Category Archives: Politics

Monstrosity

Posted on by
Reply

President Trump says he wants to build a 250-foot tall arch to celebrate this country’s 250th anniversary.  It is yet another project that wreaks of excess and of self-promotion.  Whatever its official name becomes, it’s always going to be known as the arch that Trump built. Arch deTrump, some already are calling it.

The only thing taller in the area that stretches from the Arlington National Cemetery east to the Library of Congress across from the Capitol is the Capitol itself, and by only a few feet.

Grace, beauty, and appropriateness have never been in his lexicon.  Gross, ugly, and inappropriate too often define him to an increasing number of people.  Last week, in an oval office reveal of the design for this monstrosity. CBS reporter Ed O’Keefe asked the President who the arch is for.  “Me,” he said.

The fact checkers who have built their careers on Trump’s lies had a day off on that one.

The Commission on Fine Arts refers to it as the Triumphal Arch. To be honest, the  letter “i” should replace the “h.”

The only manmade arch that we have been able to find that is bigger than this is the one on the St. Louis riverfront.

Napoleon’s Arc de Triomphe in Paris is almost 100 feet shorter, at 164 feet.  The Monument to the Revolution in Mexico City is only 220 feet. The Arch of Triumph in Pyongyang, North Korea tops out at 197 feet.

The four-sided arch that is the Pennsylvania State Memorial at Gettysburg, honoring the 34,500 Pennsylvania soldiers who fought there, checks in at 110 feet. Not far away, the National Memorial Arch at Valley Forge honoring those who wintered there 1777-78 is sixty feet high.

The top of the Memorial Arch in Huntington, West Virginia is only 42 feet from the ground. The Camp Randall, Wisconsin arch honoring Civil War veterans from that state needs only thirty feet to dignify them. The Bushnell Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Arch in Hartford, Connecticut is but 116 feet and the Washington Square Arch that commemorates George Washington’s inauguration in New York City gets the job done in 77 feet.

“It’s going to be beautiful,” he says.  Philip Kennicott with the Washington Post offers a brutal opposing view:

It is an insult to the men and women who risk their lives to protect democracy, who have fought in wars against fascism, who have actually achieved victory rather than merely declared and celebrated it. Its symbolism is borrowed and confused, and it will block a sacred vista that connects the Lincoln Memorial to the final resting place of the Civil War dead, and veterans from every major war and conflict this country has fought.

This is a subtly that escapes people such as Trump who think symbolic as well as real sledgehammers and wrecking balls are among mankind’s greatest inventions. The arch will stand at the southern end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, interrupting the flow of history from the Lincoln Memorial to the peaceful hillside that is Arlington National Cemetery, a cemetery on land confiscated from Confederate commander Robert E. Lee as a resting place for those who defended the Union in the Civil War.

Some critics say the planned arch will obscure much of he cemetery but will frame Lee’s mansion at the top of the hill beyond. Is that intentional?  Who knows, although Trump has expressed a fondness for honoring Confederate leaders.

Trump has said it will be 250 feet high as a symbol of the nation’s 250th birthday. As of last week, however, it is only colored drawings.  The first shovel of dirt for the project has not yet been turned and Independence Day is less than 90 days away.  As one critic put it, “If it isn’t going to be done this year, it really has nothing to do with the 250th Anniversary, and as Trump said, it’s for him.”.

Kennecott concludes, “It perverts a fundamentally American idea about war. We have fought them, we have died in them, and we have brought war to too many people who did not deserve our meddling with their politics and sovereignty.

“But no matter the cause, no matter how great the victory, we fundamentally honor sacrifice and service. We celebrate the end of wars and the achievement of peace, not victory. Roman victory arches are lovely to look at, but they were primarily political statements, assertions of personal power and propaganda by ambitious men”.

Caesar Trumpus wants his arch.

If it can’t be finished by July 4, maybe he can complete it in time to celebrate his glorious victory over Iran.

Ozymandias Trump  

Posted on by
1

President Trump’s insatiable need to memorialize himself, whether it’s by putting his name on a long-standing building such as the Kennedy Center, minting gold coins, putting his signature on our currency, building a disgracefully tacky ballroom onto the White House, building a Trump Arch in Washington and now we have seen the plans for his presidential library.

All of this is his vain effort to immortalize himself as something far more than what he is brings to mind a couple of 19th Century British poet friends who engaged in a friendly competition to see whose work would be published first. They probably had heard the announcement that the British Museum had acquired an eight-ton statue of Rameses II.

Both had experienced the classical education of the day, which probably led them to a story by the First Century, BCE, Greek historian Diodorus Siculus who described a great Egyptian statue with the inscription, “King of Kings Ozymandias am I. if any want to know how great I am and where I lie, let him outdo me in my works.”

