The Next Hurrah

I Never Thought I'd Vote for Hillary Clinton

by emptypockets

Yesterday I was undecided, and frankly to some extent I remain so. I've read with interest the endorsements of Meteor Blades and DHinMI (both writing elsewhere for some godforsaken reason) on behalf of Barack Obama. Personally, I am not above buying my political opinions wholesale from either of them (and from the latter I've done it repeatedly before). In each post, they sound similar notes, essentially: (1) Obama is a skilled politician, and no more (or less) than that; (2) ultimately change will not come from the White House but from Congress or the populace; and so what matters is that (3) Obama is best suited to evoke the strongest efforts and loftiest dreams from the real change-makers around him and among us.

I agree with (1) whole-heartedly. As for (2) and (3), I may be misrepresenting or oversimplifying their arguments. To be accurate, DHinMI wrote "What mattered in 1932, however, was the mandate from the voters, the 13 Senate seats and the 97 House seats that came along with Roosevelt's landslide. ...[T]his is maybe the most important difference between a ticket led by Barack Obama and one headed up by Hillary Clinton." Meteor Blades wrote "If Obama wins come November, it will be up to that grassroots, that congregation, not only to hold his feet to the fire, but also, and more importantly, to press forward the extra-electoral politics [that brought] real hope and real change to America nearly half a century ago." What I read in each of those arguments is that Clinton and Obama are (mostly) equally suited to the policy work of the presidency, but Obama is exceptionally suited to the figurehead, or symbolic, work of that office.

New Deal Projects that just keep pooping along

by Sara

Most folk think the New Deal ended with WWII, but actually many of the projects had energy that just kept them going.  And while these are not exactly world shattering, I thought I would just review a list of some of the survivors that lots of folk have probably used without knowing their origin. 

Let me begin with High School Bands and Orchestras.  The work for Music Copyists and arrangers was rock bottom during the Depression, and one of the more obscure WPA projects employed them to simplify, re-arrange and then copy the work of masters as well as military bands so that limited talent high school level music groups could perform it.  You know, the kid who borrowed his horn from a school collection, and wanted to march with his high school band.  Not someone who had heavy investment in private music lessons.  Not really a candidate for Julliard. 

In fact much of the music used today in such organizations was the product of the WPA Music Project.  Between Mozart and Sousa, the project provided full scores and simplified instrumental parts, all free of copyright and royality, and at least initially, all about encouraging the employment of High School Band Directors and Music arrangers, and as a side benefit, the value of music in the schools to the students themselves and to the community for which they played this music. 

How many people know about the "American Guide" series, produced and published by the WPA American Writers' Project.  Totally there are about 52 volumes in this series, One for each state, and several for individual cities such as New York and Washington DC.  They are organized as "tours" from a central point in each state, with each point of interest that sustained a historical review, described in full.  The project managed to debunk many "Indian Leaps" -- places where either Indians had lept to avoid capture, or Indian Maidens had chosen to leap off cliffs to their death, but it highlighted the economic development of the country, industry started that failed, industry that bloomed.  It did architecture, arts and design, patterns in home crafts, it dealt with local religion and local commerce.  It researched and dealt with local geography and geology that underscored how and why development had occured as it did.  Over the years, the series has become the secret source for many writers of Fiction, needing a reliable source for setting, and it is still used today.  No author names are associated with the pieces, but many were later famous.  For instance you have Richard Wright (Then working short hours at the Post Office) working on the manuscript for Chicago's South Side -- but also working on Mississippi.  Not enough authors made it clear that the WPA guide series were really their cheat sheet, when they needed local color.  Again -- people who could write were also unemployed, and 22 dollars a week for writing tour guide pieces verified by careful research, was a way to "put food on the family."  (where did that quote come from?  Not a WPA writer I assume.)

