National Debt through the Years: Republican Recessions and Expensive Recoveries- 2-13-2023 Richard J. Garfunkel

The National Debt on September 30, 2017, the end of the fiscal year was $20.4 trillion. On September 30, 2021 the National Debt was $30 trillion. Obama added $6.9 trillion to the Debt in eight years following the Great Recession, the worst economic period we endured since the Great Depression.

In four years, from the end of the Fiscal Year in 2017 until September 30, 2021 the Debt increased $9.6 trillion in just four years. As of today, two weeks short of the Fiscal Year, the National Debt is at $30.9 trillion.

If once counts the increase in Debt from January 20, 2017 to January 20, 2021, the numbers increased from $19.9 trillion to $27.8 trillion, or $7.9 trillion.

Donald Trump: Added $7.5 billion, a 37.5% increase from $20.24 trillion at the end of Trump’s last budget FY, 2021

Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74-percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009. (note FY 2009 added)

  • attributed to the recovery from the Great recession.

George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101-percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton’s last budget, FY 2001.

Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32-percent increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush’s last budget, FY 1993.

George H.W. Bush: Added $1.554 trillion, a 54-percent increase from the $2.857 trillion debt at the end of Reagan’s last budget, FY 1989.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186-percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter’s last budget, FY 1981.

  • Outside of the COVID-19 Relief Bills passed, Trump increased spending on agriculture more than any other area, jumping 194% between 2017 and 2019, from $14.2b to $41.7b
  • Of the $1 trillion federal budget in 2020, $893 billions a deficit and half of that will be owed to China
  • Trump cut corporate tax rates from 35% in 2017 to 21%in 2018
  • The highest federal Income tax rate was reduced from 39.6% to 37%at the start of 2018

Who is Responsible for the National Debt? The Republicans Mostly!

Civil War which raised the Debt over 478% in 1862, WWI which increased it 155% in 1918, and WWII which also raised it 88% in 1943. Of course these were considered national emergencies and quite necessary and spending increased because of Korea, Vietnam and the two Gulf Wars.

The years after WWI saw national spending shrink in the first 11 years of Republican Administrations, as Harding-Coolidge and Hoover starved the government and the deficit shrunk from $24 billion to $16 billion. But that public policy created the conditions of “supply-side” economics and led to the Great Depression. Hoover tried spending in 1932 as he raised the National Debt over $ 3 billion, but it was too little and too late. The economic disaster of the Depression was well on the way until FDR and the New Deal.

Even in the heart of the New Deal, where recovery was critical, the Debt only increased 20% in 1934. In fact the spending of the whole New Deal was estimated at $60 billion, which was a lot of money in those days. In fact, the total National Debt went from 1933 through 1938 from $22 billion to $37 billion. Taxes on the American public, especially the rich, funded most of the cost of the recovery from, PWA, WPA, CCC, and AAA. But if you look at what was built in the New Deal, the cost was worth it; regarding roads, airports, schools, bridges, dams and an unprecedented amount of public works, which transformed America from mostly a rural society to the modern industrial colossus it became today.

During WWII the Debt went from $48 to $269 billion (1941 through 1946), but the actual cost of the war which was over $350 billion, almost 95% of our GNP, was paid by taxes, high taxes. After 1947 the Debt grew quite slowly through Truman and Eisenhower from $269 to $286 billion. Unfortunately the last five years of the Eisenhower Administration were economically stagnant, and the Recession of 1957-8 was devastating. Kennedy was forced to cut taxes and “prime the pump” of the economy. But, even with the tax cuts, increased spending and the Vietnam War in the middle and late 60’s, spending went up gradually from 1961 through 1968 and the National Debt grew from $288 to $347 billion, and average of less than 1.5% each year, until 1968 when it leaped 6.5%.

Huge increases followed in the eight years of Nixon-Ford as the deficits ballooned from $353 to $620 billion as the Vietnam War and domestic needs increased. So in eight years the National Debt almost doubled. Even in the first two FDR administrations, and the New Deal, the National Debt had not doubled.

Where did the real spending come from, another war, the one in SE Asia. By the time Carter was president debt continued to climb during those difficult years after Vietnam and the oil embargoes, two in 1973 and 1974 and one in 1979, (under Nixon and Carter) which created a great deal of inflation as gasoline went from around 37 cents to way over $1 per gallon. National Debt climbed in the Carter four years from $698 billion to close to a $1 trillion in 1981.

Did Reagan solve the Debt problem? For sure not! He cut taxes, raised interest rates to squeeze out the inflation caused by the 1979 oil embargo and the Debt, along with the second era of “supply-aside” spending, directed by David Stockman, based on the theories of Arthur Laffer ( the Laffer Curve) raised the Debt dramatically. Never in peace time have we seen such spending. The National Debt went up from $1 trillion to $4 trillion in the 12 years of Reagan-Bush, with huge increase every year. In fact unemployment, which had been 7.5% during the four years of Jimmy Carter, ballooned to over 10.5% in Reagan’s for 2 years, and by the time Clinton was inaugurated, 12 years later, it was at 7.3%. One could say that economically, that was a high price paid for an economy that basically stayed the same. During the first 8 years of Reagan, jobs, mostly connected to defense spending (600 ship navy and Star Wars) increased by 16 million. In the next four years under Bush 41, that total would shrink to 2.5 million created.

During the Clinton Years, the Debt increased from over $4 trillion to $5.6 trillion and increase of less than 40% in eight years, where in the previous 12 years it had gone up over 400%. In the last year the Debt only increased .03% the lowest since 1957, right before the massive Recession of 1957 in the 2nd Eisenhower Term. Aside from raising the Debt the smallest amount in decades, on a percentage wise basis, over 23 million jobs were created, a total higher than 50% of all of the jobs created in the GOP Administrations from Hoover through Bush 43, except Reagan.

In the years of Bush 43, the flat debt, with large surpluses he inherited from Clinton were soon spent with tax cuts, wars and the unfunded Part D, Medicare Drug benefit. Debt doubled again from $5.8 trillion to almost $12 trillion in 2009 as the Great Recession took hold and unemployment skyrocket to over 10% in June of 2009. Over 8 million jobs were lost from the last six months of Bush 43 into the first five months of the Obama Administration. But, jobs were clawed back as the deficit continued to grow, as the recovery and the long and expensive war in Iraq had to be ended. Again there is nothing like wars to create deficits: the Civil War, the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East. Both Middle East wars affected both Bushes. During the Obama Years the debt went from $12 billion to over $19 billion. In fact, the percentage increase, during his 8 years, regarding the Great Recession, was only 60%, In the 8 years of Bush 43, it was almost 100%.

So now, before we were in the next era of massive spending without a war or a Recession, Trump promised to eliminate the National Debt of $19 trillion in eight years, the Debt had already climbed to over $4 trillion and over $23 trillion.

Thus, before the catastrophic contraction of the economy in April of 2020, from January 20, 2017, to November 1, 2019, Trump piled $3.1 trillion onto the debt, amounting to a 16% increase. That’s significantly less than the $4.3 trillion President Barack Obama added from January 2009 to November 1, 2011, but far more than the $1.1 trillion Bush added in a similar period and the $794 billion Clinton did in 1,016 days as president.

There is a key distinction separating the circumstances behind Trump and Obama’s debt figures. Trump inherited an economy undergoing its longest sustained expansion. Obama, on the other hand, entered the White House as the nation veered into a recession that sparked massive stimulus spending and a bailout of the auto industry.

Let’s talk about the numbers!

The National Debt the last Fiscal year of President Bill Clinton was $5.8 trillion. In between now and then the National debt has grown to $26.2 trillion as of today and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts it will be $28.9 trillion on September 30, 2023. Since Clinton took office we have had the Great Recession, 2008-2009 under Bush 43 and the Greater Trump Recession. The Trump Reign of Error has accounted for 25% of the whole National Debt of the United States.

Fiscal year ended September 30th:

9-30-2001      $5.8 trillion

9-30-2009    $11.9 trillion  (Great Recession)

9-30-2017    $20.2 trillion  (Obama, fiscal year)

6-20-2020    $26.2 trillion

9-30-2023    $28.9 trillion (Trump Recession fiscal year)

 

New Deal Spending Richard J. Garfunkel 2-14-2023

We are awash in idiocy in this country amongst the people who on one hand blame the elitists on Wall Street, but have all their money tied up in 401ks. IRA’s , 503bs and every other type of invest vehicle, but do not want transparency and regulation and cry when criminals and brigands steal their savings. But we hear from these same right-wing philosophers about the spending of government and the debt, but conveniently forget that Reagan tripled out National Debt, unemployment averaged almost 8% (was over 10% for two years) in his time cut taxes for the 1% and that his clones the Bush twins did worse.

As to FDR and the New Deal, expenditures on WPA projects through June 1941, totaled approximately $11.4 billion. Over $4 billion was spent on highway, road, and street projects; more than $1 billion on public buildings, including the iconic Dock Street Theatre in Charleston, the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, and the Timberline Lodge on Oregon’s Mt. Hood; more than $1 billion on publicly owned or operated utilities; and another $1 billion on welfare projects, including sewing projects for women, the distribution of surplus commodities and school lunch projects. One construction project was the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut, the bridges of which were each designed as architecturally unique. In its eight year run, the WPA built 325 firehouses and renovated 2384 of them across the United States. The 20,000 miles of water mains, installed by their hand as well, no doubt aided in a more fire protected country.

The direct focus of the WPA projects changed with need. 1935 saw projects aimed at infrastructure improvement; roads, bringing electricity to rural areas, water conservation, and sanitation and flood control. In 1936, as outlined in that year’s Emergency Relief Appropriations Act, public facilities became a focus; parks, buildings, utilities, airports, and transportation projects were funded. The following year, saw the introduction of agricultural pursuits in projects such as the production of marl fertilizer and the eradication of fungus pests. As the Second World War approached, and then eventually began, WPA projects became increasingly defense related.

The PWA spent over $6 billion in contracts to private construction forms that did the actual work. It created an infrastructure that generated national and local pride in the 1930s and remains vital seven decades later. The PWA was much less controversial than its rival agency with a confusingly similar name, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), headed by Harry Hopkins, which focused on smaller projects and hired unemployed unskilled workers.

More than any other New Deal program, the PWA epitomized the progressive notion of “priming the pump” to encourage economic recovery. Between July 1933 and March 1939 the PWA funded and administered the construction of more than 34,000 projects including airports, large electricity-generating dams, major warships for the Navy, and bridges, as well as 70% of the new schools and one-third of the hospitals built between 1933–1939.

Streets and highways were the most common PWA projects, as 11,428 road projects, or 33% of all PWA projects, accounted for over 15% of its total budget. School buildings, 7,488 in all, came in second at 14% of spending. PWA functioned chiefly by making allotments to the various Federal agencies; making loans and grants to state and other public bodies; and making loans without grants (for a brief time) to the railroads. For example it provided funds for the Indian Division of the CCC to build roads, bridges and other public works on and near Indian reservations.

The PWA became, with its multiplier-effect and first two-year budget of $3.3 billion (compared to the entire GDP of $60 billion), the driving force of America’s biggest construction effort up to that date. By June 1934 the agency had distributed its entire fund to 13,266 federal projects and 2,407 non-federal projects. For every worker on a PWA project, almost two additional workers were employed indirectly. The PWA accomplished the electrification of rural America, the building of canals, tunnels, bridges, highways, streets, sewage systems, and housing areas, as well as hospitals, schools, and universities; every year it consumed roughly half of the concrete and a third of the steel of the entire nation.

Some of the most famous PWA projects are the Triborough Bridge and the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City, the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington state, the longest continuous sidewalk in the world along 6½ miles of Bayshore Blvd. in Tampa, Florida, and the Overseas Highway connecting Key West, Florida, to the mainland. The PWA also electrified the Pennsylvania Railroad between New York and Washington, DC. At the local level it built courthouses, schools, hospitals and other public facilities that remain in use in the 21st century

 

Christianity, Protestantism and its Future! 45% of U.S. adults – including about six-in-ten Christians – say they think the country “should be” a Christian nation. A third say the U.S. “is now” a Christian nation. (32% of America is now white Protestant) Richard J. Garfunkel 10-28-22

Speaking of religious affiliation, by 2070, Christianity may represent less than 50% of the public. Pew Research first established a baseline view of current U.S. religious demographics. As of 2020, it is estimated that around 64% of Americans, both adults and children, are Christian, while the portion of those identifying as religious “nones” stands around 30%. The remaining 6% is made up of adherents of other faiths, including Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists. 