Horace Smith wrote:

In Egypt’s sandy silence, all alone,
Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws
The only shadow that the Desert knows:—
“I am great OZYMANDIAS,” saith the stone,
“The King of Kings; this mighty City shows
The wonders of my hand.”— The City’s gone,—
Naught but the Leg remaining to disclose
The site of this forgotten Babylon.

We wonder — and some Hunter may express
Wonder like ours, when thro’ the wilderness
Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace,
He meets some fragment huge, and stops to guess
What powerful but unrecorded race
Once dwelt in that annihilated place.

The better-known of the poems is the one with the same name, Ozymandias¸ by Percy Bysshe Shelley, considered one of the greatest of the English romantic poets, who drowned in a sailing accident at the age of 29.  This is the one we are most likely to see in our English textbooks and in the compilations of great poems.

I met a traveler from an antique land,

Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,

Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,

And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,

The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;

And on the pedestal, these words appear:

My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!”

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay

Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

The poem is considered a commentary on the impermanence of power and the fleeting of time.  Litcharts.com puts it this way:

The speaker relates a story a traveler told him about the ruins of a “colossal wreck” of a sculpture whose decaying physical state mirrors the dissolution of its subject’s—Ozymandias’s—power. Only two upright legs, a face, and a pedestal remain of Ozymandias’s original statue, and even these individual parts of the statue are not in great shape: the face, for instance, is “shattered.” Clearly, time hasn’t been kind to this statue, whose pitiful state undercuts the bold assertion of its inscription. The fact that even this “king of kings” lies decaying in a distant desert suggests that no amount of power can withstand the merciless and unceasing passage of time.

Less poetic but nonetheless powerful on its own is a quote attributed to General George S. Patton; you might recognize it as it was spoken by George C. Scott at the end of the movie about the general:

““For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeteers, musicians and strange animals from conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conquerors rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children robed in white stood with him in the chariot or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting.”

Donald Trump  doesn’t seem to be the kind of person who would know who Percy Bysshe Shelley was (it has been widely reported that he seldom reads anything, even his daily security reports—there have been stories that staff members dumb them down for his short attention span) and while it would not be surprising to learn that he did see the Patton movie, he likely is incapable of understanding that all of his efforts to immortalize himself will someday be nothing more than the equivalent of a pile of ancient stones in the desert of history, an ancient 21st Century Ozymandias.

(Image credits: Statue—Society of Classical Poets; Trump Library—Youtube)

IGNORANCE

Posted on by
Reply

Any good journalist abhors ignorance, even personal ignorance. Consumers of our products in all of their forms probably have no idea of the number of stories, programs, and books that spring from seeing something and thinking “?” and then learning the answer.

Most people don’t have or don’t take the time to pursue an answer. But it’s the old “who, what, when, where and how” that defines the journalist’s mind and the journalist’s work product.

I often have told people that it is the unknown that journalist face at the start of every day that makes getting up long before the rooster crows and staying up long after the sun sets. At the end of the day we have done something that science says is impossible: We have made something out of nothing. It’s called “news,” the unpredictability of life captured and the story told, a vanquishing of ignorance—-sometimes whether you want it vanquished or not.

Ignorance is dangerous whether it is in common courtesies, traffic codes, health warnings, but especially in politics where ignorance not only is preyed upon by candidates and advocates but by those who have been given great responsibility.

We are alarmed by steps being taken to erase the unpleasant parts of our past and to be dishonest about our heritage and the responsibilities we have as citizens to conquer our baser relations with others, based on how we have overcome them in the past.

Today’s observation was triggered by the appearance of President Trump’s special envoy to Greenland, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, who recently denied to host Joe Kernan of  CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that the President’s interest in Greenland amounts to American imperialism:

“When has the United States engaged in imperialism? Never. Europe has engaged in imperialism. The reason the Danish have Greenland is because of imperialism.”

When has the United States engaged in imperialism? How about two centuries of it.  We would not be the United States if it was not for imperialism.

I reached onto my bookshelf for Daniel Immerwahr’s How to Hide an Empire, a volume Landry should read if he wants to rise above the ignorance that soaks this administration. What might we call the administration’s takeover of Venezuela and its threatened takeover of Cuba and Greenland and the earlier blabbering of making Canada the 51st state if not “imperialism?”  Added to that discussion is the frequent dismissal in this administration that Puerto Ricans are not Americans.

The administration in its efforts to cleanse or whitewash our history prefers we are ignorant of many things including that the imperialistic spirit was part of this nation from the beginning, when early explorers operating under an already-ancient papal proclamation that it was proper to seize lands from “infidels,” claimed lands occupied for thousands of years by others in the name of God and Country.

Just 55 years after the landing of businessmen the a few religious dissenters landed at Plymouth, the first war broke out between Europeans and Native Americans when the Europeans wanted to expand the borders of Massachusetts Bay and Rhode Island. It was the beginning of a 200 year-plus takeover of territories occupied by dozens of previously independent nations.

