tariff war. I am an extremely reluctant ‘socialist’ when Trump provides $1.7 trillion in tax benefits overwhelmingly for very wealthy citizens and corporations, while the middle class and others were paying more than their fair share in taxes.
The word socialism has been a Republican bugaboo since before I was born. Treasury Secretary Mellon (part of the ultra wealthy elite) was clearly anti-socialist during his tenure under Coolidge and Hoover. The Republicans were apoplectic at FDR’s New Deal and other initiatives intended to enhance the livelihood of citizens during the Great Depression and to curb some of free wheeling by the wealthy elite.
I am proud to be a SOCIALIST, as should any American who cares about his country and their fellow citizens. Incidentally, I believe that some of the most vociferous anti-socialists come from states that are heavily rewarded with ‘federal funds’ that come from states that provide a disproportionately large amount of tax money.
Democratic Socialist would be the term in Europe, Gus. Words have a meaning. Socialism as such has a meaning and it's not just about caring for the people and providing for the poor....it's a totally different economic system of "collective", i.e. government ownership of everything and whenever tried has ended up very undemocratic and has impoverished the people. For instance, Venezuela is hardly a good advertisement for "socialism" but proclaims itself to be pursuing that "ideal".
Stuart, Though your comment was not addressed to me, I felt compelled to write seeing how Republicans, in my view, are able to incite fear of any policy aimed at redressing inequities because of a tendency in the States to conflate socialism and democratic socialism. A critical consequence is that we’re losing elections we should be winning.
i trust that you are not telling me that thereby their winning. Is illegitimate...and only the democrats should win if everybody played by democrats rules...gerrymandering is of course practiced by both sides.
Stuart, I wrote, initially, merely to note my observation that Republicans are able to incite fear of any policy aimed at redressing inequities because of a tendency in the States, at least among some, to blur the distinction between Democratic Socialism, that merely calls for a more equitable distribution of a nation’s wealth, and Socialism, that advocates for government control and ownership of the means of production. My point about elections was meant to underscore how people not armed with knowledge are susceptible to manipulation aimed at serving interests that are not necessarily their own. Hence, my belief that we’re losing elections we should be winning.
I understood you perfectly, Barbara, but I'm afraid I used your response as an excuse...a platform... to add something that you quite evidently didn't say...that it is often construed that people vote against you because they are ignorant, uneducated or simply panicked. Some are quite evidently, but many are not .This often underestimates the degree of free choice in opponents that simply don't want what you are proposing. Many didn't vote for Biden, they just didn't want Trump. That doesn't mean they are in agreement with his program.
That's not what I understood from Barbara Jo's reply.
Thank you, Anne-Louise. Momentarily, I will reply to Stuart.
I should hope not
YES, Gus! Beautiful words. I'd like to see them written large and clear, on an oft-visited screen.
Thank you, Anne-Louise for your beautiful compliment. Be my guest — put it on any screen you like. Definitely too long for a bumper sticker....
It's intriguing to see that it was their new word back then too. Were they all reading Marx and Engels?
You're suggesting Republicans can read and use reading comprehension. A fact never in evidence.
No, no! Don’t ever doubt the Republicans’ ability! There definitely some loud mouths who have more volume than brains (see: January 6, 2021), but simply because I disagree with almost everything they say and do, there are absolutely well- educated Republicans out there. I’m sure you were joking when you made your comment, but underestimating one’s opponent can be lead to unforeseen consequences. Most people underestimated TFG and look where we are now!
After what we've seen over the past five years, it would seem that any well-educated Republicans are ill-intentioned. And absolutely not to be underestimated. Know your enemy.
"Ill" being of course a judgement based upon personal values....their intentions are contrary to yours and probably destructive of yours but from the point of view of their values, they are well intentioned.
Quite so. Based on personal values, and observation over this five-year period.
'Twas irony.
I know. I just couldn't resist. :-)
It wouldn't surprise you to learn that most people proclaiming ideologies supposedly based on their works haven't read them either....evidenced by the theories and practice of governance and attendant policies that they proclaim.
TC, I don’t think they want to. All those inconvenient facts and stuff....
Before there was a question of whether wealthy Northerners would support the Union, there was the question of whether they would sign the Declaration of Independence.
And in fact John Dickinson, Delegate to the Continental Congress of Pennsylvania - one of the most eloquent writers in defense of colonists' interests and articulators of their grievances, and one of the wealthiest men in the Colonies - did not. Although his motives were as much loyalty to England and a wish for reform through reconciliation. He resigned from Congress rather than sign, and then headed up a militia to join Washington's troops in battle. And of course, it was Dickinson's "Letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania, to the inhabitants of the British Colonies" which inspired the title of HCR's letters.