Much of Pew’s study revolves around the growing trend of “switching,” a term that refers to changing one’s religious affiliation. “Switching” refers to any change between the religion in which a person was raised and their religious identity as an adult, be it by conversion or faith abandonment. Pew uses the term for anyone who changes their religious identity, whether they are entering or leaving Christianity. 

Furthermore, Pew noted that the study did not seek to explain the rise of religious “nones,” but rather to analyze recent trends to predict how the U.S. religious landscape might change should they continue.  With that in mine, one can understand the fear of many Christians, especially Evangelical, white nationalists, who form the core of this issue of America of Christian nationalism.

Growing numbers of religious and political leaders are embracing the “Christian nationalist” label, and some dispute the idea that the country’s founders wanted a separation of church and state. On the other side of the debate, however, many Americans – including the leaders of many Christian churches – have pushed back against Christian nationalism, calling it a “danger” to the country. In fact, 15 of 16 of our Founding Fathers, hardly called themselves Christians.  Only John Jay was a religious Christian. Few believed in the core elements of Christianity: the Virgin Birth, the Trinity of the Resurrection.  For instance, many supporters of Christian nationhood define the concept in broad terms, as the idea that the country is guided by Christian values. Those who say the United States should not be a Christian nation, on the other hand, are much more inclined to define a Christian nation as one where the laws explicitly enshrine religious teachings.

Who were the Founding Fathers? American historian Richard B. Morris, (his son Donnie is a classmate of mine- MVHS/AB Davis-Class of 1963) in his 1973 book Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, identified the following seven figures as the “key” Founding Fathers:  John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison and George Washington.

Of these, only John Jay can be considered an orthodox Christian. As Congress’s Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he argued (unsuccessfully) for a prohibition forbidding Catholics from holding office. On October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” It is John Jay that the modern Christians have in mind when they talk about the Founding Fathers. Luckily, for the rest of us, and all freedom-loving Americans, he was not in the majority.

With that in mind, none of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. 

They spoke often of God, (Nature’s God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists.  We’ll never know; but by reading their own writings, it’s clear that most of them were opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.

 

Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson’s words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: “All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable.”  Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.”  But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence– it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

One of the many attacks on our constitutional framework of government is from the Religious Right and their claim that our country is a Christian Nation…not just that the majority of people are Christians, but that the country itself was founded by Christians, for Christians. However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. Those people who spread this lie are known as Christian Revisionists. They are attempting to rewrite history, in much the same way as holocaust deniers are. But, in fact, the men responsible for building the foundation of the United States were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true. They were Freethinkers who relied on their reason, not their faith. These men knew quite well the marriage of religion and the state, which dominated 18th Century Europe. They were fearful of the church and for sure, an “established church!”

The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea that the power to rule over other people comes from god. It was a letter from the Colonies to the English King, stating their intentions to separate themselves. The Declaration is not a governing document. It mentions “Nature’s God” and “Divine Providence”– but as you will soon see, that’s the language of Deism, not Christianity.

If the U.S. was founded on the Christian religion, the Constitution would clearly say so–but it does not. Nowhere does the Constitution say: “The United States is a Christian Nation”, or anything even close to that. In fact, the words “Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God” are never mentioned in the Constitution– not even once. Nowhere in the Constitution is religion mentioned, except in exclusionary terms. When the Founders wrote the nation’s Constitution, they specified that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article 6, section 3)   This provision was radical in its day– giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike.  They wanted to ensure that no religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. 

The 1796 Treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was “not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”  This was not an idle statement meant to satisfy muslims– they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

Still, aside from what really happened, most U.S. adults believe America’s founders intended the country to be a Christian nation, and many say they think it should be a Christian nation today, according to a new Pew Research Center survey designed to explore Americans’ views on the topic. But the survey also finds widely differing opinions about what it means to be a “Christian nation” and to support “Christian nationalism.” Despite our true history, overall, six-in-ten U.S. adults – including nearly seven-in-ten Christians – say they believe the founders “originally intended” for the U.S. to be a Christian nation. And 45% of U.S. adults – including about six-in-ten Christians – say they think the country “should be” a Christian nation. A third say the U.S. “is now” a Christian nation.

In the early years after the American Revolution, almost all states started to shift slowly toward state-controlled school systems. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson pushed to shift education in Virginia from private and church schools to a broad public system, arguing that new “kings, priests, and nobles” would arise if “we leave the people in ignorance.” But property taxes were still often controversial, and collection systems inadequate. In many states, growing urban centers led the way toward universal public schooling in the early nineteenth century. Many in rural farming areas had deemed formal education unnecessary, but as urban populations grew,

Of course, historically, the revision in thinking about our Founding and its religious heritage started with the Baptists in, and around, 1820. In those days, the United States was almost universally Protestant, with few Catholics, Jews and almost no Asians or Muslims. They had always controlled most of the schools (since the early days of the colonies) and they also controlled the narrative of our history and this dominance would continue, more or less, until the Great Immigration of 1848 to 1852. In those years there was our first massive immigration of mostly Catholics; Irish because of the Potato Famine and mostly German Catholics and liberals, reflective of the triumph of Bismarck and his policies of Kultur Kampf.

Because of this influx of Catholics, the Know Nothing Party, a nativist political group emerged in the United States in the 1850’s. The party was officially known as the “Native American Party” prior to 1855 and thereafter, it was simply known as the “American Party”. Members of the movement were required to say “I know nothing” whenever they were asked about its specifics by outsiders, providing the group with its colloquial name.

Supporters of the Know Nothing movement believed that an alleged “Romanist” conspiracy by Catholics to subvert civil and religious liberty in the United States was being hatched. Therefore, they sought to politically organize native-born Protestants in defense of their traditional religious and political values. The Know Nothing movement is remembered for this theme because Protestants feared that Catholic priests and bishops would control a large bloc of voters. In most places, the ideology and influence of the Know Nothing movement lasted only one or two years before it disintegrated due to weak and inexperienced local leaders, a lack of publicly proclaimed national leaders, and a deep split over the issue of slavery. In the South, the party did not emphasize anti-Catholicism as frequently as it emphasized it in the North and it stressed a neutral position on slavery, but it became the main alternative to the dominant Democratic Party.

Know Nothings are occasionally referred to as an anti-Semitic movement due to their zealous xenophobia and religious bigotry; however, the movement was not openly hostile towards Jews because its members and supporters believed that Jews did not allow “their religious feelings to interfere with their political views.”

The Know Nothing Party, prioritizing a zealous disdain for Irish Catholic immigrants, reportedly “had nothing to say about Jews”, according to historian Hasia Diner. In New York, the virulently anti-Catholic Know Nothings supported a Jewish candidate for governor.

Thus, after this influx of immigrants, the concern over the growth of slavery, reflective of the Great Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, the Baptists split between northern and southern conventions. As the country matured, local education governance and thus policies started to gravitate to the states, as opposed to the earlier control the Protestant Churches. Tax-funded schools were originally less popular outside of New England and in some places, colonists preferred schools sponsored by particular religions, such as the traditional Baptist controlled or Quaker or Catholic schools. Some also opposed the property taxes often used to fund schools, viewing them as infringing on property rights. In a sense, fear and paranoia among the majority Protestants is an age-old dynamic

Still, aside from what really happened, most U.S. adults believe America’s Founders intended the country to be a Christian nation, and many say they think it should be a Christian nation today, according to a new Pew Research Center survey designed to explore Americans’ views on the topic. But the survey also finds widely differing opinions about what it means to be a “Christian nation” and to support “Christian nationalism.” Despite our true history, overall, six-in-ten U.S. adults – including nearly seven-in-ten Christians – say they believe the founders “originally intended” for the U.S. to be a Christian nation. And 45% of U.S. adults – including about six-in-ten Christians – say they think the country “should be” a Christian nation. A third say the U.S. “is now” a Christian nation.

One of the many attacks on our country from the Religious Right is the claim that our country is a Christian Nation…not just that the majority of people are Christians, but that the country itself was founded by Christians, for Christians. However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. Those people who spread this lie are known as Christian Revisionists. They are attempting to rewrite history, in much the same way as holocaust deniers are. Interestingly, More than four in ten Americans (44%) identify as white Christian, including white evangelical Protestants (14%), white mainline (non-evangelical) Protestants (16%), and white Catholics (12%), as well as small percentages who identify as Latter-day Saint (Mormon), Jehovah’s Witness, and Orthodox Christian. As for white Protestants, who used to be over 98+% of the population in 1789 (aside from 8% of the country that were slaves, and only counted at 2/3rds), they represent 33% of all Americans.

PS: But stop and ask yourself: Was Christ really born on Christ-mas Day? After all, the Bible nowhere tells us the day of His birth. In fact, most credible secular historical writings tell us that Christmas, more than 200 years after Jesus’ death, was considered sinful: “As late as A.D. 245 [the early Catholic theologian] Origen . . . repudiates as sinful the very idea of keeping the birthday of Christ” (The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, 1910, Vol. 6, p. 293, “Christmas”).

In A.D. 354, a Latin chronographer mentioned Christmas, but even then he did not write about it as an observed festival (ibid.). There is no biblical evidence that Dec. 25 was Jesus’ birth date. In fact, the Bible record strongly shows that Jesus must not have been born then.

For example, Luke tells us that the shepherds were keeping their sheep in the fields at night when Jesus was born. “And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger . . . Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night” (Luke 2:7-8, emphasis added throughout).

But late December is Judea’s cold and rainy season. Would shepherds actually keep their fragile flocks out in the open fields on a cold late-December night near Bethlehem?

No responsible shepherd would subject his sheep to the elements at that time of year when cold rains, and occasional snow, are common in that region.

“The climate of Palestine is not so severe as the climate of this country is not as severe as Northern Europe or North America; but even there, though the heat of the day be considerable, the cold of the night, from December to February, is very piercing, and it was not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October” (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, 1959, p. 91).

Luke also tells us that Jesus was born at the time of a census ordered by the Roman emperor (Luke 2:1-3). The Romans were brilliant administrators; they certainly would not have ordered people to journey to be registered at a time of year when roads would have been wet and muddy and traveling conditions miserable. Such a move would have been self-defeating on its face.

The belief that Jesus was born on or around Dec. 25 simply has no basis in fact, even if untold millions of people have accepted it without question. As the famous playwright George Bernard Shaw said, “If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it’s still a foolish thing.”

If the Christmas holiday is an important celebration to honor the birth of Jesus Christ, why is it nowhere mentioned in the Bible? Why didn’t Christ instruct His closest followers, His 12 chosen apostles, to keep Christmas? Why didn’t they institute or teach it to the early Church?

Before you answer, consider that Jesus gave great authority to His 12 apostles, assuring them that they will hold positions of great importance and responsibility in His Kingdom (Matthew 18:18; 19:28; Luke 22:29-30). But since Jesus never taught His apostles to keep Christmas, nor did they ever teach it to the Church even though they had years of opportunity to do so, shouldn’t that make us question whether Christmas is something Jesus really wants or appreciates?

Most people never stop to ask themselves what the major symbols of Christmas—Santa Claus, reindeer, decorated trees, holly, mistletoe and the like—have to do with the birth of the Savior of mankind. In the southern hemisphere summer climate of December, few people question why they observe a Christmas with northern hemisphere winter scenery!

The fact is, and one can verify this in any number of books and encyclopedias, that all these trappings came from ancient pagan festivals. Even the date, Dec. 25, came from a festival celebrating the birthday of the ancient sun god Mithras.

 

AND: Meanwhile, Constantine, who was born in modern day Serbia, became Emperor of the western part of the Roman Empire in 306 CE, while serving his father’s military interests in York, England. There is much debate over why he became a Christian, and though it happened after his fortieth birthday, many attribute his conversion to his mother’s Christian worship. Christian persecution basically ended with the Edict of Milan in 313 CE and at the first ecumenical council held in Nicaea in 325 CE. He was considered the first Christian Emperor and founded Constantinople as the first Christian city. The Byzantine Empire considered him its follower and even the later Holy Roman Empire held that Constantine was to be considered one of its venerable forbearers. Therefore, with Constantine and his followers, the linkage between Christianity and the Roman Empire was set in stone. So the stage was set for the next 17 centuries where church and state would be married, for better, and often for worse. In the same way, the Middle East, that had at one time been called the cradle of civilization, eventually became the center of Muslim rule, as Mohammad (530-632 CE) and by his death he had conquered almost all of the Arabian peninsula. This rise in the power of the Moslem hegemony would become the most obvious case of the union between religion and the state.