Two especially egregious examples are the subjugation of the Cherokees, a people with their own constitution and their own written language, with their own plantations is six southern states, their own capital and their own system of slavery.  They were given a new territory to occupy in the 1830s so the Europeans could have their ancestral lands.

Throughout the rest of the 19th century, similar measures were enforced with the forced movement of other nations, some of whom wound up in the same place, a place set aside for Indians. But the attraction of unassigned territory in that area created the 1889 Land Rush when 50,000 settlers roared in to take over the area. The now-“American” area was recognized in 1907 as the state of Oklahoma.  Not until seventeen years had passed did the people displaced through the decades and now disrupted by the land rush—the people of the Indian nations forced there— become recognized by congressional action as American citizens although it was not until 1948 that Congress passed the Indian Voting Rights Act.

The 1846 Mexican war made one-third of Mexico part of the United States. Fifty years later, we went to war with Spain and fought the Philippine War to claim that land.

Immerwahr looks at 1941 as an example of our imperialist holdings: Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states. But these also were NOT foreign countries: Philippines, Puerto Rico, Panama Canal Zone, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. (Panama was Panamanian but it was leased to the United States at the time.) One out of eight people in the United States lived outside the 48-state “logo map” as he calls it.

He also notes a “stream of smaller engagements” that have bought at least parts of other nations under our control for military bases. He cites 211 times that American troops have been deployed to 67 other countries since 1945.

The book came out before Venezuela and Iran.

Immerwahr concludes the introduction to his book, “At various times, the inhabitants of the U.S. Empire have been shot, shelled, starved, interned, dispossessed, tortured, and experimented on. What they haven’t been, by and large, is seen”

Landry asked, with his ignorance on full display, “”When has the United States engaged in imperialism?”  The truth is in Immerwahr’s book should he care to read it although this seems to be an administration led by a President whose questionable reading habits and abilities have been much discussed and whose preference for historical literacy seems non-existent, a “blessing” he demands be extended to all of us in a year when accurate recall of our history should be our guiding interest.

We leave you with these cautionary words from President Calvin Coolidge:

“It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness. They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant.”

And ignorant.

 

 

A Congressman Steps Down; Thousands Protest 

Posted on by
Reply

It would be nice if the headline reflected reality.  But in the case of Congressman Sam Graves, a native of Tarkio in the far northwest corner of Missouri, it’s not his retirement that has triggered the protests.  We’re going to offer some quick, surface, observations about these two separate events and how Missouri’s chaotic 2026 elections just got more interesting.

I remember Sam Graves mostly because he caused me some sleepless nights. More on that later.

Sam is now 62. He has served 26 of those years in Congress. He might just be hitting his prime and he’s leaving. The website legistorm.com calculates the average age of members of the U.S. House is 58 (for all of Congress it’s 61.5). However, he has served twice as long as the average length of service for U.S. Representatives. In fact, Graves is 32nd in seniority among the 435 members of the House (the Dean of the House is Kentucky Congressman Harold Rogers who is 88 and in his 45th year, his 23rd term and he will seek a 24th.).

The longest-serving Congressman from Missouri was Clarence Cannon, from Elsberry, in northeast Missouri. He died in office after 41 years 69 days and planning for more before a fatal heart attack in 1964. He ranks 29th as the longest-serving member of the U.S. House, 49th  on a list that also includes Senators.

In 1963, the year Graves was born, country music star Jim Reeves put out a song by fellow singer and songwriter Bill Anderson called “I’ve Enjoyed About as Much of This as I Can Stand.”  We don’t know if he has heard the song but in joining 35 other Republicans who are leaving, we wouldn’t be surprised if several of them felt that way (there are 21 Democrats who have decided there’s more to life, too).

Already, several fellow Republicans and at least three Democrats have filed or expressed an interest in filing for his seat and it would be no surprise if the numbers did not increase on both sides.

The Sixth Congressional District is a rural one that covers the entire sparsely-settled rural north Missouri—36 of our 114 counties. It has been solidly conservative for a long, long time.

But the political climate nationwide seems to be changing. Last weekend there were at least 33 “No Kings” rallies in Missouri, nine in the Kansas City area, eight in the St. Louis area, thirteen outstate and three more in northwest Missouri.

Here is something to ponder for the sixth district.  A “No Kings” rally in Quincy, Illinois—not listed among 33—probably had some attraction for some northeast Missourians in the sixth district. TEN of the scheduled rallies on the Missouri side of the Mississippi were in Graves’ present district.  Ten of them. Excelsior Springs, Harrisonville, Kearney, Liberty, Platte City, Madison, Moberly, Maryville, Chillicothe, and St. Joseph.

The “No Kings” movement has survived the winter and the Trump administration’s headline activities from Minnesota to Iran.  The sixth district will not have an incumbent with all of the vote-getting power that goes with incumbency.