Before there was "Hamilton" there was the 1969 play "1776" which depicted all this. The play was was performed in 1970 in the White House for Pres. Nixon who demanded of his friend Jack Warner that the song depicting Dickinson's position be cut from the 1972 film version.
"In the musical “1776,” the song “Cool, Cool, Considerate Men” depicts Revolutionary War era conservatives as power-hungry wheedlers focused on maintaining wealth. So it’s not surprising that then-President Richard Nixon, who saw the show at a special White House performance in 1970, wasn’t a big fan of the number.
What is surprising is that according to Jack L. Warner, the film’s producer and a friend of the president, Nixon pressured him to cut the song from the 1972 film version of the show–which Warner did. Warner also wanted the original negative of the song shredded, but the film’s editor secretly kept it intact." - LA Times
. . .
"and Howard Da Silva, who played Ben Franklin. The last time Da Silva had received an invitation from Nixon, it was to testify before 1947’s House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC), the anti-communist star chamber that Nixon helped to revivify during his time in Congress. Da Silva refused to talk and was subsequently blacklisted from Hollywood for many years." - LA Times
No wonder Nixon objected. (And if you watch the youtube film clip, please note the rather goose-steppy minuet.) And in the category of political rhetoric over reality, Dickinson's retort to Hancock just about sums up the GOP's successful, if baffling, strategy of ensnaring the working class populists to serve the 1% plutocrats.
[DICKINSON, spoken]
But why, sir? For personal glory? For a... place in history? Be careful, sir. History will brand Mr. Adams and his followers as traitors
[HANCOCK, spoken]
Traitors, Mr. Dickinson? To what? The British crown? Or the British half-crown? Fortunately, there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy
[DICKINSON, spoken]
Well, perhaps not. But don't forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they will follow us!
[DICKINSON & CONGRESS]
To the right, ever to the right
Never to the left, forever to the right.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LxaAw2viEIQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_from_a_Farmer_in_Pennsylvania
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-sep-07-ca-42982-story.html
https://longreads.com/2017/07/06/the-1972-movie-of-the-1969-musical-1776/
Thanks for these links. 1776 is one of my favorites, and I never knew that backstory about Nixon. Wow.
Though I cannot begin to calculate the immeasurable benefits of receiving LFAA’s near daily historical accountings shaping contemporary perspectives, considering we have but a small window to effect the mood of the country if, next fall, we’re to have a shot at retaining both the House and the Senate, I wish to fast forward to the immediate present.
Though there likely are a number of factors that could help explain why the Administration’s accomplishments are not resonating with enough of the public (e.g., recent polls show that 60+% of Republicans are enthused about the November midterms compared with only 40% of Democrats), my comment today will address just one factor I deem mighty critical. I submit that Democrats ought to focus far more on rendering their story as opposed to talking about abstract legislation and non relatable numbers and data. One example is the $20 billion federal investment in semi-conductors in Ohio replete with stories from people about what these manufacturing and construction jobs have meant to them and to their families. Note I haven’t even touched on how said investment helps to remedy a dependence on South Korea and Taiwan, a dependence that has contributed to mounting supply chain hang-ups at our ports. My point is that Dems need to gin up their constituents’ enthusiasm with a host of stories related to the impact of the American Rescue Plan and the Bipartisan Infrastructure legislation for which Republicans are taking credit, despite the legislation not receiving a single House Republican vote. On a final note, people also should understand what they’re losing while the human infrastructure piece of the President’s BBB agenda remains stalled in the Senate.
Sadly, many people view that "human infrastructure" piece of that legislation as essentially a plan that gives money to "undeserving" (in their minds) people. I see this constantly from my "conservative" friends (who are no more conservative than the folks receiving benefits are undeserving, but I digress...) and bleat the "socialism" theory until it bleeds.
Ally, Excluding the far right, I would submit that Americans overall would mobilize around a much tougher, much stronger Biden, who both amplified his accomplishments and also pressed to advance a good amount of the human infrastructure piece currently stalled in the Senate. I state this because, nationwide, I hear a broad spectrum of people asking for: universal child care and Pre-K, reinstatement of the child tax credit, expanded healthcare, investments in housing, in home and community-based care, and in climate.
Which modern Presidents left a surplus in the treasury? Which ones spent it to deficits, lavishing debt to buy more arms for senseless wars? It’s not just $ they are spending ( robbing?), but the blood and promise of the young.
FDR- “But above all try something.”
Republicans don’t even have a platform that their party will run on.
You make our collective history a novel, an exploration, a window (of discovery) and a great reading experience. You’re not just a great teacher, you’re an incredibly talented writer. The way you weave history into current events is seamless and beautiful.
There are a number of consistent themes in Ms. Richardson’s brilliant Letters. Among the most prominent, as in this Letter, is that facts instruct.