In the early days of empire, from 750 CE onward, the Muslim world eventually stretched in the west from the city of Toledo in Spain, to Aswan on the Nile, to the horn of Africa, to the southern border of the Caspian Sea, and north to Samarkand, and east to the banks of the Indus. The Muslims gave greater freedoms to the Jewish population under their domination than had the Christians. In Toledo, the Jews opened their gates to welcome the Muslims as liberators. The Muslim conquerors never treated the Jews with the frequent massacres and expulsions that they had experienced under the rule of Christendom. But times eventually changed, and the intertwined and internecine religious aspects of Muslim rule started to turn with violence on other peoples under their domination. In 1066, more than five thousand Jews were murdered during Arab riots. In Fez, Morocco, in 1033, six thousand Jews were massacred. In Kairawan, in 1016 CE, now in modern Tunisia, the Jews were expelled. The remaining Jews of Tunis had a long history of persecution that started in the 1100’s that commenced with forced conversions. In Marakesh in 1232 CE thousands of Jews were massacred. Muslim Arabs in 637 CE conquered Jerusalem and between that early period and the Crusades their treatment of the Jews and other non-believers varied. Jews were caught between the competing interests of their Muslim rulers and the Christian onslaughts of the Crusades. In 1099 CE Jews took part in the defense of Jerusalem against the Crusaders, and the next year they helped defend Haifa. In the period from 1099 to 1291 the Christian Crusaders mercilessly persecuted and slaughtered the Jews of Palestine along with any Muslims they could defeat and capture. Interestingly when the Mameluks, who were also Muslim, ousted the Crusaders in 1291 CE, and ruled until 1516, Jewish settlement was encouraged. Jews sought refuge from anti-Semitic persecution in Europe during this period of Mameluk rule, and even after the Ottoman Turks conquered the area in 1517 CE, many European Jews sought sanctuary in places like Tiberius, Safed, Hebron, and Jerusalem. Obviously Jews had never abandoned the land that Moses was promised. Time and time again Jews filtered back into what we know today as Israel.

This marriage of church and state would thrive in Europe and with the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither holy nor Roman. It was centered in modern Germany and established in 814 CE, after Charlemagne’s death. The title of Emperor (Imperator) carried the dual role as the secular leader and that of the protector of the Catholic Church.  Emperors were ordained as sub deacons in the Roman Catholic Church, and eventually this dualism would lead to direct conflict with the rise of the power of the Papacy during the Middle Ages. It would come to a peak in the 11th Century with the Investiture Controversy between Henry IV and Pope Gregory VII. The pope had excommunicated Henry over his convening of the National Council at Worms, Germany. This conflict arose over Henry’s dissatisfaction regarding the activity of Catholic Bishops and the internal struggle within Germany over the legitimacy of Hildebrand’s succession to the throne of Saint Peter in the name of Gregory VII.

Virgin Birthdoctrine of traditional Christianity that Jesus Christ had no natural father but was conceived by Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine that Mary was the sole natural parent of Jesus is based on the infancy narratives contained in the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke. It was universally accepted in the Christian church by the 2nd century, was enshrined in the Apostles’ Creed, and, except for several minor sects, was not seriously challenged until the rise of Enlightenment theology in the 18th century. It remains a basic article of belief in the Roman CatholicOrthodox, and most Protestant churches. Muslims also accept the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

corollary that has been deduced from the doctrine of Mary’s virginity in the conception of Jesus is the doctrine of her perpetual virginity, not only in conception but in the birth of the child (i.e., she was exempt from the pain of childbirth) and throughout her life. This doctrine is found in the writings of the Church Fathers and was accepted by the Council of Chalcedon (451). It is part of the teaching of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. Protestantism has generally accepted the Virgin Birth but not the notion of perpetual virginity, often citing a literal understanding of the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in Mark 6:2 and Matthew 13:55.

Matthew 1:18-25 – Joseph and the Virgin Birth

The two places in the New Testament that speak about the virgin birth display a remarkable difference. Comparison of the stories recorded in Matthew 1 and in Luke 1 brings to light that they focus on different persons. Luke describes the events through the eyes of Mary. An angel appeared to her and told her that she would have a son (Luke 1:31). Matthew, on the other hand, describes the events as Joseph experienced them. 1  An angel appeared to him in a dream to give him instructions. Even the birth of Jesus is described from Joseph’s perspective: “He had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25).

What is Matthew’s purpose in focusing on Joseph? Is Joseph here described as a faith hero, a role model for Christian behaviour? This is of great importance for our understanding and use of this story. If Joseph is portrayed as a faith hero, then we should concentrate on Joseph as an example and try to become as faithful in our situation as Joseph was in his. On the other hand, if it is not Matthew’s intention to show Joseph as a hero of the faith, why does he concentrate on him? Matthew even records Joseph’s thoughts. We have to follow closely Matthew’s description to see what he wants us to learn from these events.

Joseph Excluded🔗

To understand the events we have to realize first of all that Joseph and Mary were already married at the time. The expression “betrothed” used by the RSV may give us today a different impression, just as the expression of the NIV: “pledged to be married.” Matthew makes it very clear in this passage, however, that they were married. He calls Joseph “her husband” (1:19) and Mary “his wife” (1:20, 24). That Joseph considers divorce (1:19) puts it beyond doubt that Joseph and Mary were man and wife.

The situation described here was common in Israel but is no longer known in our Western world. When a marriage contract has been made between two parties, the boy and the girl were considered to be married before the law. Such contracts could be made when the girl was still young, possibly not older than twelve years old. A number of years would go by before the lawful husband would bring his wife to his house and they would live together. They were considered man and wife, however, from the moment the marriage contract was signed.

That is the situation between Joseph and Mary, as described in Matthew1:18. It was during this period that it became apparent that Mary was expecting a child. Matthew uses an uncommon expression: “She was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.” At first glance, this may give the impression that other people began to notice that Mary was pregnant. The difficulty is, however, that other people may have noticed that Mary was expecting, but they could not know that she was pregnant through the working of the Holy Spirit.2 There is only one who could notice the pregnancy and at the same time know that it was the work of the Holy Spirit: Mary herself.

Matthew’s story, however, does not focus on Mary and her predicament, but on Joseph. Matthew implies that Mary told him that she was expecting a child. Did she also tell him that this was the direct result of the working of the Holy Spirit? There are two details in the story indicating that she did. There is in the first place the fact that Joseph considers to divorce her quietly. If he thought she had committed adultery, there would be no reason for him to leave her quietly. Joseph was planning effectively to divorce her, but not in such a way that she would be put to shame. This implies that he did not think Mary had done something dishonourable. In the second place, when the angel encourages him to bring Mary to his house, he makes the strange remark: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary, your wife.” Joseph, obviously, was not angry at Mary or disappointed in her, he was afraid. Joseph, then, was aware that the Holy Spirit had required Mary for the important task of bearing a special child, and he did not dare to press his marital right.

In this situation where his rights had been overruled by the Holy Spirit, Joseph was looking for an honourable way out. He could have gone to the judges and received an official divorce on the basis of Mary’s pregnancy before she began living with him. Such a course of action, however, would expose Mary as an adulteress in the view of people. Or he could give her a private letter of divorce. In that case, Mary would be clear in the public eye, but the blame would be laid on Joseph for leaving his young wife. And only Mary would have the proof that he had divorced her and that she was free from him.

The end result would be that Joseph would lose his wife Mary. Joseph was willing to bring this sacrifice, since God had clearly shown that He needed Mary for his purposes. That brings us back to denied. He was willing to do something that was both painful and shameful for him. Even if it was an arranged marriage, we should not suppose that he did not love her. Moreover, the way Joseph planned the divorce meant that he would end up bearing the blame for leaving his wife. And yet Joseph went ahead and gave Mary her freedom. Joseph’s faith proved to be strong.

But we should also consider another question: Does Matthew in his description of Joseph portray him as a faith hero? Honest reading of the text shows that is not the case. To give an example, Matthew does not write at the beginning of 1:20: “As Joseph was agonizing about this…” Any feelings Joseph may have had are not described. His disappointment, his uncertainty, or his grieving over the end of a marriage before they had begun to enjoy it, none of this is mentioned. The spotlight is not on Joseph and on his experiences and emotions.

Although the event is viewed from the position of Joseph, it focuses on someone else, as the very beginning of this passage indicates: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.” Matthew is not so much describing how Joseph was tested in his faith and overcame the temptation, he is recounting the story of Jesus Christ’s birth.

The point of the story is to prove beyond doubt that Joseph is not the father of Jesus. Jesus is truly born out of Mary, but Mary’s husband before the law, Joseph, is not his father. No human agency could bring the Christ into this world, not even the righteous Joseph. Jesus the Saviour came into this world through a divine miracle, through the extraordinary work of the Spirit of God. Joseph is not described as a faith hero, he is described as being excluded.

That affects all of us. We need a Saviour, but He cannot come into this world through our effort. We are sinners and we cannot contribute anything to our salvation. Our Saviour had to come into this world through the Holy Spirit. Our salvation is from beginning to end the work of God. That pattern is visible here, at the very beginning of the life of the Saviour. Even the righteous Joseph (1:19) had to be excluded. Joseph is not an example for us as a faith hero, rather the exclusion of the faithful Joseph in the virgin birth is the living proof that we cannot contribute to our salvation.

Joseph Involved

While Joseph was considering secret divorce, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. He was commanded not to leave Mary but to take Mary to his home. The first, legal part of their marriage should now be followed by the second, personal part. Mary should leave her parents’ home and move in with Joseph, her husband.

As a result, Mary’s child will be born in Joseph’s house. Joseph has to accept her son as his own son, and he must assume responsibility for him. Although the boy is not Joseph’s son, he must receive the place of Joseph’s firstborn.

The angel mentions yet another task for Joseph to fulfil: he has to call the child “Jesus.” We need not now go into the meaning of this name, although the angel indicates that the meaning is important. The issue is that Mary should not name her son, but Joseph has to give this name to the boy. This underlines that Joseph publicly adopts Mary’s son as his son.

Joseph faithfully follows the two instructions given by the angel. He brought his wife home, although he did not live with her (1:24). This was not something expressly commanded by the angel. Moreover, when Mary gave birth to her son, Joseph called him Jesus.

Again we are confronted with the question whether Joseph shows himself to be a faith hero. If faith is to accept what God has said, and to act accordingly, then Joseph undoubtedly proves to be a believer. Yet it is difficult to judge how much heroism there was in his behavior. Was it a struggle for Joseph to follow the command of the angel, or was he glad, at any rate, that he could marry Mary? What did he think and how did he feel? We have no way of knowing since the Bible does not give us insight into the struggles and triumphs of Joseph. The Bible appears to be focused on a different, far more factual aspect.

This is indicated in the way the angel addresses Joseph as “son of David” (1:20). David was Israel’s great king. In the genealogy with which the gospel of Matthew begins, Jesus Christ is right away presented as “Jesus Christ, the son of David” (1:1). Later, David is called the king (1:6). Jesus, as the adopted son of Joseph, is legally included in the royal line. He is the great king promised to the house of David (Isaiah 9).

David’s line, however, had gone into decline, not long after David. Eventually, his offspring had become unknown and unimportant figures during the Babylonian captivity. Rather than producing a new king, David’s line had fizzled out. The final proof that the promised king could not come from David is the virgin birth itself. Only through an adoption by Joseph could the Saviour become the legal heir to David’s throne.

To be sure, Joseph had to act in faith to make this possible. But the emphasis in this section is not on the faith of Joseph but on the faithfulness of God. God had given great promises to the house of David; history had made it painfully clear that David’s house could not make these promises come true. Then God remembered His promises and addressed Joseph, an unknown son of David. He sent an angel to order Joseph to bring Mary into his house and to adopt Mary’s son. In this extraordinary way, God made all his promises come true.

The story of the virgin birth in Matthew does encourage us to live in faith. It does not, however, do that by holding out Joseph as a good example of a faith hero. Rather, it does this by showing us God fulfilling His word. Joseph’s example would not help us much, since we do not know his struggles and triumphs. It is God’s work here that is the real reason for us to live in faith. When we meditate on how much God did for us in the virgin birth, we will learn to trust Him to continue His salvation work today in us.