The sixth district—in whatever form it winds up being after legislative action and courts reviews—might be more in play than it has been for two decades. And both parties know it full well.

Getting back to Sam—pardon the unfamiliarity but he was “Senator” when I covered him in the legislature and the last time I saw him I called him, “Sam,” an uncharacteristic familiarity that I almost never allow myself with present or past political figures.

There he is from the Missouri Official Manual (the Blue Book by more familiar name) for his first term in the Senate. He was in the Senate for the last years of Democrat-domination of state government.  I recall that he was collegial with good relationships on the other side of the aisle.

But the main thing about him that I recall is that he kept me up all night on at least two occasions.  Sam was not afraid of a filibuster but he rarely took a leading role and didn’t do it so often as to be tiring—as some have done more recently. And he was entertaining, something most filibuster participants never approach.

There were some senators after him who were so boring that I gave one of them a list of books to read that would at least educate those who had to endure them.  Sadly, the list went unused.

He talked about being a poor farm boy whose only pet, a three-legged dog named “Tripod,” was the star of some of his stories. The best performance, however, was the night he threatened to read the names of every high school student in his district who was graduating that year. Every time he was interrupted, he started over. As I recall, he finally forced a compromise on the issue under discussion—which is what filibusters should be for if participants respect them.

The only better filibuster story-teller than Sam Graves was Senator Danny Staples of Eminence.  I made sure I turned on my recorder whenever he asked another member, “Senator, did you know…..” because I knew what was coming.  The State Historical Society has several hours of Staples’ recordings. There are hundreds of other cassettes in the oral history collection that I have to listen to and label one of these days and there has to be some Sam Graves stories on them.  Or on the memory chips we used in later recorders.

He was a work horse not a show horse in his political career, as we observed him up close and from a distance. He’s young enough to have a long and prosperous K-Street career in Washington. K-Street is a street known for its offices of the special interest groups.

The folks in the sixth district would be well-served to seek out another work horse in November.

-o-

The Sounds of Their Voices

Posted on by
1

I’ve been working on some of the history of my church and once again I have become curious about how the denomination’s founders sounded when they spoke, exhorted, preached, etc.

Two of the group that established the denomination were former Scottish Presbyterian ministers who broke with the church over limits in participation at the Lord’s Table.  But both men had been born and raised in Ireland. One live 57 years after coming to this country. Did he still sound Scots-Irish at the end?

When Andrew Jackson shouted his favorite oath, “By the Eternal!” did he have a southern accent? It probably wouldn’t have been as deep as the accents we associate with Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama, but would there have been something?

Did Benjamin Franklin speak as Howard DeSilva portrays him in the musical 1776 or as Robert Preston portrayed him in the musical some years earlier, Ben Franklin in Paris?

Two people in particular intrigue me, one because I’m a native of Illinois and wonder about Abraham Lincoln’s voice at Gettysburg,  and the other because he is such a towering historical figure and a national founder, Thomas Jefferson.

Lena Torres has written about Jefferson on soundcy.com:

Descriptions suggest he spoke with a soft, measured tone, reflecting his reserved and thoughtful nature, while his Virginia upbringing likely influenced his accent, which would have been characteristic of the Tidewater region. Additionally, his extensive education and role as a diplomat may have imbued his speech with a formal, articulate quality. While we can only speculate, piecing together these details offers a glimpse into how one of America’s Founding Fathers might have sounded.

Thomas Jefferson’s voice, though lost to time, likely carried the distinct cadence of Tidewater Virginia, a region steeped in colonial history. This accent, shaped by the linguistic currents of 18th-century Britain, would have been a hallmark of his speech. Imagine a voice that blended the formality of British English with the emerging nuances of American pronunciation—a linguistic bridge between the Old World and the New…

A practical way to approximate Jefferson’s accent is to listen to recordings of modern British Received Pronunciation (RP) and then soften it with the gentle rhythms of the American South. Think of it as a hybrid—not quite British, yet not fully American as we know it today. For instance, the word “water” might have sounded more like “wah-tuh,” with a subtle elongation of the vowel, a relic of his British-influenced upbringing.

She writes a lot more at Unveiling Thomas Jefferson’s Voice: Reconstructing The Third President’s Speech | SoundCy

And Lincoln?  Was he like some actors who have portrayed him—Gregory Peck, or Raymond Massey, as deep voices and deliberate delivery, or the softer and higher-pitched voice of actor Royal Dano at Disneyland ((2098) GREAT MOMENTS WITH MR. LINCOLN Restored Disneyland Vinyl LP – YouTube 28:19 in for the audio animatronic figure’s speech)

A 2011 article for Smithsonian Magazine quotes Lincoln researcher Harold Holzer liked the way actor Sam Waterston (of Law & Order fame) voiced him in Ken Burns’ documentary about the Civil War and in other performances (Sam Waterston Reading The Gettysburg Address #gettysburg #gettysburgaddress).

