Open Thread and Diary Rescue

This evening's Rescue Rangers are Yashua, YatPundit, ezdidit, dadanation, Avila, and noddem, with watercarrier4diogenes searching the drawers of the Editor's desk for a decent quill.

Tonight's diaries cover a variety of interesting issues not covered by the 'traditional media' (tm Kos) and definitely not with the same $$élan$$ that the Broders of that 'village' are known for.

• The inimitable jlynne contemplates Obama's FISA statement in the uncompromising context of history, the Constitution and pragmatism, in "God created Arrakis to train the faithful". Truly a must-read. (Avila)
• iampunha commemorates this day and explodes a multitude of myths in June 22, 1633: Upon further review, the Earth does not orbit the sun. (ezdidit)
• Do you think supply and demand are behind gas and oil prices? Guess again. Carol White argues that the causes can be traced to market manipulation, legalized by Republicans, in Phil Gramm and The Political Scandal Behind Today's Soaring Oil Prices. (Yashua)
• agnostic animates the expression "I would not have believed it if I did not read it" in Pastor Agnostic's Daily Sermon. (dadanation)
• prestochango shares his/her journey to the Democratic Party and the Great Orange Satan, and offers An Apology to Well Intentioned Republicans. (noddem)
• teacherken offers great wisdom and touching insight in a most remarkable diary about education not just for teachers. Don't miss Teach With Your Heart. (ezdidit)
• If anyone is seeking an oasis of calm amidst the current rash of FISA diaries, check out undercovercalico's photo-diary Who is at the Zoo. (dadanation)
• jimstaro alerts us that hundreds of U.S. troops may have suffered exposure to sodium dichromate in Iraq. Read about it here: Iraq's WMD's = Gravely Ill American Soldiers. (ezdidit)
• In a diary that exposes international legal and corporate complexities, ItsJessMe explains why anyone can rightfully claim You're Darn Right Gay Marriage Affects Me! (ezdidit)
• In an update to an earlier diary that pondered whether or not the anti-same-sex marriage initiative on the California ballot this November was constitutional or not, Killer of Sacred Cows explores the ramifications of the most recent developments in BREAKING: CA Marriage Equality - EQCA asks CA SC to remove initiative from ballot. (dadanation)
• Anne Elk skillfully deconstructs the fear factor as GOP campaign strategy in The Fear narrative: 9/11. (Avila)
• Amber6541 discusses the Dem response to the domestic oil drilling scam in The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 (H.R. 6251). (YatPundit)
• fbihop highlights policy differences between two NM Senate candidates in the well-written NM-Sen: Oilman vs Environmentalist. (Avila)
• With a lovely pictorial essay, Stranded Wind suggests a day-trip to find glacial carved stone: Chesterfield Gorge, Massachussetts. (ezdidit)

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread (even if you're the author! Here's where that's actually appreciated). And, of course, since it's an open thread, PLAY NICE, OK? 8^)

Another Election Like 1932?  (Part 4)  Book Review: Donald Ritchie's Electing FDR

Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932
By Donald A. Ritchie
University Press of Kansas
Lawrence, KS, 2007

In late 2007 I wrote a series of three essays (here, here and here) examining the parallels between the early indicators in this election cycle and the Democratic landslide of 1932.  In those previous essays I examined long-term demographic and voting trends, the number of seats being defended by the Republicans and the overwhelming financial, operational, strategic and polling advantages of the Democrats, and the tremendous unpopularity of George W. Bush and the Republican party.  

In the months since, the underlying weaknesses of the Republicans have grown more apparent.  The National Republican Congressional Committee has remained broke and is mired in an embezzlement scandal that could leave it unable to borrow money to protect their dozens of endangered incumbents or to defend Republican-held open seats.  The NRCC's Senate counterparts aren't in much better shape, with several Republican-held seats like those in Virginia, New Hampshire and New Mexico appearing to be already settled contests, and with probably ten or more remaining Republican seats potentially vulnerable, all while the DSCC has a roughly 2-1 cash advantage.  

Last November and December few would have predicted that it would not be until June that the Democratic nomination was finally settled.  After polling roughly even with Republican nominee John McCain, since Hillary Clinton conceded the nomination Barack Obama has surged to solid leads in many of the previously contested battleground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, and has polled exceedingly well in many other states that haven't been competitive for Democrats since 1996, or in some cases 1976 or even 1964.  