 

“The Berlin Mission” And the unknown work of Raymond Geist by Richard J. Garfunkel February 12, 2023

“The Berlin Mission” by Richard Breitman is the very interesting story of the American Raymond Geist, (1885-1955) who was born in America to German immigrants. Geist attended Oberlin, and Case Western Reserve Colleges and received his law degree from Harvard University. He entered the Foreign Service and being fluent in a number of languages, especially German. He was assigned to the level of Counsel at the American Embassy in Berlin in 1929. He would serve there until 1939, during some of the most demanding years one could imagine. He basically dealt with enabling American Jews, who were being persecuted In Germany to get out of detention or prison and return home. He also had to deal with the myriad of problems facing the 500,000+ Jews living in Germany at the time of the ascension of Hitler and his Nazi Gang to power. In 1933.  These problems are well-documented. He also was able to enable the immigration of Albert Einstein and his wife, despite governmental harassment, road blocks and problems with American visas.

In 1921, the new US immigration Act was based on the 1910 census, reflective of the population in America. This created a quota system based on National Origin. The basis of that law was to definitively limit immigration of Jews, among others from Eastern Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin.  Raymond Geist was first interviewed by Wilbur Carr regarding his entry into the diplomatic service in 1921. Carr, regarded Jews in a pseudo-scientific doctrine of the hierarchy of races and Jews were determined to be a lower group. In his testimony before the House Immigration Committee, drafting the 1921 bill, Carr singled out Eastern European Jews as a “filthy, un-American and often dangerous in their beliefs.” He stated that they were “economically and socially undesirable, abnormally twisted and inclined to be agitators.”  This was not an unusual belief in America, nor in the State Department of that era.

In the 1921 bill, which reduced Jewish immigration because of a very low quota for immigrants from Eastern Europe, it did allow for a quota of over 51,000 from Germany, which had a population of 500,000 Jews.

Three years later, the new 1924 Immigration Law, known as the Reed-Johnson Act, which lasted until the 1950s, reduced the annual immigration from Europe to 153,774 and based the National Origins on the 1890 census, which was before the huge Eastern European immigration that existed up until 1920. The new German quota was cut virtually in half to 25,957, and allowed only 10,000 from Russia, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia and Yugoslavia. The law did allow some exceptions that were outside the quota: relatives of US citizens, ministers, professors, etc. In 1930, amidst American’s deteriorating economic conditions and a general climate of hysteria regarding foreigners, President Herbert Hoover asked the Cabinet how to reduce immigration radically without going to Congress. Wilbur Carr, now an Assistant Secretary of State, recommended a provision in the Immigration Act of 1917, banning anyone, “likely to be a public charge.” From 1929 until June of 1930, the annual German Quota was filled. But, after the new instructions in September, the month quota numbers dropped significantly. By the end of the fiscal year (June 1931) fewer than 10,000 visas for Germany were issued.  Hoover demanded fewer to be issued. Thus, in the fiscal year ended in June, 1932, only 2068 individuals received visas under the German quota of over 25,000, less than 10%. Many of these were for people whose relatives were living in the United States. The State Department that was inherited by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in March of 1933, was basically staffed by career officers, who had been appointed under the previous twelve years of three Republican, isolationist and anti-immigrant Presidents; Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Also, let us not forget, that most Americans were anti-immigration, and the American Labor movement, a key element in the new Roosevelt Coalition was assuredly anti-immigrant during the depths of the Great Depression when one-third of all American workers were unemployed.

After Hitler attained supreme power in 1934, the fate of the Jews of Germany was basically sealed. But, in between 1933 and 1935, there were all sorts of twists and turns regarding the Jews, the fate of the SA and their leader Ernst Rohm, violence in the streets and the Nuremberg Laws which would legally insure the end of Jewry in Germany.

In this early period, the new US Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd, who was basically an anti-Semite, was not prepared for the job for which he was appointed. Before his departure, Dodd’s old friend Carl Sandburg told him he needed “to find out what this man Hitler is made of, what makes his brain go round, what his blood and bones are made of” and still “be brave and truthful, keep your poetry and integrity.” He expected to finish his multi-volume history of the American South. Also, before he left for Germany, Dodd met with members of the Jewish-American community, including Stephen S. Wise and Felix Warburg, who asked him to seek a reversal of the Nazis’ repressive anti-Jewish policies. Dodd promised he would “exert all possible personal influence against unjust treatment” of German Jews, but not in his official capacity.

President Roosevelt advised him on June 16, 1933:

The German authorities are treating Jews shamefully and the Jews in this country are greatly excited. But this is also not a government affair. We can do nothing except for American citizens who happen to be made victims. We must protect them, and whatever we can do to moderate the general persecution by unofficial and personal influence ought to be done.

(Of course, there were few reliable reports that were really believable in June of 1933. Hitler would not gain absolute power until the basic dissolution of their parliament, the Reichstag, the ending of the freedom of the press and the death of President Paul von Hindenburg. During 1933 and 1934, Hitler was very aware that Hindenburg was the only check on his power. With the passage of the Enabling Act and the banning of all parties except the Nazis, Hindenburg’s power to sack the chancellor was the only means by which Hitler could be legally removed from office. Given that Hindenburg was still a popular war hero and a revered figure in the Reichswehr “Army,” there was little doubt that the Reichswehr would side with Hindenburg if he ever decided to sack Hitler. Hindenburg remained in office until his death at the age of 86 from lung cancer at his home in NeudeckEast Prussia, on 2 August 1934. The day before, Hitler received word that Hindenburg was on his deathbed. He then had the cabinet pass the “Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich,” which stipulated that upon Hindenburg’s death, the office of president would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor under the title of Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor of the Reich) )

Edward M. House, a veteran in Democratic Party circles since the Wilson administration, told Dodd that he should do what he could “to ameliorate Jewish sufferings,” but cautioned, “The Jews should not be allowed to dominate economic or intellectual life in Berlin as they have done for a long time.” Dodd shared House’s views and wrote in his diary that “The Jews had held a great many more of the key positions in Germany than their numbers or talents entitled them to.” 

 He left for Germany on July 5, 1933, accompanied by his wife and two adult children. Once in Germany, he eventually had his one and only meeting with Hitler. Based on his view of the proper role of Jews in society, he advised Hitler that Jewish influence should be restrained in Germany as it was in the United States. “I explained to him [Hitler],” wrote Dodd, “that where a question of over-activity of Jews in university or official life made trouble, we had managed to redistribute the offices in such a way as to not give great offense.” Hitler ignored Dodd’s advice and responded that “if they [the Jews] continue their activity we shall make a complete end of them in this country.”

Though he was alarmed by Hitler’s bombast, he not only failed to impress upon Hitler the vast power of America, nor understood the real, unremitting threat to Germany’s Jews. He never really understood what the Nazis were about, He assumed that they may even be overthrown and he never reported enough of what was going in Germany to the American State Department. His report to Secretary of State Cordell Hull never revealed the potential threat and danger of the Nazi regime.

Of course, Geist would continue doing remarkable work for American citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, who either were traveling in Germany, living in Germany or involved with business in Germany. He also dealt with the Nazi High Command, especially Himmler, Werner Best and others, regarding the continual demand for visas for Jews to escape Germany, the treatment of German Jews and American citizens. Most interesting was the almost confused policy on Jews which often changed on a day by day policy with regards to their immediate future. Geist’s activity and struggles would continue through the absorption of Austria; the Anschluss, the Western allies capitulation regarding the Sudetenland, the bloodless conquering of the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and Kristallnacht. No matter what Geist and the new American Ambassador, Hugh R. Wilson did, after Ambassador Dodd became persona non-grata in 1937, nothing in Germany would improve for Jews or anyone else who questioned the authority of Hitler and the Nazis.

But, eventually more visas were issued in Germany, more openings were filled in the German quota and changes in the State Department, the improved economic conditions in America and the realization from President Roosevelt that more had to be done about the German-Jewish refugee crisis, along with the threat of Germany to world peace were actuated by 1937 through late 1938. During this period Raymond Geist became the greatest authority for America on what Nazi Germany was all about. He became an invaluable source of information regarding Germany’s march to war. Where many others in the State Department and elsewhere, like Charles Lindbergh and the isolationists of the American First Movement downplayed the threats of Germany to Europe and to the security of the United States, Geist did not. The people around Geist knew that not only was his information on the Nazis correct, but his analysis of their plans was 100% on target.

Once back in the United States, after the outbreak of WWII, Geist became one of our greatest assets regarding what was happening in Germany. He had a very prescient sense of the future actions of Hitler and his collection of rivalrous Nazis. In the years after his return, he began to speak at various meetings around the country, especially on German propaganda. Also remember, before the war, there was great internal debate over the effect of anti-German stories regarding the treatment of Jews. In other words, criticizing the Nazis and their anti-Semitic acts, seem to have little salutary effect, but often made conditions a lot worse.

One of his most important speeches was delivered in May of 1942, when we were now in the war. His talk was given to National Conference of Christians and Jews. He spoke of the “Special German Path,” of development which allowed Hitler to gain widespread obedience amongst the German populace. Geist praised the antecedents of rational enlightened civilization from ancient Athens to the Magna Carta. Germany had ignored them. He also added the “Four Freedoms,” which President Roosevelt had proclaimed as incontestable rights of mankind, which were denied to the Germans.

Of course, he was able to personally meet with President Roosevelt and articulated his views which were quite informative and revelatory. The war would take its course, Geist’s career continued, but he was never able to go back to post-war Germany as a member of the Foreign Service. His life and efforts have been basically forgotten, but his story is an important one that should remembered by the many he helped and their descendants. 

 

 

 

 

MORE ON FDR AS HIS BIRTHDAY, JANUARY 30, 1882 APPROACHES Richard J. Garfunkel January 30, 2023

I am re-reading the 1948 Pulitzer Prize winning book, “Roosevelt and Hopkins,” by Robert Sherwood, four-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author, screen writer, playwright, poet, critic and speechwriter in the last years of the late President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Sherwood received Pulitzer Prizes for Drama (1936, 1939, 1941), Academy Award for Best Screenplay (1947) and Pulitzer Prize for Biography (1948) for “Roosevelt and Hopkins.”

This book is one of a series of remarkable and personal accounts from people who knew and worked with FDR. Another contemporary account is “Working with Roosevelt,” (1952), by Samuel I. Rosenman, (1896-1973)- who was a senior advisor to presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, He was also the first official White House Counsel, then called Special Counsel, between 1943 and 1946. Rosenman edited “The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt,” published in 13 volumes from 1938 to 1950. He received his Law Degree from Columbia University. Served as a Justice of the NY State Supreme Court. His granddaughter is the wife of Attorney-General Merritt Garland.

Another notable firsthand account was the three volumes of, “The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes,” (1950-2) written by FDR’s Secretary of Interior, Harold L. Ickes (1874-1952.) Ickes was a graduate of the University of Chicago, where he received his BA and LLB. He is the father of Harold M. Ickes, who was the Deputy Chief of Staff for President Bill Clinton, 1993-7.

The last of these remarkable, accounts was from the unfinished writings of the late Supreme Court Justice, Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954) which was written in the early 1950’s, before his untimely death in 1954., In the remarkable book, “That Man,” published in 2004, fifty years after his death, Justice Jackson offers an intimate, personal portrait of Roosevelt–on fishing trips, in late-night poker games, or approving legislation while eating breakfast in bed, where he routinely began his workday. We meet a president who is far-sighted but nimble in attacking the problems at hand; principled but flexible; charismatic and popular but unafraid to pick fights, take stands, and when necessary, make enemies. “That Man” is not simply a valuable historical document, but an engaging and insightful look at one of the most remarkable men in American history. In reading this memoir, we gain not only a new appreciation for Roosevelt, but also admiration for Jackson, who emerges as both a public servant of great integrity and skill and a wry, shrewd, and fair-minded observer of politics at the highest level.

Of course, there were many other intimates of FDR, including Louis McHenry Howe, Marguerite “Missy” Le Hand, Frances Perkins, Henry Morgenthau, Daisy Suckley, Benjamin V. Cohen, Thomas Corcoran, Edward Flynn, James Farley, Basil O’Connor his law partner, members of the Brain Trust; Raymond Moley, Adolph Berle, Rexford Tugwell, along with Henry A. Wallace and John Garner, his first two Vice –Presidents. A number of them wrote books about their time with FDR and others did not.

But, of course, the story of Hopkins and his unique relationship with Roosevelt, is told eloquently, by Robert Sherwood (1896-1955), who knew and worked with them both. Hopkins became an American statesman, an unprecedented public administrator, and finally a presidential advisor. He was the most trusted deputy to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt  during WWII.

Hopkins was a unique individual, who was born in Grinell, Iowa, in 1892, where he graduated from Grinnell College. His career before being hired by the then Governor of NY, Franklin Roosevelt, was not only extensive, but remarkable.