But the closest might have been Daniel Day Lewis’ interpretation in the movie Lincoln. (Lincoln “Now” scene)

(He explained in an interview how he developed it (BBC News – Daniel Day-Lewis on finding Lincoln’s voice).

Holzer says in the article, “Lincoln’s voice, as far as period descriptions go, was a little shriller, a little higher…People said that his voice carried into crowds beautifully. Just because the tone was high doesn’t mean it wasn’t far-reaching.”

Getting back to Jefferson, Torres has some thoughts about then and now:

…In a world where loudness often equates to importance, Jefferson’s soft-spoken, low-pitched, and deliberate style reminds us of the power of restraint. Whether in leadership, education, or personal interactions, adopting a measured tone can elevate your message, making it more memorable and impactful. Experiment with this approach in your next presentation or conversation, and observe how a quieter, more intentional voice can command respect and foster deeper engagement.

I hope we rediscover that in our political discourses.

 

 

It’s Time to Order Another Obelisk 

Posted on by
Reply

The Missouri Veterans Memorial at the Capitol is a quiet place,  of a slow-moving cascade of water flowing into a reflecting pool around which people can ponder how much is lost to war.

And how much will be.

To the east of the pool is a shaded walk that takes visitors past nine memorial obelisks remembering the nine wars in which Missourians have fought since statehood in 1821—Mexican War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, and finally the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now, less than a year after the ninth obelisk was dedicated—after an end date of that long war was determined—it is time to plan for a tenth one.

As this is written, no Missourian has been killed in Trump’s War—-which is not what it will be called in the black granite when the tenth obelisk is installed.  As of now, it probably will say “Iran War,” but it’s too early to carve anything into stone because we don’t know what the scope of this conflict will finally be.

Nor, apparently, does the man who ordered it. He started the war and now he is whining that NATO is giving him no help.

NATO, the people he has spent the last several years insulting and threatening, seems content to letting President Trump stew in his own juice.  NATO is more about protecting Ukraine (remember Ukraine, Mr, President?) and itself than helping President Trump.

The Coalition of the Willing has become the Coalition of the Unwilling.

To refresh our minds:  then-President George W. Bush declared at a NATO summit in 2002 that if Iraq President Saddam Hussein did not disarm (he was accused of having weapons of mass destruction), that the United States would assemble a “coalition of the willing” to do it for him.

Saddam didn’t. So George Bush’s United States and troops from 48 other countries backed the plan. Four countries eventually put boots on the ground—us, the UK, Australia, and Poland). More than three dozen other countries provided some troops but not major numbers. Some don’t even had standing armies but provide other kinds of help.

The coalition did not hold and it became a topic of political ridicule (Busch had offered foreign aid to participants, a policy that one columnist termed “a coalition of the billing” and another observer considered “a coalition of the shilling.”) By mid-2009 everybody but the United States and the United Kingdom coalition had backed away.  The Coalition of the Willing was considered ended in 2010.

President Bush assembled his coalition before the fight began.  President Trump just barged right in—BOMBED his way right in—to a new war and did not ask for help until Iran fought back and closed the Straits of Hormuz. Only then did he look for friends in NATO only to find he didn’t have very many anymore.

He’s watching his foreign policy by sledgehammer wielded by amateurs turn into quicksand. He is so desperate that he has lessened some sanctions against Russia—imposed as a reaction to the invasion of Ukraine—in an effort to relieve some pressure on the oil supply which seemingly could help finance further Russian operations against Ukraine, if we understand where this policy is leading.  He’s firing missiles the way kids fire bottle rockets on July 4th while China watches our war-making or defensive armaments dwindle and also watches Taiwan. The early talk about not using troops is ominously sounding like —using troops.

Some observers have suggested that Iran is Trump’s Ukraine.

“Some people will die, I guess,” the President has said.

Order the tenth obelisk. Too bad the state can’t send the bill for it to President Trump.

A few weeks ago, my state representative, Dave Griffith, asked me if I could find how many Missourians died in the wars of the eighth and ninth obelisks (Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan).  I could not locate numbers but I did find a website that listed the names of all of the military people who died in those conflicts. I picked out the Missouri names and sent them to him.

Their names won’t be on the obelisks although the number of those who died will be someday.

Their names are on their own monuments scattered throughout the graveyards of Missouri and elsewhere, unfortunately soon to be joined by similar monuments from Trump’s War.  Here is the list from President Bush’s War, with the date of official notification.  We pray their tragic coalition will not be joined by a new coalition from Mr. Trump’s War, but we fear it will be.

Let us know if your loved one killed in these long wars is not on the list.

Continue reading →

The Boodle Scandal, part Two

Posted on by
Reply

Monday we promised you an opportunity to see a forgotten Missouri political, one of the most sensational ones of the Twentieth Century. Muckraker Lincoln Steffens described how money can distort public policy, a common and visible public concern today.