History doesn't repeat itself.  While there is great value in many of the writings of advocates of a cyclical view of history, such as Giambattista Vico, Arnold Toynbee and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr (whose works include the Pulitizer-prize winning The Crisis of the Old Order 1919-1933: The Age of Roosevelt), few historians accept the notion that history repeats itself.  But Mark Twain was on to something when he quipped that "history doesn't repeat itself...but it rhymes."  

Donald A. Ritchie's Electing FDR: The New Deal Election of 1932 would be a worthy read even were it not for the compelling parallels one finds in it from the perspective of this particular campaign season.  Ritchie, an associate historian at the U.S. Senate Historical Office, has a deft touch for the compelling anecdote and story, and keeps the narrative moving nicely.  He introduces the main and secondary characters with enough detail and context that we can understand their actions and motivations, but with enough brevity and economy that the details don't slow down the reader.  

Ritchie knows the social, economic and intellectual history of the era, and does an excellent job of giving the broader cultural and social background in which the campaign took place.  And his descriptions of the hard working, conscientious but humorless Herbert Hoover and the ebullient FDR, once seen as a featherweight but whose struggle with polio at age 39 led him to develop tremendous fortitude and empathy with those in danger of being beaten down in their own struggles, enliven the book.  Ritchie's portraits of Hoover and Roosevelt make it seem obvious that a cabbie in Detroit could convey this impression to a reporter:

I tell you, lady, the day Roosevelt is elected will be a national holiday—like Armistice Day, you know.  I figure that if we get rid of Old Gloom and put in a feller that can laugh and act human, the Depression will be half over.

The cabbie was right.  The economic toll of the Depression continued through FDR's first two terms, and didn't really lift until the country was mobilized for the struggle against fascism.  But half the battle against the depression was against fear and despair, and the country began righting itself the moment FDR, in his first inaugural address, told Americans that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."  

But what about those parallels between 1932 and 2008?  Yes, the country and the world face tremendous challenges, probably the most dire since the Second World War.  Things are not as bad as when FDR ran.  But the years before the stock market crash of 1929 have many similarities to our recent past.  The Republicans were in full control of the government, and anti-regulatory, pro-business policies prevailed. While unemployment was low, there was a yawning gap in wealth and income between the rich and poor.  Rural communities were distressed.  The economy was undergoing a major transformation.  Organized labor was weakened and under assault.  Though economic problems were increasing, it was cultural issues, most of all prohibition, that dominated elections.

Hoover came in to office with a reputation very different from that of George W. Bush.  Hoover was possibly America's most admired and respected administrator.  He was a self-made man who had excelled in the first class at Stanford University, became a mining executive, traveled the world and made a fortune.  During World War I he was dispatched by Woodrow Wilson to oversee food relief programs in Europe, and he performed brilliantly.  In 1920 he was even sought out as a possible Democratic nominee for President.  

That year former assistant Secretary of the Navy Roosevelt ran on the losing Democratic ticket.  He and Hoover had become friends in Washington DC during the war, and they admired each other.  But Hoover joined the Republicans, and spent the 1920's as the Secretary of Commerce.  He largely avoided political rancor, but built up political chits, and in 1928 won the Republican presidential nomination and defeated New York's Catholic Governor Al Smith for the Presidency.

Roosevelt spent much of the 1920's rehabilitating himself from polio, which he contracted in 1921.  By 1928, however, he was recruited, somewhat reluctantly, to run for Governor of New York, in part to bolster the ticket in New York for Smith's presidential campaign.  Smith lost his home state, but Roosevelt eked out a narrow win.    

By 1932, the good times and emphasis in campaigns on divisive social issues were gone.  Unemployment, 3.2% when Hoover took office, was at 23.6%.  We have severe problems in our banking and financial sectors today, but nothing like what faced the country in 1932.  On the very day the Democratic convention started in Chicago, 25 of that city's banks were forced to close.  

In 1930, as the Depression gained strength, the Democrats crushed the Republicans in the mid-term elections.  Back then Congress didn't convene until a year after the elections.  During the interim between the elections in November of 1930 and the seating of Congress in early 1932, 13 members of Congress died, and Democrats won almost every one of the special elections, including some in previously solidly Republican districts.  In total, by the time Congress was seated, Democrats had netted a 54 seat gain in the House, shifting the chamber from solidly Republican to a Democratic advantage of 3 seats.  

In the Senate, Democrats picked up 8 seats.  It was barely less than they needed to gain control, but thinking that a solidly Democratic congress that couldn't accomplish anything in the face of Presidential obstruction would hurt the Democrats more than his party, Hoover urged the Senate Republicans to let the Democrats organize the chamber.  