Hopkins settled in New York City after he graduated from Grinnell College. He accepted a position in New York City’s Bureau of Child Welfare and worked for various social work and public health organizations. Hopkins moved to New Orleans where he worked for the American Red Cross as director of Civilian Relief, Gulf Division. Eventually, the Gulf Division of the Red Cross merged with the Southwestern Division and Hopkins, headquartered now in Atlanta, was appointed general manager in 1921. He was elected president of the National Association of Social Workers in 1923. In 1931, New York Temporary Emergency Relief Administration chairman Jesse I. Straus hired Hopkins as the agency’s executive director. His successful leadership of the program earned the attention of then-New York Governor Roosevelt, who brought Hopkins into his federal administration after he won the 1932 presidential election.

Before the war, Hopkins directed New Deal relief programs before serving as the 8th United States Secretary of Commerce from 1938 to 1940 and as Roosevelt’s chief foreign policy advisor and liaison to Allied leaders during World War II. During his career  in Washington, Hopkins supervised the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA), which he built into the largest employer in the United States.

His philosophy on the unemployed is reflected in these words: “Three or four million heads of households don’t turn into tramps and cheats overnight, nor do they lose the habits and standards of a lifetime… They don’t drink any more than the rest of us, they don’t lie any more, and they are no lazier than the rest of us…. An eighth or a tenth of the earning population does not change its character which has been generations in the molding, or, if such a change actually occurs, we can scarcely charge it up to personal sin.

The things they have actually accomplished all over America should be an inspiration to every reasonable person and an everlasting answer to all the grievous insults that have been heaped on the heads of the unemployed.

Hopkins was not afraid to express his strong opinions. He reflected his concern for the poor in testimony in front of a Senate committee. He said: “People don’t eat in the long run – they eat every day.” He also stated, “That the Constitution means nothing to a starving man!” This reflects his character as much as anything else he said or did! He was accused most famously for this oft-quoted remark!

“We shall tax and tax, and spend and spend, and elect and elect!” This was first published by Frank Kent, and then by Joseph Alsop and Robert Kintner in their syndicated column as well as Arthur Krock in the New York Times. Hopkins denied he ever said that and denied “the whole works and the whole implication of it.” Later, under oath, Krock admitted that he had not interviewed any eye witnesses to the conversation.

Years later, the quote was attributed to Max Gordon, a successful Broadway producer, who had met Hopkins at the Empire City Raceway one summer’s afternoon. Also present were Heywood Broun and Daniel Arnstein. Both of them reported their version of the momentous conversation, which was extremely offhand and somewhat bored on Hopkins’ part. Neither recalled that he had made that famous, or infamous statement. According to Max Gordon’s recollection of the racetrack conversation, even though Hopkins didn’t actually say those precise words, “That’s what he meant!” That baseless canard would follow Hopkins and cause a great deal of wear and tear on him, but by 1940, more critical world events would intervene and he much more problems to deal with.

Hopkins had made many, many enemies in Washington with both anti-New Deal Republicans and conservative Democrats. He was a driven and dedicated man, who ruffled many feathers, cut through “red tape” and the bureaucracy that dominated Washington for endless years.

Later, in the days before we entered World War II, he oversaw the $50 billion Lend-Lease program of military aid to the Allies and, as Roosevelt’s personal envoy, played a pivotal role in shaping the alliance between the United States and the United Kingdom.

Hopkins enjoyed close relationships with President Roosevelt and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, and was considered a potential successor to the president until the late 1930s, when his health began to decline due to a long-running battle with stomach cancer.

As Roosevelt’s closest confidant, Hopkins assumed a leading foreign policy role after the outset of World War II. From 1940 until 1943, Hopkins lived in the White House and assisted the president in the management of American foreign policy, particularly toward the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. He traveled frequently to the United Kingdom, who’s prime minister, Winston Churchill, recalled Hopkins in his memoirs as a “natural leader of men” with “a flaming soul.”

Hopkins, who was noticeably ill during a visit with the president in May 1940, spent the night in a White House suite. At one time President Abraham Lincoln’s study, the suite was just down the hall from Roosevelt’s room. Hopkins lived there for the next three and a half years. When he married for the third time in July 1942, his wife, Louise, joined him and his daughter Diana in the White House. The family remained there until December 1943, when Harry rented a house in nearby Georgetown. Other members of Roosevelt’s circle, such as Rexford Tugwell and Henry Morgenthau, came to accept Hopkins’ closeness to the president as a fact of Washington life. Not everyone, however, was happy with the arrangement. Harold Ickes resented Hopkins’ insider role, and the two remained at odds for years. “I do not like him,” Ickes once noted in his diary, “and I do not like the influence that he has with the president.” Wendell Willkie, Roosevelt’s opponent in the 1940 presidential campaign, asked Roosevelt why he placed such faith in Hopkins when he knew that others resented it. The president told Willkie that if he ever became president, “You’ll learn what a lonely job this is, and you’ll discover the need for someone like Harry Hopkins who asks for nothing except to serve you.”

Winston Churchill’s initial reaction upon receiving word of Hopkins’ impending visit was, “Who?” When the tall, lean American arrived in London, however, he quickly impressed Churchill with his forthrightness. British officials who were initially taken aback by Hopkins’ rumpled appearance soon accepted him as he was. He seemed to the British to be the stereotypical American: confident, secure, and oblivious to formality. Sherwood wrote that “Hopkins naturally and easily conformed to the essential Benjamin Franklin tradition of American diplomacy, acting on the conviction that when an American representative approaches his opposite numbers in friendly countries with the standard striped-pants frigidity, the strict observance of protocol and amenities, and a studied air of lip-curling, he is not really representing America—not, at any rate, the America of which FDR was President.”

Hopkins’ visit heartened British citizens, who saw his presence as a sign of forthcoming U.S. help. Churchill confidante Brendan Bracken told the prime minister’s secretary, John Colville, that Hopkins “was the most important American visitor to this country we had ever had . . . . He could influence the president more than any living man.”

For his part, Hopkins was struck by the spirit of the British people. At a dinner given by newspaper magnate and Minister of Aircraft Production Lord Beaverbrook, Hopkins addressed the press. He described the feelings he experienced while visiting Britain’s blitzed cities and spoke of the affection and admiration that Roosevelt had for Britain. Beaverbrook later wrote that Hopkins’ ”speech left us feeling that although America was not yet in the war, she was marching beside us, and that should we stumble she would see that the President and the men about him blazed with faith in the future of Democracy.”

Scheduled for two weeks, Hopkins’ visit ended up lasting nearly six. Staying at the prime minister’s residence at 10 Downing Street, Hopkins met with government officials, business leaders, and many others, trying to assess what kind of assistance Britain needed. He toured industrial sites and shipyards, witnessed bomb damage firsthand, and was impressed with Britain’s resolve to fight. Churchill affectionately dubbed him “Lord Root of the Matter” for his ability to quickly get to the heart of problems.

Hopkins attended the major conferences of the Allied powers, including the Cairo Conference (November 1943), the Tehran Conference (November–December 1943), the Casablanca Conference (January 1943), and the Yalta Conference (February 1945)

In May of 1945, Hopkins wrote Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall that he was leaving government. Marshall replied:

You have literally given of your physical strength during the past three years to a degree that has been, in my opinion, heroic and will never be appreciated except by your intimates. For myself, I wish to tell you this, that you personally have been of invaluable service to me in the discharge of my duties in this war,. Time after time you have done for me things I was finding exceedingly difficult to do for myself and always in matters of the gravest import. You have been utterly selfless as well as courageous and purely objective in your contribution to the war effort.

This was high praise from one of the most honored and respected Americans of the Second World War and the Twentieth Century. Also, let us not forget, Marshall was not a liberal, certainly wasn’t a New Dealer or even a supporter of FDR. In fact, he and the president were on the most formal of terms. With all that said, Hopkins was the symbol of the New deal and its most ardent supporter. But, once when national defense became out most critical issue and the war reached America, Hopkins was its greatest civilian asset.

He served the Nation and the President almost to the end. His last trip was to Moscow and after that there was little life left in him. In the words of Sherwood, “Hopkins, in the end, took with him the knowledge that there were very few men who ever lived who were as fortunate as he in the possession of such enemies and such friends.”  His health continued to decline, and he died in 1946 at the age of 55.

 Epilogue I: I was reminded of the story of Harry Hopkins’ son Robert. In his book “Witness to History,” Castle Pacific, 2002. Bob Hopkins, who was a combat US Army photographer during WWII, told some amazing stories about his adventures covering some of the great events in history. After enlisting in the Army on October 7, 1941, he was assigned to Fort Dix.  On November 29th, he received his first pass and he arranged with his father to spend it at the White House. With only $1.50 he hitchhiked to Washington in the rain. He arrived at the White House soaking wet, was ordered to take a bath by his father and after Arthur Prettyman, FDR’s valet ironed his soaking wet uniform dry, he joined Missy Le Hand, his father and the President for the usual round of martinis. After dinner, and a great deal of talk and laughter he realized it was after midnight and he had to get back to Fort Dix before reveille. He knew he couldn’t get there if he hitchhiked back so he asked his father if he could lend him five dollars for the bus. The President’s chief aide, and a cabinet member, Mr. Harry Hopkins, said he did not have it! The President said, “I’ll lend you five dollars.” Of course young Hopkins said he couldn’t possibly take it. The President insisted. Then, taking a card bearing the Presidential seal embossed in gold from a nearby table he said, “Let me give you this in case you don’t arrive on time for reveille.”

November 30, 1941

To Whom it May Concern:

Private Robert Hopkins is to be excused from reveille. He has been in consultation with the Commander-in-Chief.-signed Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Another son of Harry Hopkins was Steven, who was a US Marine PFC. He was killed in the Marshall Islands at the age of 18.

On the night of February 1, 1944. After a full day of fighting, during which he saved the lives of several comrades by shooting an enemy with a grenade, Hopkins was ordered to accompany his squad forward of the lines to set up a firing position. Nobody could see much in the dark, and a sound ahead warned of trouble. As Hopkins tried to bring his carbine to bear on the sound, a bullet struck him in the head. He died of his wounds the following morning, and was buried at sea from a hospital ship anchored in the lagoon. When news of his death reached combat correspondents, they descended upon his still-shocked company and squad asking for heroic stories. The Marines obliged, stretching the truth in some cases and obliterating it in others. Rumors that Hopkins had been killed by friendly fire were quickly put down. The story was put out over the AP Wire Service, and variations appeared in many newspapers around the country.

Epilogue II: In the days after FDR’s death, Sherwood interviewed Harold Smith, who was Director of the Budget from 1939-1946.  Smith was a modest, methodical and a precise man far removed from Hopkins or Roosevelt. His judgment and integrity and common sense was trusted implicitly by the president. When asked about writing an article about the late president on the first anniversary of his death, he demurred, because he felt he was not ready to make a correct evaluation. Smith said the following: “when I worked with Roosevelt for six years – I thought as many others that he was a very erratic administrator. But now, when I look back, I can really begin to see the size of his programs. They were by far the largest and most complex programs that any President had put through. People like me had the responsibility of watching pennies could only see the five or six percent of the programs that went wrong, through inefficient organization or direction. But now I can see in perspective the ninety three or four or five percent that went right – including the winning of the biggest war in history – because of unbelievably skillful organization and direction. And if I were to write the article now, I think I’d say that Roosevelt must have been one of the greatest geniuses as an administrator that ever lived. What we couldn’t appreciate at the time was the fact that he was a real artist in government.”

Sherwood wrote on the last two pages of his massive 934 page book the following: When I was coming to the end of the long work on this book, I went to London for the final checking on some of the material I had included. I attended the unveiling by Mrs. Roosevelt of a statue of her husband at Grosvenor Square. At a later dinner at the Pilgrims Society given for Mrs. Roosevelt, Churchill expressed his solemn conviction, “that in Roosevelt’s life and by his actions he changed, he altered decisively and permanently, the social axis, the moral axis of mankind by involving the New World inexorably and irrevocably in the fortunes of the Old. His life must therefore be regarded as one of the commanding events in human destiny.”  Churchill added,       “The longer his life and times are studied, the more unchallengeable these affirmations I have made tonight will become!”

JOBS CREATED AND LOST IN THE MILLIONS: THE NUMBERS DO NOT LIE! DEMOCRATS CREATED 4 TIMES THE JOBS SINCE HOOVER, OR 2.6 TIMES THE JOBS SINCE WWII!