And while the OSS eventually benefited from it, another small WPA project at Columbia has always intrigued me.  Translations of underground German Opinion survey materials, and German demography (1936- 38) based on and linked with these attitude surveys, crude though they were in the larger picture of what was happening in methods of such social research.   Recent Refugees such as Adorno, Hockheimer, and Hans Eisler were paid 22 dollars a week to work on these materials -- and funds were sent to Paris where the underground could arrange to quietly and carefully collect more data.  And yes, they were classified as just translators.  Just WPA Translators.  I've read their typescript, but I still wonder what that project was all about.   

So from translating German attitudes and demography to ramping up school orchestras and bands, or providing local color for fiction writers, the WPA and other New Deal programs were all over the map trying to both do something of value and, at the same time,  inflate the American Economy with the same projects.  And while many created longstanding and important value -- why are they so ignored? 

I am not suggesting any of these should be reconstructed or repeated, the times, the technology is different today.  Taste differs.  But the point is this was all actually done by Government, and with all the comprehendable objections that somehow if the product was not ordered from the market, it is worthless. 

But when I hear a High School band doing a familiar March tune, sometimes I can vaguely hear what in the long gone days was "level of difficulty" in the on offer arrangement, and quietly I remember that in those days Harry Hopkins was running the WPA for FDR, and they invented all this stuff, and paid hungry musical types to create the resource.    

   

   

Ode to the Undecided Voter

by emptypockets

Who are you undecided jerks
who know not where you stand
who in political shadows lurk
and never show your hands?
Are you so indecisive?
Or just uninformed?
I mean all due respect, but
really, it's no way to live.
Your opinions come pre-warmed
by pundits - stop, and listen to your gut!

What is your demographic?
What issues are you for?
Cut taxes, reduce traffic,
reach out and save the poor?
Are you 24 to 33?
Is your income median?
Who got your vote in '04?
Do you have your GED,
and are you in a union?
So tell me, which one are you for?

Do you like Clinton or Obama?
They each spent a hundred mil
in a mega-campaign-o-rama
so that you could get your fill
of health plans and of timetables
and of hope, pan-anodyne.
Yet here you sit, and say the two
are interchangeable
and either would be fine?
Oh crap... I'm one of you!

Why Study any Detail about the New Deal, or FDR?

By Sara

One thing that is quite clear -- Americans don't know a whole lot about their own History.  And in many cases, what they do know, is distorted in very interesting ways.

FDR is an interesting case in point.  In recent years much about him and his 11 plus year Presidency, has focused on the fact that he could not walk on his own, and when photographers and observers were not about, (well hush hush) he used a wheel chair.  In the popular mind what he did to deal with the Great Depression has been replaced by the idea he hid his disability, and maybe even his polio.  For the sake of PC, Eleanor had to shed her Fox & Mink Furs on her memorial statue, and Franklin needed to have a chair with real wheels.  I consider both issues and advocacy moves distractions from the core history. 

No one who supported FDR in his four campaigns did not comprehend that he could not walk alone, and that he had been paralysed.  Myth has it that because Secret Service lifted him out of cars, and no one took pictures, it was secret.  Hell no.  You didn't have events such as FDR's Birthday in January every year, where collections in every movie theatre in the land were organized for the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis -- The March of Dimes -- and not know what it was about.  You knew that part of that money was for local institutions that offered all who needed it rehabilitation therapy, some of it was for research, and some for Rehab research.  And while the vaccines came nearly ten years after he died -- both were funded by the FDR Birthday Bashes we had back in those days -- and there is not a disease specific organization out there that does not borrow from the March of Dimes model.  Moreover the current Federally Funded disease models borrow from it.  In FDR's days the only medical research money was in the Military, and that was small change, but he changed all that, the Feds now respond to the Polio model.  FDR died in 45, I think it was 1954 when I got a polio shot, and now except for a few isolated places, the disease is gone.  And so the pressure to represent this man in his Wheel Chair -- Why?  Of course it is how he lived, but it was not what he did.  What he did was rehab, research best practices in rehab, and finance the research necessary to a cheap universal vaccine.  So why over the last several decades have our eyes been diverted to a wheel chair?  Wrong Icon in my mind. 