What was this scandal about?  An innocent everyday-used substance that is part of our diet today. Steffens’ magazine article is long. As you read it, you might think, “Nothing has changed.”  We’ll comment afterward what happened to some of the participants in his historic controversy.

Enemies of the Republic

Lincoln Steffens

[Reprinted from McClures, VOL. XXIll, October, 1904 No.6]

THE POLITICAL LEADERS WHO ARE SELLING OUT THE STATE OF MISSOURI, AND THE LEADING BUSINESS MEN WHO ARE BUYING IT – BUSINESS AS TREASON-CORRUPTION AS REVOLUTION

EVERY time I attempted to trace to its sources the political corruption of a city ring, the stream of pollution branched off in the most unexpected directions and spread out in a network of veins and arteries so complex that hardly any part of the body politic seemed clear of it. It flowed out of the majority party into the minority; out of politics into vice and crime; out of business into politics, and back into business; from the boss, down through the police to the prostitute, and up through the practice of law, into the courts; and big throbbing arteries ran out through the country over the State to the Nation-and back. No wonder cities can’t get municipal reform! No wonder Minneapolis, having cleaned out its police ring of vice grafters, now discovers boodle in the council ! No wonder Chicago, with council-reform and boodle beaten, finds itself a Minneapolis of police and administrative graft! No wonder Pittsburg, when it broke out of its local ring, fell, amazed, into a State ring! No wonder New York, with good government, votes itself back into Tammany Hall!

They are on the wrong track; we are, all of us, on the wrong track. You can’t reform a city by reforming part of it. You can’t reform a city alone. You can’t reform politics alone. And as for corruption and the understanding thereof, we cannot run ’round and ’round in municipal rings and understand ring corruption; it isn’t a ring thing. We cannot remain in one city, or ten, and comprehend municipal corruption; it isn’t a local thing. We cannot “stick to a party,” and follow party corruption; it isn’t a partizan thing. And I have found that I cannot confine myself to politics and grasp all the ramifications of political corruption; it isn’t political corruption. It’s corruption. The corruption of our American politics is our American corruption, political, but financial and industrial too.

Miss Tarbell is showing it in the trust, Mr. Baker in the labor union, and my gropings into the misgovernment of cities have drawn me everywhere, but, always, always out of politics into business, and out of the cities into the state. Business started the corruption of politics in Pittsburg; upholds it in Philadelphia; boomed with it in Chicago and withered with its reform; and in New York, business financed the return of Tammany Hall. Here, then, is; our guide out of the labyrinth. Not the political ring, but big business,-that is! the crux of the situation.

Our political corruption is a system, a regularly established custom of the country, by which our political leaders are hired, by bribery by the license to loot, and by quiet moral # support, to conduct the government of city, state, and nation, not for the common good, but for the special interests of private business. Not the politician, then, not the bribe-taker, but the bribe-giver, the man we are so proud of, our successful business man-he is the source and the sustenance of our bad government. The captain of industry is the man to catch. His is the trail to follow.

We have struck that trail before. Whenever we followed the successful politician his tracks led us into it, but also they led us out of the cities-from Pittsburg to the State Legislature at Harrisburg; from Philadelphia, through Pennsylvania, to the National Legislature at Washington. To go on was to go into state and national politics and I was after the political corruption of the city ring then. Now I know that these are all one. The trail of the political leader and the trail of the commercial leader are parallels which mark the plain, main road that leads off the dead level of the cities, up through the States into the United States, out of the political ring. into the System, the living System of our actual government. The highway of corruption is the ” road to success.”

Almost any State would start us right, but Missouri is the most promising.

Continue reading →

The Boodle Scandal, Part One

Posted on by
Reply

I want to take you back to the early Twentieth Century when muckraking reporters such as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Ray Stannard Baker, Upton Sinclair, and Jacob Riis—to name a few—were writing powerful newspaper and magazine articles exposing the ugly underside of government and business and the partnerships between the two that sometimes amounted to a betrayal of our country or our state for their personal or corporate benefit.

Today we call them investigative reporters, people who burrow into the inner workings of business/government relationships that corruptly enrich a few and harm the many—not unlike too many things we are seeing today at the national and even the state levels wherever you might live.

In our entries today and on Wednesday we are going to bring you Lincoln Steffens’ “Enemies of the Republic” from the October, 1904 issue of McClures magazine.  But first, we need to set the stage.

“Boodle” in those days referred to bribery.  A boodler was one who gave or who accepted bribes to influence public policy.

The story of the great boodle scandal in Missouri came to me many years ago in researching the stories of the ministers of my church in Jefferson City and the brief career here of Crayton S. Brooks, a fiery temperance preacher who came to what was then a pretty wide open town particularly when the legislature was in session every other year.