Since Hoover the Republicans created 24.29 million jobs in 44 years. The Democrats created 96.58 million jobs in 50 years. Without Hoover and FDR, the Democrats created 80.38 million jobs in 42 years and the Republicans in 40 years created 30.69 million jobs. Therefore, since Truman the Democrats created 2.6 times the jobs!

BIDEN  10.9   TWO YEARS

TRUMP -3.4   FOUR YEARS

OBAMA 11.57  EIGHT YEARS

GW BUSH  1.35  FOUR YEARS

CLINTON 23.6  EIGHT  YEARS

GHW BUSH 1.9  FOUR YEARS

REAGAN 16.14  EIGHT YEARS

CARTER 10.34  FOUR YEARS

FORD 5.07  THREE YEARS

NIXON 6.13  FIVE YEARS

LB JOHNSON 9.87  FIVE YEARS

JF KENNEDY 5.9  THREE YEARS

EISENHOWER 3.5  EIGHT YEARS

TRUMAN 8.2  EIGHT YEARS

FD ROOSEVELT 16.2 TWELVE YEARS

HOOVER -6.4 FOUR YEARS

How FDR won the 1932 Presidential Election 90 Years Ago: The Brain Trust and the Men who created the New Deal Richard J. Garfunkel November 8, 2022

The 1932 United States presidential election was the 37th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 8, 1932. The election took place against the backdrop of the Great Depression, the worst economic catastrophe since the age of industrialization. It not only affected America, but the whole world. Incumbent President Herbert Hoover, a well-educated man, a graduate of Stanford University, an engineer, a self-made millionaire, and one who was considered a “progressive” among the coterie of Republican conservatives, most embodied by his predecessor, Calvin Coolidge had been elected in a landslide in 1928. Because of his failure regarding the collapse of our economy and social system, he was defeated in the greatest landslide by a Democrat since Andrew Jackson, by Franklin Delano Roosevelt the two term Governor of New York. Roosevelt, who had been re-elected in 1930, by the largest statewide majority of any candidate in history and the vice presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in 1920 was the odds on favorite to win the nomination by the Democratic Party in 1932. But it was not easy, or guaranteed that he would even be the nominee. As it turned out, Roosevelt became the first Democrat in 80 years to win an outright majority in the popular and electoral votes, the last one being Franklin Pierce in 1852. Hoover was the last incumbent president to lose an election to another term until Gerald Ford, almost 44 years later.

Roosevelt won by a landslide in both the electoral and popular votes, carrying every state outside of the Northeast and receiving the highest percentage of the of the popular vote of any Democratic nominee up to that time. Hoover had won over 58% of the popular vote in the 1928 election, but his share of the popular vote declined to 39.6% in 1932.  Roosevelt’s election ended the era of Republican dominance in presidential politics that lasted from the beginning of the Civil War in 1860 to the middle of the Great Depression in 1932.

But, how did his nomination and election come about? Roosevelt was able to accomplish the feat of winning the nomination in 1932, by over-coming the Two-Third’s Rule that dominated the selection of a nominee in the 1932 Democratic National Convention. That rule stated that a nominee must get two-thirds of the delegates to be nominated. The Republican Party had abandoned that archaic methods years earlier, and the Democrats would jettison it in 1936. Because of the “Rule” the Solid South bloc of conservative states’ rights Democrats could block almost any nominee from the Northeast. Reaching the requisite 704 votes was not easy as he faced not only opposition from favorite son Governors, like Oklahoma’s Alfalfa Bill Murray and Maryland’s Albert Richie, but a loose coalition of opponents for nomination. These included former Governor of New York Al Smith, who was defeated by Hoover in 1928, William Gibbs McAdoo, Woodrow Wilson’s son-in-law, dark horse Speaker of the House John “Cactus Jack” Garner from Texas, Newton Baker, Wilson’s Secretary of War, and the isolationist publisher, William Randolph Hearst. Also, not to be forgotten, was his wife Eleanor’s opposition to his running for president. She feared being thrust into the confided role as First Lady. There was even talk that she even considered divorce so as to continue to remain in her independent role. FDR was able to manage only 666.25 votes on the first ballot, or 62.4%. In the subsequent next two ballots he would on go from 677.75 to 682.75 votes, or 64%. He was still short of the magic two-thirds until a deal was made to throw Garner’s 101.25 votes to FDR, in exchange that he be nominated as his Vice-{residential running mate. Thus, history was made and with 88% of the delegates, FDR with 945 votes was finally nominated on the 4th ballot.

 

Roosevelt assembled a very strong team, starting with his long-time advisor, supporter and confidant, Louis McHenry Howe, (1871-1936) a former newspaper man, who abandoned all of his previous pursuits to hitch his “wagon” to FDR’s star in 1910.

Howe, who was from a well-off Indianan family, saw something in the young Roosevelt and from FDR’s first political victory to the New York State Senate in 1910, through FDR’s years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy from 1913 through 1920, Howe worked for him. Howe would later be responsible for aiding on his physical, mental and political “resurrection” after he was struck down with Polio in 1921. He would remain at his side until his death in 1936. Another critical person who assisted his campaign was Samuel I. Rosenman, a close advisor and speech writer, originally from San Antonio, Texas. He was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Columbia University’s Law School in 1919, where FDR had attended, before he passed the NY State Bar Exam. Rosenman became active in Democratic politics and was a member of the New York State Assembly and later a justice of the New York Supreme Court from 1936 to 1943. By the mid-1930s, Rosenman had emerged as a leading spokesman for the New York Jewish community.

Rosenman was a senior advisor to FDR and later FDR’s Special Counsel (the first official White House Counsel) from 1943 through 1946. He was his longest serving speechwriter, who had helping Roosevelt with his speeches from his days as governor. Rosenman was responsible for the term “New Deal” a phrase in the conclusion of FDR’s acceptance speech at the 1932 Democratic National Convention. While he was not heavily involved in speechwriting during Roosevelt’s first term, he started traveling to Washington to help out with important talks during the 1936 campaign and was a key speech aide for the remainder of Roosevelt’s life. He officially joined the White House after ill health forced him to have to choose between his judicial work and his presidential work.

Roosevelt’s campaign manager, was James A. Farley, the head of the New York State Democratic Party. Farley was commonly referred to as a political kingmaker, as he was responsible for Roosevelt’s rise to the presidency. He was the campaign manager for New York State politician Alfred E. Smith’s 1922 gubernatorial campaign and Roosevelt’s 1928 and 1930 gubernatorial campaigns as well as Roosevelt’s presidential campaigns of 1932 and 1936. Farley predicted large landslides in both, and revolutionized the use of polling data. Farley was responsible for pulling together the New Deal Coalition of Catholics, labor unions, African Americans, and farmers. Farley and the administration’s patronage machine over which he presided helped to fuel the social and infrastructure programs of the New Deal. He handled most mid-level and lower-level appointments, in consultation with state and local Democratic organizations. A close associate of Farley’s was Edward J. Flynn, the Bronx County Democratic Leader. He graduated from Fordham Law School in 1912, was admitted to the bar in June 1913. and practiced in the Bronx He entered politics as a Democrat; and was a member of the New York Assembly from 1918 to 1922. He was chairman of the Executive Committee of the Bronx County Democratic Committee (1922–1953), New York Secretary of State (1929–1939), Democratic national committeeman from New York (1930–1953), and chairman of the Democratic National Committee (1940–1943). He was a close associate of President Roosevelt for many years. Along with James Farley he was the president’s chief advisor of patronage. He helped Roosevelt through all of his elections, but repeatedly refused offers of jobs in the Roosevelt administration.

Even as terrible as was the Hoover Administration, the country was still nominally Republican since 1860, and aside from the conservative administrations of the moderate-conservative Grover Cleveland and the reformer Woodrow Wilson, the Democrats were a bifurcated, loose-coalition of regional interests, from the Deep South States of the former Confederacy to the anti-Washington Westerners, and the city-machine politics of the urban centers. There was little in common than bound these disparate groups together, except opposition to Wall Street, the banks and the power of the railroads.

 

Roosevelt faced editorial criticism from many of the newspaper alliances, and no one, among these commentators was more critical than the esteemed Walter Lippman, (1889-1974, Harvard University) the country’s leading journalist. With FDR’s caution on locking himself into any set positions, Lippman wrote, that Roosevelt belonged to, “the new postwar school of politicians who do not believe in stating their views unless and until there is no avoiding it…Where, for example, does he stand on the tariff, on reparations, and debts, on farm relief, on taxation, on banking reform, on the railroad perceived problem?” Lippman asserted that his policies were to gather delegates first, and adopt policies later. Lippman’s oft-quoted and most famous remark on the subject of FDR’s candidacy, was “an amiable man with many philanthropic impulses, but…not the dangerous enemy of anything. He is too eager to please!” He later added, Roosevelt, “is no crusader. He is no tribune of the people. He is no enemy of entrenched privilege/ He is a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be president. Ironically, Lippman was wrong on all accounts. In fact, regarding almost every president in our history, he had more qualifications: serving in the state legislature of New York, basically the Secretary of the Navy, in all but name, during the Great War (WW I), running for Vice-President twelve years earlier and a most popular and effective two-term Governor of New York, the largest and most powerful state in the union. Lippman, a great journalist would be hardly remembered for anything, aside from those words.

As for the campaign itself FDR put together a coalition of top notch advisers, later termed first the “Brains Trust,” and later known as the “Brain Trust.” His group started with Judge Rosenman and then his law partner, the talented Basil O’Connor. O’Connor did his undergraduate work at Dartmouth College and graduated from the Harvard Law School. He was then was admitted to the bar to practice law in 1915. For one year he worked in New York for the law firm of Cravath & Henderson, and for the next three years for Streeter & Holmes in Boston. In 1919 he founded his own law firm in New York.

In 1920 O’Connor met FDR, who was running for Vice President on the Democratic ticket. O’Connor became his legal advisor. In 1922, they met almost by accident in the lobby of the building of FDR’s company, Fidelity and Deposit Company. FDR slipped on the marble floor and no one attempted to assist him, but the young lawyer, Basil O’Connor. The two men became associated in their own law firm in 1924, which existed until Roosevelt’s first Presidential inauguration in 1933. These two would form the nucleus of “Brains Trust,” (named by a NY Times journalist) with its famous members, three Columbia professors: Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell and Adolph Berle Jr.

Moley was a graduate of Oberlin College and had earned a Ph.D. from Columbia in 1918. He would later teach at Barnard College, and after five years joined Columbia University’s Law School faculty. Moley recruited Rexford Tugwell, who had advance degrees in economics from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and Columbia University. He joined the Columbia faculty in 1920 after teaching at Pennsylvania and the University of Washington. He was an advocate of planning, especially in agriculture, which had been devastated by overproduction and sharply reduced farm income. The most brilliant of this triumvirate was the youngest at 37, Adolph Berle Jr., a child prodigy who entered Harvard College at age fourteen and then attended the Harvard Law School. He served in the Great War, as did Rosenman. Later he started to teach at the Harvard Business School and was critical of the structure of American corporations. After a grant from the newly established Social Science Research Council and an appointment as a professor at the Columbia Law School, he had the time to work on his famous book, The Modern Corporation and Private Property, which he published with Gardner Means in 1932, a Harvard Ph. D in economics.

 

These individuals would meet and put together their thoughts on agriculture, banking, the markets, regulations and institutional reform that would be used by Roosevelt in his campaign and later in his famed 100 Day, where 15 pieces of critical legislation was passed by the new Congress.

As there were different perspectives that emerged from the convention, aside from the nomination and the coming campaign, DNC Chairperson, Jim Farley believed that the most vital moment of the convention was the battle over the platform plank supporting the repeal of Prohibition. That would be a struggle between two solid factions in the Democratic Party, the Southern wing of conservative and Northern urban liberals.

As the convention proceeded, Roosevelt decided to make a dramatic move and break the back of the archaic and almost moronic custom that the candidate not address the convention, nor even be aware of its decision. Therefore, against the advice of almost everyone, he took an arduous and very dangerous eight hour flight from New York to Chicago to address the delegates. The flight was held up by headwinds, bad weather along with many landings for fuel.

Before he reached the long-delayed convention, he was handed in the car a completely different speech written by Louis Howe. In fact, during the long 8 hour trip from New York to Chicago, there were many drafts of his acceptance speech. Roosevelt was a caught in a bind. How could he abandon his carefully crafted speech for one he had not even read? Of course, he cleverly took the first page of the Howe version, substituted for the first page of the final draft. Basically he delivered the speech he and worked on and approved.