Over the past several decades we have been told that Government can't actually accomplish all that much, particularly big Government.  Everything needs to be under private contracts -- business models and all the rest.  Not for Profit Public Model very Bad, and For Profit Business Excellent.  I ask -- would the private sector have created a polio vaccine that cost pennies, and was denied no one on account of price, and quickly became universally available through Public Health Officials?  I think a better way to represent FDR would be an injection needle, or a sugar cube with a drop of vaccine on it. 

FDR was always curious as to what actually caused the Great Depression, and during his early years in office, while inventing programs right and left to deal with the consequences, he kept asking for research.  He got one answer in 1941 from the Conant who made plain that the US Population was profoundly underskilled and undereducated.  At the time the US was sending about 5% of young adults to college, and only 50% were graduating from High School.  For a modern economy, Conant said, the US needed 30% of its young adults to go to college or advanced skills schools, and at least 80% needed to complete High School.  The depression had been caused, according to Conant, by too many underskilled workers chasing too few low skilled jobs.  It was the higher skilled jobs that added economic value.  In 1941, FDR put the study in a desk drawer.  In 1944 it was the primary reason he ended up agreeing to the Educational Benefits in the GI Bill.  The GI Bill was a way to approach that necessary 30% that might avoid a future Great Depression.  Actually FDR didn't like discrimination on Educational Benefits between Vets and non Vets -- but no situation was perfect.  By 1955 a little more than 50% of High School Grads were going on to College or into training programs, and we were approaching overall HSchool grad rates of 75%.

My point is simple -- Government Policy, and sometimes Big Government can solve problems -- and just as our eyes have been diverted from FDR's private financing of Polio Re-hab, and the basic research and then the Vaccine to wipe out the disease by the figure of him in a wheel chair, and the stupid idea that his condition was secret, so too have we been diverted from comprehending other accomplishments, such as seeing a quite practical way to create a much more valuable workforce, by building Ed. Benefits into the GI Bill of 1944.  In essence we have been denied an understanding of our history, and thus made open to the propaganda that big government can do nothing at all, or at least nothing well. 

I do not necessarily favor re-creating New Deal style programs -- though I also do not necessarily oppose that -- what I do think is important is working to reject the notion that Government, big or little, is necessarily bad.  Part of that is understanding that FDR's programs did work in many ways.  They didn't solve all problems, but they also did not all fail.  Equally important is understanding how the campaign against "Big Government" has been a shotgun approach to negating the idea that Government can actually do good things for the common interest.  Too many voters do not comprehend the counter argument to that point.  Too little history of what was changed by "Big Government" policy of that earlier era has survived as comprehended or taught history.   

Attached to this is the matter of whether problems can be solved by human intervention.  Falwell and Robertson would have us believe that all things are at the will of a god that they communicate with on a regular basis.  I suggest that such arguments about divine intervention just reinforce notions that collective Government can do nothing, or nothing right.  I prefer John Kennedy's words -- On this Earth, God's work must surely be our own.  But it is also necessary to confront the idea, that planning and programs are all necessarily bad, and always incompetent. 

 

 

 

 

The Only Issue is (Still) Iraq

by emptypockets

A month ago there was a spate of "sky is green" articles claiming that Iraq is no longer an important issue for voters:

Iraq War Fades as an Election Issue (NPR, Dec 6) "...concerns about Iraq remain, but the war is not the only top-tier issue among voters. Many have turned their focus to domestic issues such as health care, energy, the mortgage crisis and immigration."

Pocketbook issues push past Iraq in poll (USA Today, Dec 28) "More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo News say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them."

Domestic issues now outweigh Iraq (NY Times, Jan 3) "...the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies, town hall meetings and speeches that are bringing the caucus competition to an end. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes."

The funny thing is, when this voter sees "health care," "mortgage crisis," "rising gas costs," "the environment," and "taxes" I read them all as a single four-letter word: Iraq.

Yet More Democratic Party Rules you need to know.

By Sara

As we move toward Super Duper Tuesday, and many who hope things will be decided that day, need is to know some additional obscure rules of the Democratic Party, that most years make little difference.  This year they might. 