On Sunday evening, March 1, 1903 Rev. Crayton S. Brooks—whose preaching earlier had led to the closing of pool halls and gambling houses—asserted from his pulpit at the First Christian Church four blocks from the Capitol that “there were $1,000 bills being exchanged in Jefferson City by men not in the habit of handling such amounts of money,” the implication being that they were buying votes in the legislature.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Joseph J. McAuliffe happened to be in one of the pews that night and wrote about the sermon. There is a lot I wish we knew about their relationship  and why a St. Louis reporter “happened” to be at the church that night, but we do know that Brooks admired St. Louis prosecutor Joe Folk for his earlier work to bring down Ed Butler, the St. Louis political boss and had made a trip to St. Louis earlier in the year, although the accounts do not say why, leaving the door open to some speculation.

Representative Edward Eversole of St. Louis was named to lead a committee investigation and started summoning witnesses from among the lobbying corps. He said, “We saw men we wanted standing about the corridors and lobby of the Capitol four deep, but as soon as one or two were served there was a wild stampede and the greatest time you ever heard of getting out of town.”

He investigation eventually led to the indictments of four Senators who were accused of taking bribes for their votes on a bill concerning the ingredients of baking powder. Steffans will explain that in  his article.  Lieutenant Governor John Adams Lee, who planned to run for governor in 1904, was exposed as the middle man who delivered the bribes from the Royal Baking Powder Trust to the four legislators, resigned and fled to Chicago.

Steffens’ article said, “There is nothing partisan about graft. Only the people are loyal to party. The ” hated” trusts, all big grafters, go with the majority. In Democratic Missouri, the Democracy is the party of “capital.” The Democratic political leaders, crying down the trusts, corner the voters like wheat, form a political trust, and sell out the sovereignty of the people to the corporation lobby. And the lobby runs the State, not only in the interest of its principals, but against the interest of the people.”

In 1992, Missourians adopted term limits, an amendment that missed the target it should have hit and as we have seen in the years since opened the door to loss of legislative independence and replaced it with—too often—outside influence.  As it was put in 1992, adoption of term limits will end corporate memory in the legislature and the power to set public policy will pass from the legislative chambers to the hallways.

I watched it happen. Only after term limits went into effect did I hear the sponsor of a bill ask someone with an amendment, “Have you run this by so-and-so in the hall?” The question became unnecessary as cell phones proliferated and lawmakers could get messages while debating bills.  House and Senate rules ban lobbyists from the legislative floors.  But the cell phone’s texting app puts them there electronically.

Ineffective campaign spending limits and a U. S. Supreme Court ruling that corporations are, for political speech purposes, to be considered “people,” have had a profound effect on who gets access, how much of it they get and how they become manipulative of the process.

Understand that this is not saying all of our elected officials are crooked or can be bought. We have to trust the people we elect but we also must be aware of the awful pressures they endure to serve and the all-consuming world they live in for four intense months every year. Political courage sometimes is weakened in that climate because they are human and we sometimes are disappointed when the podium we put them on is not as high as we think it is.

We voters have a responsibility to pay attention to the issues they are dealing with so that our lawmakers are regularly reminded who they really work for.

Citizen cynicism is easy to come by and is a reflection on the citizen who refuses to maintain at least a modicum of awareness and is therefore less likely to be “cornered like wheat.”

That is where the reporter has a place—to expose as well as report. A good reporter has to have a bit of the spirit of Lincoln Steffens inside and our media must recognize the responsibility they have to be unafraid to rake muck when necessary.

Good reporters do not want to be liked by the people they report about. Nor do they want to be hated. They do hope to be respected as a necessary element of a free society. And they should be conscious of their responsibilities to citizens on both sides the aisle. They also must be unafraid, and expect those who employ them to be unafraid, too.

On Wednesday, you will read Lincoln Steffens’ Enemies of the Republic. It, unfortunately, has elements of truth that you will recognize in our present times.

(Picture Credit: Brooks—St. Louis Republic

The Four Freedoms 

Posted on by
Reply

In a far distant time, a President would deliver a State of the Union address free of bombast, lies, and accusations.

Here’s one, delivered as one part of the world was back at war and the other part was likely to erupt somewhere, sometime.   Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke on January 6, 1941. The contrast to what we heard from our present occupant of the White House  jumps out at us.

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.

Second, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute peoples, everywhere, who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our Hemisphere. By this support, we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail; and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people’s freedom…

The Nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fibre of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.

Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world.

For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy. The basic things expected by our people of their political and economic systems are simple. They are:

Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
††††††††††† Jobs for those who can work.
††††††††††† Security for those who need it.
††††††††††† The ending of special privilege for the few.
††††††††††† The preservation of civil liberties for all.

The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.

These are the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and unbelievable complexity of our modern world. The inner and abiding strength of our economic and political systems is dependent upon the degree to which they fulfill these expectations…

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception—the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change—in a perpetual peaceful revolution—a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions—without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. To that high concept there can be no end save victory.     