Finally at the convection, he was assisted to the lectern and settled in as he calmed the excited delegates. In his dramatic speech to the convention on July 2nd, he first of all apologized for arriving late, as he underscored the peril he faced in the journey, which had many takeoffs and landings. Roosevelt declared, “I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American People. Let us all here assembled constitute ourselves as prophets of a new order,” Mindful of the country’s long history of religious fervor, he envisioned the campaign as a “crusade to restore America to its own people. The speech was approved with thunderous applause. Neither FDR nor his close associate and speechwriter, Sam Rosenman, who had drafted the speech could imagine the impact which the words, “new deal” would have. No one could have imagined then that these two words would eventually become the eternal name for what Roosevelt would promote and achieve in his first eight years.

After his nomination FDR told NY Times reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick that the nation someone in the White House who could understand and treat the country a whole entity, not region by region.

In the wake of the convention, there were a number of delegates, who in the words of journalist and social critic, HL Mencken, considered Roosevelt, as “one of the most charming man, but like many another charming man, he leaves the beholder the impression that he is also shallow and futile.” Mencken felt that Roosevelt would sacrifice principles for political harmony. After the convention, Chicago bookies were posting 5 to 1 odds that Hoover would win.

Mencken, a curmudgeon, an expert on the English language and a bigot, known as “The Sage of Baltimore,” supported Roosevelt in the early days of his administration, but grew to hate him and became one of his greatest critics. Roosevelt never took the bait, but almost 2.5 years later, at the Gridiron Dinner, where Mencken was host, in December of 1934, held for newspapermen from all over the country, who covered the administration, where Mencken was host, Roosevelt destroyed him by quoting his own words in his closing remarks.

 

Shortly after the acceptance speech, the Brain Trust established their own headquarters at the Roosevelt Hotel, as the national campaign was located at the Biltmore. Here at the Roosevelt, Moley continued to act chairman and supervised their activities.

They would stay together through campaign. The group probably got its name from Howe, who mockingly referred to this group, when talking to FDR, as “your brain’s trust!” Some newspaper men picked up on it and the “s” was dropped. The term Brain Trust continued to be applied to all of FDR’s intimate group of advisors long after the original group was disbanded. (Moley and Berle would eventually be appointed Assistant Secretaries of State and Tugwell was appointed an Assistant Secretary of Agriculture. Rosenman returned to his work as a NY York State Judge.)

FDR was advised to stay at home, make a few radio broadcasts and some addresses at selected locations. After the convention, in late July, the issue of the army’s destruction of the “Bonus Army” caught the attention of all of America. Thousands of veterans had squatted in some abandoned buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue and in the Anacostia Flats, where a tent city had been erected by them as they demanded a WWI bonus authorized by Congress in 1924. They were cleared by the Chief of Staff of the US Army, medal-bedecked General Douglas MacArthur along with his chief aides, Majors Dwight Eisenhower and George S. Patton. This action and its resulting tumult gave a greater urgency to winning the White House for Roosevelt. With less than one-third of the voters being registered Democrats, Roosevelt knew he had to take action. He also knew that he had a problem with the ongoing scandal revolving around NYC’s mayor Jimmy Walker. He had to decide to either remove him or stall his actions to after the election. Either way, he would alienate someone. But, on September 1, 1932 before Labor Day and the official start of the active campaign, Walker resigned and left for Europe. With that issue resolved Roosevelt began his post Labor Day cross-country tour of cities in the Midwest and West. In eight arduous weeks from Boston to California, he traveled more than 13,000 miles, mostly by train, and gave twenty-five speeches. He knew the criticality of speaking to the local populace about issues they were most concerned about. For example, in Topeka Kansas, he addressed the problem of agriculture and the plight of the farm. He talked of Republican leaders as the Four Horseman of Destruction, Delay, deceit and Despair.

In 1932, FDR was aware that the country needed a plan that would bring “relief, recovery, and reform” to the nation. He wasn’t sure of the dynamics of such a course of action so he deferred offering an outline to his actions for fear it would alienate legislators and create immediate opposition. He felt that he needed to raise the hope of the public, who were unhappy and disillusioned with the dour Hoover.

The brilliant Ed Flynn, (1891-1953, graduate of Fordham Law School) the Democratic Leader of Bronx County, suggested to Louis Howe, the president’s close confidante that they jettison “Anchors Away” as the campaign tune for “Happy Days are Here Again,” which was from the finale of the 1930 movie, “Chasing Rainbows.”

Hoover criticized him for opportunism and straddling of the issues, with generalities. He claimed that his contradictory appeals were contrived to win votes, not end the Depression. With that in mind, Hoover called the Democrats, “the party of the mob!” How different was this from the campaign of 1884 where days before the election, Republican James Blaine visited the crucial swing state of New York, attending a morning meeting in a New York City hotel. During a speech made by Presbyterian minister Samuel Burchard, the Democratic Party was assailed as the party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.” In many ways, this phrase singled out Irish Catholics, many of whom lived in the large urban centers like New York and Boston. The phrase catered to the stereotype of the drunken Irishman and demeaned the Catholic faith. Most all Irish were Roman Catholic.

 

Of course, FDR was quite circumspective and often commentators felt they could not discern Hoover’s words from Roosevelt’s, or the converse. Hoover incredibly believed that Roosevelt’s radicalism would alienate the business community and lead to his defeat. The journalist Elmer Davis (who later worked for FDR as the Director of War Information during WWII) followed closely the Roosevelt campaign.

He reported that there were few Roosevelt statements that could indicate future policies of his coming administration. He like many others were not able to read Roosevelt’s mind. He wrote, “You could not quarrel with a single one of his generalities!” But he added, “What they mean, if anything, is known only to Franklin D. Roosevelt and his God.” In a sense, Davis’s remarks foreshadowed much of the thoughts that many of FDR’s associates and colleagues had about him until the day he died. At one time or another, he was labeled the Sphinx.

As the campaigned moved close to November, Hoover realized that the attacks on Roosevelt as an unprincipled chameleon was not enough to defeat him. Thus, in the final days of the campaign he replaced his plan of giving only a few selected speeches, with a crowded schedule of personal attacks with uncharacteristic stridency. The crowd’s reaction to him was filled with vituperation, hisses, boos, and threats of violence, a reflection of his unpopularity. He denounced Roosevelt and the Democrats as zealots under the same spell of the philosophy of a government which poisoned all of Europe – “the fumes of a witch’s cauldron which boiled in Russia. Roosevelt’s proposed “new deal” would destroy the very foundation od\f our American system!”

As long as he and the Republicans remained in Washington, they would know “how to deal with the mob.” This evoked memories of his actions against the helpless Bonus Army. Exhausted by his last effort and public’s adverse reaction to his campaign’s bleating, he seemed near a nervous breakdown.

On Election Day, November 8th, 90 years ago, FDR won in a landslide. Someone sent Hoover a telegram that read, “Vote for Roosevelt and make it unanimous!” FDR won 42 of the 48 states, winning 472 Electoral votes to Hoover’s 59. It was a complete reversal from Hoover’s victory over Al Smith in 1928.

 

Members of the Brain Trust:

Basil O’Connor 1892-1972, Law partner of FDR.  On January 2, 1958 the National Foundation celebrated its 20th anniversary at Warm Springs, Georgia and Basil O’Connor was honored by having his bust inducted into the Polio Hall of Fame next to FDR and fifteen polio scientists from two centuries. Received his Law Degree from Harvard University. He refused to be appointed to a government position and remained a practicing attorney his whole career.

Samuel I. Rosenman-1896-1973- Rosenman was a senior advisor to presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Under their administrations, he was a leading figure in the war crimes issue. He was also the first official White House Counsel, then called Special Counsel, between 1943 and 1946. Rosenman edited The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, published in 13 volumes from 1938 to 1950. Author of Working with Roosevelt (1952). Received his Law Degree from Columbia University. Served as a Justice of the NY State Supreme Court. His granddaughter is the wife of Attorney-General Merritt Garland.

Raymond Moley 1886-1975, Moley supported then-New York Governor Franklin Roosevelt, and it was Moley who recruited fellow Columbia professors to form the original “Brain Trust” to advise Roosevelt during his presidential campaign of 1932. Despite ridicule from editorial and political cartoonists, the “Brain Trust” went to Washington and became powerful figures in Roosevelt’s New Deal, with Moley writing important speeches for the president. For example, he wrote the majority of Roosevelt’s first inaugural address. He was an Assistant Secretary of State. He was also a trenchant critic of fascism, as his participation in a March 1934 mock-trial event in New York City condemning Nazi Germany, titled “The Case of Civilization against Hitler,” indicates. It was attended by 20,000 New Yorkers and featured Mayor La GuardiaRabbi WiseGovernor Alfred E. Smith. Served as an Assistant Secretary of State. Received his PhD from Columbia University. Author of After Seven Years -1939, The First New Deal, 1966

Rexford Tugwell-1891-1979, n 1932 Tugwell was invited to join President Franklin Roosevelt‘s team of advisers known as the Brain Trust. After Roosevelt’s inauguration in 1933, Tugwell was appointed first as Assistant Secretary and then in 1934 as Undersecretary of the United States Department of Agriculture. He helped create the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) and served as its director. He served as Governor of Puerto Rico. The Democratic Roosevelt: A Biography of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1957.The Art of Politics, As Practiced by Three Great Americans: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Luis Munoz Marin, and Fiorello H. LaGuardia, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1958. FDR: An Architect of an Era, Macmillan, 1967.The Brains Trust, Viking Press, 1968. (among his many books and articles)

Adolph A. Berle– 1891-1979, Berle was an original member of Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s “Brain Trust“, a group of advisers who developed policy recommendations. Berle’s focuses ranging from economic recovery to diplomatic strategy during Roosevelt’s 1932 election campaign. Roosevelt’s “Commonwealth Club Address“, a speech written by Berle on government involvement in industrial and economic policy, was ranked in 2000 as the second-best presidential campaign speech of the 20th century by public address scholars. While remaining an informal adviser of Roosevelt after the election, Berle returned to New York City and became a key consultant in the successful mayoral election campaign of reformer Fiorello LaGuardia. From 1934 to 1938, Berle managed the city’s fiscal affairs as its last Chamberlain. He was an Assistant Secretary of State for Latin American Affairs, and a graduate of the Harvard Law School.

FDR tackles HL Mencken for a loss at the 1934 Gridiron Dinner!

Upon FDR’s return to the District from his Thanksgiving holiday at his Warm Springs retreat, known as “The Little White House,” he was to be the featured guest at the Gridiron Dinner, which was hosted by the press corps which covered the White House and all the action that abounded within the political scope of the Congress.

FDR understood that the host of this annual event was HL Mencken, whose diaries later revealed his dark side. When the diaries were made public, his racism and anti-Semitism, not to mention his deep anti-democratic sentiments came to the surface. Innately he had little concern for people and for sure almost no compassion for the needy. But most of this was certainly hinted about in his lifetime. Mencken relished his reputation and his friends and apologists, thought of him as an eccentric contrarian, but in truth he was basically a chronic, dissatisfied complainer. But, all in all, he was more venal and self-absorbed, and his vehemence showed more and more to FDR as his initial support for the president quickly waned.

At the December, 1934 event, the sponsors seemed to be inspiring mischief and therefore were looking for “blood in the water,” Mencken was well known for venting his spleen and he was expected to reveal his true venom as the Roast Master. Maybe it was because of the President’s presence at the event, that the so-called “Sage of Baltimore” was a bit more cautious and reserved or possibly it was because FDR represented the “home team” and would speak last. Mencken opened with welcoming, “fellow subjects of the Reich,” and he said, “Every day in this great country is April Fool’s Day,” He started out relating his support for the President, but quickly launched into a diatribe about him being a “slippery posturer.”

When FDR’s turn came to speak, he opened with what Mencken called his “Christian Science smile,” and referred to “my old friend Henry Mencken, “ and then in a room filled with the members of each level of the press, he began a rancorous denunciation against their whole profession. He attacked the “stupidity, cowardice and Philistinism of the working newspapermen.” FDR continued with a look of piety only that he could do, and to the laughter of almost all who were there, he claimed that those assembled did not know what a “symphony is or a streptococcus” and then described their industry as “pathetically feeble and vulgar, and so disreputable.” Of course, the audience became quite frosty and strangely silenced. But his words eventually became crystal clear to many of the old-timers. FDR had taken it all from an editorial called “Journalism in America,” written by Mencken himself, ten years before in his own publication, The American Mercury. Eventually FDR, with a large smile finally revealed to all the true source of such venom.