That Congress, in large part because of Presidential vetos, accomplished very little.  Unlike today, there were progressive Republicans like George Norris of Nebraska and William Borah of Idaho.  Nevertheless, like today, an obstructionist President prevented a narrow Democratic majority from many accomplishments.

Roosevelt, easily reelected in 1930 on the strength of his bold policies as governor as much as the overall Democratic wave, became the favorite for the nomination.  However, the other candidates, including his one-time ally Al Smith, had enough support to prevent Roosevelt from securing the nomination.  Roosevelt assembled a team of newcomers, while the campaigns of his rivals were stacked with politicos who had been involved in previous presidential campaigns.  At a time when primaries meant very, very little—fewer than 5% or so of the delegates were awarded on the basis of primary results—Roosevelt nonetheless dispatched one of his chief aids to travel the country and build on the support of Democratic leaders with whom Roosevelt had continued correspondence ever since his 1920 VP candidacy, and he contested every primary.  Despite losing most of the biggest or mostly heavily Democratic states, such as Illinois, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, Roosevelt performed quite well, especially in states not traditionally thought to be bastions of Democratic support or likely Democratic wins in a general election.

Roosevelt's team went to the Chicago convention with the most support, but far from the total needed for the nomination.  In 1924 the convention required over a hundred ballots before reaching agreement.  FDR's team expected to be able to hold and maybe grow their lead through four.  If all of the candidates arrayed against him could have thrown their collective support behind one of their group, that man would have won the nomination.  But with the assistance of Joseph Kennedy—father of John, Robert and Teddy Kennedy—Roosevelt's team was able to negotiate a deal with the Speaker of the House, Texan John Nance Garner, for the support his delegates who controlled the delegations from Texas and California.  

The Democrats came out of the convention only moderately excited by Roosevelt.  Some delegates, supporters mostly of Al Smith, declared that Roosevelt would not be able to win Catholic voters in November.  But the delegates were unified in support for repealing prohibition.  

Shortly after gaining the nomination, Roosevelt disappointed many of his most liberal supporters by renouncing his support for the League of Nations.  In the wake of World War I, the country was strongly isolationist.  While Roosevelt personally supported the League, Roosevelt announced he would not seek US entry in to the league, declaring there was "a difference between ideals and the methods of obtaining them."  

Throughout the campaign Roosevelt provided few specifics on policy.  He was widely criticized by intellectuals, writers and party elites for the vagueness of his proposals and the lack of bold pronouncements in his campaign.  He did, however, have his "brain trust" of professors, mostly from Columbia, who were key in drafting his speeches in which he advocated for government intervention in the economy and a more vigorous effort to move the country forward than that advocated by Hoover.  But Roosevelt kept many of his more conservative financial backers molified by advocating a balanced budget, and he eschewed many specifics.  As he told his brain trusters, he was running a campaign and not an adult education program, and that in office he could educate the public and harness their support for his initiative, but as a candidate he "had to accept people's prejudices and turn them to good use."  

Operationally FDR's campaign was far more bold and inventive than Hoover's.  FDR had a deep, resonant voice and an orator's gift.  Hoover was uncomfortable with speaking on the radio, and avoided that new technology, while FDR and his campaign embraced it.  FDR took every opportunity available to speak on the radio, while Hoover conceded that new medium to the Democrat.  And with Wall Street comparatively broke and the activist base split over prohibition between the pro-repeal "wets" and the pro-prohibition "dry's," the Republican party was short on money and enthusiasm.  

Along with the special election wins in the congressional races, the September results in Maine presaged the huge win.  Back then Maine voted for other offices in September, with only the presidency contested in November.  Despite being one of the most Republican states in the union, that September Democrats stomped the Republicans, winning the Governorship and two of the state's three Congressional seats.  

Polio decimated Roosevelt's legs, but the crushing work and failures of his presidency aged Hoover tremendously.  Despite a whisper campaign about FDR's disability—plenty of rumors circulated that he had been infected with syphilis—most who saw him viewed him as the epitome of vigor in comparison with the pallid and defeated Hoover.  Roosevelt developed a powerful upper body from pulling and hoisting himself around, and on campaign stops, his auto or train car was fitted with a bar on which he would rise and stead himself, enabling him to stand.  He had a powerful voice, was relatively young at only 50, and he was campaigning on the belief that what the country needed most was change.  The contrast was stark.  Hoover was old and represented the past.  Roosevelt was the future.  

On election day, Roosevelt won every state but Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.  He garnered 57% of the vote--less than future landslide wins by Roosevelt in 1936, Johnson in 1964, Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1984--and Democrats netted another 99 seats in the House and 14 in the Senate.