Less than a year later the nation knew the principles it was fighting for when a two-ocean war was threatening “the simple, basic things” we stood for…then.

T

 

(Image credit: Norman Rockwell exhibition, New York Historical Society)

0900909090

 

War

Posted on by
1

It was an interesting juxtaposition of events last Saturday night at a birthday party for a submarine at the American Legion Hall—the USS Jefferson City, which was launched on February 29, 1992.

The boat is based in Guam but none of us knew where it was at that moment.  We hoped it and its crew were safe regardless of whether they were involved in the war with Iran—and I think most of us believe it is in the area.

The Jefferson City isn’t the largest class of submarines; the USS Missouri. It is part of the first class of submarines beneath the group of which the USS Missouri is a part. It’s an attack sub longer than a football field with about 140 crew members. It is loaded with missiles.

So, our capital city has a reason to pay attention to what’s happening and what’s going to happen.

There’s not much doubt that the world is a better place without the Iran’s religious leader and ruler but there’s no guarantee his successor will be any less troublesome.

There are many things that are problems with this conflict, the biggest one being Trump pulling this country out of the landmark Iran Nuclear Deal, more formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. We have heard one talking head suggest the President Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA was done because it had been achieved during the Obama administration and we’re all well aware of  Trump’s disdain for anything Obama did. Among other things, the agreement required interference-free inspections by an international group looking for any signs Iraq was generating bomb-capable amounts of uranium.

The Obama White House said the agreement “blocks every possible pathway Iran could use to build a nuclear bomb while ensuring—through a comprehensive, intrusive, and unprecedented verification and transparence regime—that Iran’s nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful moving forward.”  The deal went into effect in January, 2016 after the Center for Arms Control reported Iran had “significantly reduced its nuclear program and accepted strict monitoring and verification safeguards to ensure its program is solely for peaceful purposes.”

President Obama called the issue the “most consequential foreign policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of Iraq.” The deal went into effect in January 2016 after inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency had dismantled and removed two-thirds of Iran’s centrifuges and certified that Iran had shipped 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium elsewhere and dismantled.

President Trump pulled this country out of the agreement, calling it “horrible,” a “decaying and rotten structure,” and “defective to its core.”

It’s too bad nobody has ever been able to pin him down on what was so wrong with the agreement that merited his flamethrower verbiage.

Time and the flow of information will tell us if he is repeating George H.W. Busch’s entrance into a Middle Eastern war because of Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction and an assumption that a populace relieved of the despotic rule of Saddam Hussein would welcome our troops as heroes—and adopt a democratic form of government.

Regime change is acknowledged as one reason for this war—with Israel as our only apparent ally— against Iran. He has not explained how his attack is a guarantee of peace and stability in the region.

Trump promised he would not involve this country in another endless foreign war.  But he has not announced any ending goal. Nor has he announced how Iran will be transformed into a peaceful democratic republic that is grateful to him to for eliminating the Ayatollah.  It is unlikely the Iranian military will give up easily or quickly. And it is hard to think that this war can be won without American boots on the ground and American bodies in it.

It is already more than an American-Israeli war against Iran.  Iranian missiles have hit other countries friendly to the Trumpian effort. Three American lives have been lost. Nine Israeli people are dead. The United Arab Emirates reports three deaths.

Trump has admitted, “Sadly, there will likely be more before it ends.”

“That’s the way it is,” he said.

His actions have united our allies and our enemies. Russia has called it “an unprovoked armed aggression” China has expressed “deep concern” and has urged respect for Iran’s security, territorial integrity, and respect for its sovereignty—-something it has not suggest Russia do in is Ukraine war. Europe is keeping its distance. The European Council President calls the attacks “deeply disarming” and calls for full respect for international law.

Good luck with that one.

France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have condemned the Iranian retaliatory missile attacks that have expanded the conflict to other countries such as Sudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and the Arab Emirates agree.

Congress is waiting to hear about all of this, officially, and might soon be considering stiffening the War Powers Act because of Trump’s attack on Iran as well as his miliary action in deposing Venezuela’s leader.

Is it only an effort to take away Iran’s nuclear capability.  Or are his conquests, or planned conquests in Venezuela and Iran focused on controlling much of the world’s oil supply and weaponizing it? Trump has offered no cogent reason for his attack, especially after withdrawing from an agreement that might have made it unnecessary.

If he thinks this conflict with Iran is going to reverse his increasing unpopularity, he’ll find that each American soldier death in what we now can call Trump’s War certainly will not improve his standing.

The United States fought a two-front foreign war in the 1940s in Europe and in Asia. But no President ever has fought a war against an enemy abroad and also fought one against people in his own country until Donald Trump.

Lord knows how all of this will end. But there will be more American blood spilled.  In every war there has been a first casualty and nobody ever has found a way to calculate how many more there will be.

“That’s the way it is,” says the man who is causing this.