Mencken, incredibly embarrassed, boiled over and said, “I’ll get the son of a bitch. I’ll dig the skeletons out of his closet.” As he was fulminating and trying get out a retort, FDR moved passed him at the conclusion of his response, as the audience reverberated with laughter when the true author was revealed. FDR had turned the tables on Mencken, got in the last word, and as Harold Ickes would write later, “FDR had smeared Mencken all over.”

Apropos – FDR stated: “Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the constant omission of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.”

New Deal Spending

We are awash in idiocy in this country amongst the people who on one hand blame the elitists on Wall Street, but have all their money tied up in 401ks. IRA’s , 503bs and every other type of invest vehicle, but do not want transparency and regulation and cry when criminals and brigands steal their savings. But we hear from these same right-wing philosophers about the spending of government and the debt, but conveniently forget that Reagan tripled out National Debt, unemployment averaged almost 8% (was over 10% for two years) in his time cut taxes for the 1% and that his clones the Bush twins did worse.

As for FDR and the New Deal, expenditures on WPA projects through June 1941, totaled approximately $11.4 billion. Over $4 billion was spent on highway, road, and street projects; more than $1 billion on public buildings, including the iconic Dock Street Theatre in Charleston, the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles, and the Timberline Lodge on Oregon’s Mt. Hood; more than $1 billion on publicly owned or operated utilities; and another $1 billion on welfare projects, including sewing projects for women, the distribution of surplus commodities and school lunch projects. One construction project was the Merritt Parkway in Connecticut, the bridges of which were each designed as architecturally unique. In its eight year run, the WPA built 325 firehouses and renovated 2384 of them across the United States. The 20,000 miles of water mains, installed by their hand as well, no doubt aided in a more fire protected country.

The direct focus of the WPA projects changed with need. 1935 saw projects aimed at infrastructure improvement; roads, bringing electricity to rural areas, water conservation, and sanitation and flood control. In 1936, as outlined in that year’s Emergency Relief Appropriations Act, public facilities became a focus; parks, buildings, utilities, airports, and transportation projects were funded. The following year, saw the introduction of agricultural pursuits in projects such as the production of marl fertilizer and the eradication of fungus pests. As the Second World War approached, and then eventually began, WPA projects became increasingly defense related.

The PWA spent over $6 billion in contracts to private construction forms that did the actual work. It created an infrastructure that generated national and local pride in the 1930s and remains vital seven decades later. The PWA was much less controversial than its rival agency with a confusingly similar name, the Works Progress Administration (WPA), headed by Harry Hopkins, which focused on smaller projects and hired unemployed unskilled workers.

More than any other New Deal program, the PWA epitomized the progressive notion of “priming the pump” to encourage economic recovery. Between July 1933 and March 1939 the PWA funded and administered the construction of more than 34,000 projects including airports, large electricity-generating dams, and major warships for the Navy, and bridges, as well as 70% of the new schools and one-third of the hospitals built between 1933–1939.

Streets and highways were the most common PWA projects, as 11,428 road projects, or 33% of all PWA projects, accounted for over 15% of its total budget. School buildings, 7,488 in all, came in second at 14% of spending. PWA functioned chiefly by making allotments to the various Federal agencies; making loans and grants to state and other public bodies; and making loans without grants (for a brief time) to the railroads. For example it provided funds for the Indian Division of the CCC to build roads, bridges and other public works on and near Indian reservations.

The PWA became, with its multiplier-effect and first two-year budget of $3.3 billion (compared to the entire GDP of $60 billion), the driving force of America’s biggest construction effort up to that date. By June 1934 the agency had distributed its entire fund to 13,266 federal projects and 2,407 non-federal projects. For every worker on a PWA project, almost two additional workers were employed indirectly. The PWA accomplished the electrification of rural America, the building of canals, tunnels, bridges, highways, streets, sewage systems, and housing areas, as well as hospitals, schools, and universities; every year it consumed roughly half of the concrete and a third of the steel of the entire nation.

Some of the most famous PWA projects are the Triborough Bridge and the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City, the Grand Coulee Dam in Washington state, the longest continuous sidewalk in the world along 6½ miles of Bayshore Blvd. in Tampa, Florida, and the Overseas Highway connecting Key West, Florida, to the mainland. The PWA also electrified the Pennsylvania Railroad between New York and Washington, DC. At the local level it built courthouses, schools, hospitals and other public facilities that remain in use in the 21st century

Post Script: Four Years Later!

On January 6th, when the Supreme Court ruled six to three that the AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act) was unconstitutional, because it exceeded its taxing authority to transfer money from one group to another beyond what the Constitution allowed, it seemed to confirm Roosevelt’s fear about the collapse of the New Deal. (Not to long ago, in the previous administration, the then incumbent transferred huge amounts of money from the Defense Department to add to his phony, porous and kickback-laden, and incredibly expensive border wall, the cost, upwards of $42 million per mile.)

 

Conservatives were overjoyed at the prospect of the program’s demise. “Constitutionalism” had triumphed over “Hitlerism,” the Chicago Tribune declared, while the Philadelphia Inquirer called the decision the reemergence of “plain old fashioned Americanism.”  (For whatever that meant!) James McReynolds, the most conservative Justice on the Court, said gleefully, “the New Deal is on the rocks!” Arthur Krock, the columnist for The NY Times saw the ruling as “so broad that few New Deal acts (laws) before the Court now seemed to have any chance of being upheld.” Conservative columnist Mark Sullivan (who FDR called an idiot), believed that the New Deal was “to America what the early phase of Nazism was to Germany” and predicted that unless Roosevelt and his reach for power were reined in, 1936 could mark the country’s last election. The Republican Nation Convention echoed his warning and unless Roosevelt was ousted in 1936, America would become “a socialist state honey-combed with waste and extravagance and ruled by a dictator that mocks the rights of the States and the liberty of the citizen.”

Liberals in Iowa, whom the conservatives press called “Bolshevistic hoodlums,” reacted to the Court’s decision by burning cardboard images of the six justices who had voted on the ruling. The dissenting jurists, led by Harlan Fiske Stone, slammed the majority as out of control and usurping presidential and congressional power. Others complained that a politicized Court was operating as a “judicial dictatorship.” The Dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School wondered whether the government had the capacity to even govern. He noted, that “our national problems appear to have outrun our constitutional capacity to deal with them.”

Of course, there would be much more of the same and eventually the fate of the New Deal would be in the hands of another Justice Roberts, this time Owen, over the fate of Social Security.

Thus, with all that in mind, how much has changed with the Republican Party of its tactics of obstructionism, original intent, and state’s rights?

  1. In 1937 The Court upheld the Social Security Act with Justice Owen Roberts one of the 7 to 2 votes. On the Hughes Court, Roberts was a swing vote positioned between the conservative Four Horsemenand the liberal Three Musketeers. Along with Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, Roberts’s vote often decided whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s New Deal legislation would be upheld. His decision to uphold the constitutionality of a state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish has been called “the switch in time that saved nine.” That term references the decision’s possible role in the defeat of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which would have expanded the Supreme Court and thus allowed Roosevelt to appoint Justices more sympathetic to his policies. Roberts’s motivation for upholding the constitutionality of the New Deal and his role in the defeat of the bill remains a matter of debate.

 

  1. The Chicago Tribune– Under the 20th-century editorship of Colonel Robert R. McCormick, who took control in the 1920s, the paper was strongly isolationistand aligned with the Old Right in its coverage of political news and social trends. It used the motto “The American Paper for Americans”. From the 1930s to the 1950s, it excoriated the Democrats and the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, was resolutely disdainful of the British and French, and greatly enthusiastic for Chiang Kai-shek and Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It revealed the United States war plans on the eve of the Pearl Harbor The Tribune‘s June 7, 1942, front page announcement that the United States had broken Japan’s naval code was the revelation by the paper of a closely guarded military secret. The story revealing that Americans broke the enemy naval codes was not cleared by censors, and had U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt so enraged that he considered shutting down the Tribune. By fortune or just plain luck the Japanese never picked up on the story! The Tribune was famous for its headline- The early returns led editors to believe “Dewey Defeats Truman“, turning the paper into a collector’s item. Democrat Harry S. Truman won and proudly brandished the newspaper in a famous picture taken at St. Louis Union Station. Beneath the headline was a false article, written by Arthur Sears Henning, which purported to describe West Coast results although written before East Coast election returns were available.
  2. The Philadelphia Inquirer was sold to Moses L. Annenbergin 1936. During the Depression, The Inquirer stagnated, its editors ignoring most of the poor economic news of the Depression. The lack of growth allowed  David Stern‘s newspaper, The Philadelphia Record, to surpass The Inquirer in circulation and become the largest newspaper in Pennsylvania. Under Moses Annenberg after 1936, The Inquirer turned around. Annenberg added new features, increased staff and held promotions to increase circulation. In 1939, Annenberg was charged with income tax evasion. Annenberg pleaded guilty before his trial and was sentenced to three years in prison. While incarcerated he fell ill and died from a brain tumor six weeks after his release from prison in June 1942
  3. Mark Sullivan- Sullivan was a reporter for decades (1924-1952) on the NY Herald, later the Herald-Tribune. He said in 1935, that he was a liberal (“Teddy Rooseveltwas my only political god”) and that consistent with liberalism he sought to “take power away from the state” By 1935 his view of Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s New Deal was “frankly apocalyptic”  In 1937, after the Social Security Act was signed into law, he made his secretary of 17 years, Mabel Shea, famous by asking why she should be forced to pay 35 cents social security out of her weekly paycheck of $35 (equivalent to $1017.88 in 2021). This led Time magazine to publish that Sullivan had an annual income of $23,417 (over $408,000 in 2018). During a press briefing, Roosevelt said Sullivan was arguing that Shea had the “absolute freedom, as an American citizen, to starve to death when she got to be sixty-five if she wanted to”. He suggested that Sullivan raise her salary.
  4. Arthur Krock-He was a columnist for the NY Times, who was awarded three Pulitzer Prizes. Despite his stature, according to historian David Nasaw, from the earliest days of their friendship in Washington beginning in the mid-1930s, Krock became so staunch an advocate of Joseph P. Kennedyand his ambitions that he seemed to be all but in the pocket of the powerful millionaire (with one son who would later be U.S. president and two others who would contend for that office). Citing the correspondence between the two men in his authorized, yet highly researched and critically acclaimed 2012 biography of Joe Kennedy, Professor Nasaw chronicles how it “reveals something quite disturbing, if not corrupt, about Krock’s willingness to do Kennedy’s bidding, to advise him or write a speech for him, then praise it in his column. It is said that he wrote JFK’s senior thesis at Harvard, Why England Slept, a play on Churchill’s While England Slept. There is no proof of that! After it was published in 1940, the book sold 80,000 copies in the United Kingdom and the United States and collected $40,000 in royalties for Kennedy. Income from the British sales were donated to Plymouth, a British city that had recently been bombed by the Luftwaffe. Kennedy bought a Buick convertible with the income from the book’s North American Joseph Kennedy had initially approached Harold Laski to write the book’s foreword, but Laski declined since he felt that it was “the book of an immature mind; that if it hadn’t been written by the son of a very rich man, he wouldn’t have found a publisher.”
  5. The Roosevelt Court-Following the constitutional crisis of 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had made no appointments to the Supreme Court in his first term, eventually named eight men to the bench between 1937 and 1943: Hugo L. Black, Stanley F. Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, James F. Byrnes, Robert H. Jackson, and Wiley B. Rutledge as associate justices, and he elevated Harlan Fiske stone to be chief justice—more appointments than any President other than George Washington. It was assumed that Roosevelt’s appointees would share his philosophy of government and would interpret the Constitution broadly to give the President and Congress adequate power to meet the nation’s needs. In this the President and his followers were not disappointed. The so-called Roosevelt Court took a very liberal approach in its interpretation of the commerce power, giving near carte blancheto the federal government in any matters affecting business and labor. Perhaps the best example of the Roosevelt Court’s broad view of the commerce power is its sustaining part of the Second Agricultural Administration Act (1938). In his Court opinion upholding the wheat quota provisions of the law in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Jackson abandoned the old distinction between production (essentially a local activity) and commerce, and gave the federal government the power to regulate even the wheat grown on a farm for the farmer’s own use.

 

  1. The Election of 1936- Franklin D. Roosevelt of NY vs. Alf Landon of Kansas- the results: FDR 27,747,636 to 16,679,543- 60.8% to 36.5%= Electoral College 523-8.