Obviously there are many differences between Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama.  I will not burden Obama with comparisons with one of our three greatest presidents, and the greatest Democrat to ever hold the office.  It's also important to recognize the difference between the horrific conditions of 1932 versus the bad but not as obviously dire circumstances facing us today.  But just as there are striking parallels between the underlying electoral conditions and demographic trends that I examined in my previous essays, the contrasts between our current candidates and the conduct of their campaigns have many parallels with those of 1932.  

Will Barack Obama lead Democrats to the overwhelming win that FDR led in 1932?  While the portents are good, it's still too early to tell.  Besides, we need to not only predict our history, we need to work smart and work hard to create the history we desire.  But one cannot read Ritchie's book in 2008 and not hear words and patterns that, while not the exact as what we hear today, certainly rhyme.  

Requiem

Of all the things I despise about the Bush administration, the one I will forever loathe most is how they made morality a minority position. It was the standard operating procedure of the Bush years that ethics was considered quaint, that pride in government was considered hopelessly idealistic, and that morality was the stuff of starry eyed fools.

I could believe that the United States would be reduced to torture; we have tarnished our history with more and with less, over the last two centuries, and it would be naive to presume it had ended, say, with the internment of Japanese Americans, or with the officially sanctioned witch hunts of the paranoid and rigorously manipulative McCarthy era. But I would have found it harder to imagine, even eight years ago, that human torture would be considered the more noble choice than refraining from it, or that those that opposed it would be met with such mockery, or such flag-waving revulsion.

The concept, after all, is simple: one should not torture potentially innocent people. Forget the more unambiguous version, one should not torture anyone -- we are not even halfway there. We can base the premise simply on the notion that one should not torture innocent people to find out whether they "know" something, and you would still find that central element of morality, of basic human principle, of Christianity or any other religion you can name, to be, in America, in 2008, a controversial statement likely to get you condemned as a fool or worse. If you are opposed to the torture of the innocent, you will face the wrath of fat, hateful radio blowhards. You will face condescending, patronizing, entirely amoral lectures on newly discovered legality of the acts from administration lawyers speaking from the editorial pages of our newspapers. You will be told that what you consider torture, what every other society including our own has considered torture up until this very moment of time, is not in fact torture, and that you have affection for terrorists if you think otherwise.

This is the legacy of the Bush administration, and likely the one that will stick long past the other violations of law or ethics. We have glorified brutality, and demonized compassion, and sought to make pariahs out of any that object. And, as a society, we have accepted these premises, and adapted them into our culture, and made them American.

In all of this, however, the more unambiguously moral the position, the more despised it is. I will remember the Bush administration not for any bold speeches, but for an unending sequence of snide, guttural croaks in front of podiums, in which the latest blasphemy against mankind or God is uttered with perfect assurance, or with a dismissive sneer, or with ominous opines on the motivations of those that think differently.

There were those that considered "preemptive" war an abomination; they were considered naive, and dismissed as artifacts of an earlier time with shamefully rigid thinking. There were those that thought bombing the cities of Iraq, regardless of the viciousness and corruption of their leader, under the confused banner of maybe al Qaeda or something was too high a price for an uninvolved civilian population to pay, regardless of the actions of that leader. An opinion like that was taken as evidence of secret sympathies for that leader.

There were those that thought the Geneva Conventions should apply; they were dismissed as rubes. There were those who thought those that were turned in to United States forces as terrorists should have, at some point, a trial: the larger voice howled of the danger of giving any voice to those people, whether innocent or not.

There were those that thought that, even casting aside evidence that torture does not work, even casting aside laws against it, even casting aside the impossibility of separating guilty from innocent in front of the teeth of a barking dog or using water and a rag, torture is immoral; for speaking such thoughts, the speakers become hated.

At the same time, we were lectured on the will of God from those that see hurricanes as divine judgement against tolerance; we were told that intolerance is the moral position. We were told that if there is even "a one percent" chance that someone is a terrorist, granting them doubt or mercy was a fool's game.

We were told, in short, that calculated brutality was a requirement of government. In the end, the greatest condemnation of the Bush administration is not that they believe that, but that they have almost managed to get us to believe it.

Myself? I do not believe it is anything unusual. And if I did, I would not say so, lest I be branded an idealist, someone incapable of understanding the intricacies of how a fine structural web of corruptions and misrepresentations and outright vicious cruelty is a required element of good governance. I know these corruptions are good, because the editorial pages and airwaves are filled with people telling me they are good, or at least nothing to worry about; I can only presume that they have an expertise I do not, because they are in ink, and on the screen, and you and I are not. Our opinions are too controversial. We are against the torture of innocents, and that is enough to disqualify us from being serious about the fate of our nation. We believe illegal acts should be investigated and punished, and that makes us too naive to be proper guardians of discourse. We once thought even a president was required to follow the law; we have been disabused of that notion not only by the President, but by Congress as well.

Surely, we do not understand the intricacies of these things.

The Imperial Senate

Tacitus, writing of the first Senate meeting after the death of Augustus Caesar (Annals 1.8):

Messala Valerius further proposed that the oath of allegiance to Tiberius should be renewed yearly, and when Tiberius asked him whether it was at his bidding that he had brought forward this motion, Valerius replied that he had proposed it spontaneously, and that in whatever concerned the State he would use only his own discretion, even at the risk of offending. This was the only style of adulation which yet remained.

The pathetic and quite ridiculous record of the Roman Senate's capitulation to imperial power is rife with analogues to the collapse of the US Congress during the last two generations in matters of national security and international affairs. And this without the Romans' excuse that they feared for their lives.

During the Principate, the Roman Senate essentially struck a deal with successive emperors. Caesar could consolidate actual power and govern as he wished as long as Senators retained some outward signs of power and the status that went with the dignity of holding high office. The appearance of being consulted occasionally by the emperor, the public repute that came from "debating" matters of state, the feeling of importance, the Senators were willing to exchange for actual independence. Rather than try to check the emperor's aggrandizement of power, they merely sought to be co-opted. "Deliberation" meant finding out what the commander in chief of the armies wanted and giving it to him - occasionally giving even more than he asked, just to flex the Senate's atrophying muscles.

Any fool of a Senator who made the slightest show of actual independence was immediately undercut by his fellows. So eager were they to win the favor of Power, and so painfully aware of the network of spies that potentially knew of every word they spoke.

All of this is brought to mind by the supine behavior of the US Congress during the last week, especially its precipitous abandonment of the Fourth Amendment in exchange for mere assurances that the President will have to consult them now and then in the future about his rationales for spying upon citizens without warrant. To be consulted is to be important. It signifies that Congress still matters - although (or rather, because) it balks at nothing it is asked to endorse.

This explains so much in the record of Congressional Democrats that voters find perverse. Members of Congress are intent above all on protecting the fragile illusion that they still wield power. To dare a showdown with the president on any issue of importance is to risk shattering the appearance of power and hence their self-image. Rather than try to check the president's aggrandizement of power, too many members of Congress merely seek to be co-opted.

But isn't their climbdown on FISA a profound humiliation? Sure, but I'd bet they can rationalize it away.

The article also points out that the Bush administration sometimes refused to pull the rug out from under the courts in the tried and true way - by getting Congress to legalize whatever lawlessness it was engaged in. Here is an example of WH pigheadedness over the due process case of Yaser Hamdi from 2004.

Jack L. Goldsmith...[described] a White House meeting he attended... in which Paul D. Clement, of the solicitor general's office, warned that the administration might lose the case before the Supreme Court, despite its "solid legal arguments." Goldsmith said he suggested that the administration seek a congressional sign-off for the entire detention program, something that would make it harder for the court to strike down the program.

Goldsmith's view was supported by Clement, then-National Security Council lawyer Bellinger and Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes II -- but not, Goldsmith said, by David S. Addington, then legal counsel to Vice President Cheney.

"Why are you trying to give away the president's power?" Addington asked, according to Goldsmith, who explains that Addington thought it might suggest that the president could not act on his own.

And it brings us back to what I presume is the primary rationalization among members of Congress for their cowardly FISA legislation. They can claim, almost with a straight face, to have won the larger constitutional struggle by tying the Executive down to an "oversight" process that involves both the Legislative and Judicial branches.

Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the bill "will prevent any repeat of warrantless surveillance undertaken by the president and will hold our government accountable for its actions, past and future, through strengthened court review and congressional oversight."

By a delusion such as Rockefeller's, the WH has conceded power by agreeing to consult very occasionally with a few representatives of the other branches about the warrantless wiretapping that it alone will direct. It is a delusion, and very much in line with the imperial Roman Senate's illusions of grandeur.

Of course it is a delusion, what could be clearer? For the US Congress is rushing once again to give the President everything he asked for, and more.

The proposal — particularly the immunity provision — represents a major victory for the White House after months of dispute. “I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get,” said Senator Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations.

Subscribe with an RSS reader Older News Archive Add news to your web site