Unlike our Republican opposition, we Democrats have rules about proportional representation, meaning that state by state delegates must be elected so as to reflect degree of support in every state.  We don't do winner take all.  For the most part, we do it congressional district by district, and reflect proportinate support in each, and then we select some delegates later at the State Wide Level, again divided by degrees of overall state support.  Yes, it is a complex system, and yes, it is the response to LBJ throwing the nomination to Hubert in 1968, and the follow on McGovern-Fraser Commission rules, but unless you understand the rules, and how all this plays -- it will be hard to deal with Tuesday and what it might mean. 

Right now I am just thinking over what Jim Oberstar's endorsement of Obama today really means.  (Oberstar chairs the House Transportation Committee,) represents Duluth and the Iron Range, the 8th District, and that district usually returns about 80% of its votes for the DFL.  It is an ethnic mix of various Yugoslav tribes, Cornish Miners, Polish and Hungarians, and lots of Finns plus a supply of Norwegian Loggers.  Not many African Americans in the 8th -- in fact they had one of the few Northern Lynchings in 1919. (We have since put up a memorial to the victims).   Back in the 60's, when the Air Force Base was active, the State Civil Rights Commission was always dealing with one or another serious discrimination case.  But, they are going Obama this year.  In addition, it is the only Congressional District that ever actually elected a Communist to Congress.  Old Johnny Bernard (FL-1938-40) has that distinction.  Anyhow Oberstar is apparently leading the 8th to Obama. 

But that does not get us to Rules that now have meaning.  Once the full state delegations are selected through primary, caucus & Convention or because of Superdelegate Status, each State delegation forms up and selects delegates to serve on the Rules, Credentials and Platform committees, with the numerical support for either Clinton or Obama in each State being in control of the selection process.  They select two for each committee, one M and one F.  Then shortly before the Denver Convention, these committees assemble, and if there are disputes, this is where they get their first hearing. 

Now in the case of Florida and Michigan Delegations, the decision to strip them of delegates was made by the DNC at the recommendation of the ongoing Rules or Credentials Commission.  Such Commissions do party business between conventions, but when we are on the eve of a national convention, the 120 or so member committees delegated by the states (add in DC and the territories), become the authorative bodies, and an appeal from a DNC ruling is rightly brought before these committees.  If they receive such an appeal, they will hold hearings, and eventually issue a "majority report" -- and if 25% or more of the committee do not agree with that report, they can write a "minority report" and that will send the decision on seating Florida and Michigan to the floor for debate and resolution.  Minority Reports are always debated and voted on first.  If such fails, that indicates the floor favors the Majority Report.  That vote could well determine our Nomination this year.   

There is another way to go to the floor -- and that is by petition.  My memory has it, you must have 40% of the delegates credentialed in order to put the issue on the floor in this way.  Again, the debate would begin with the petition position, and then the DNC ruling.  Florida and Michigan, not yet being seated, would not participate in this debate or vote as they would have no delegates.  (Nor would they participate in the Credentials Committee resolution votes.)  The vote of the Convention Floor is final -- no appeal. 

Why are these obscure rules important? -- because the difference between a first ballot victory for Hillary may well depend on seating these delegations, which she "won" in two unsanctioned primaries.  Yes, one can argue that they violated the DNC rules by moving their primaries forward, and well they did, but one also must observe that it is hardly good politics to slight Florida and Michigan which for various reasons could be critical in a Democratic Victory in November, no matter who our candidate will be.   Remember, in the end this is about electorial votes. 

Now I know these obscure rules are complex, but I have a real thing about the importance of Floor Fights, if you can set one up so that it means something.  Back in 1948, in Philly, the Democrats had a doozy over the Minority Civil Rights Plank, which was spoken too by then Mayor Hubert Humphrey in what is now called the "Sunshine Speech"  (come out from the dark ages of States Rights, and into the bright Sunshine of Human Rights.)  God, what a moment in Democratic Party History!  Strom Thurmond led the segregationist Dixiecrats out of the hall once the minority plank past, and it was the beginning of our party's effort to change from its racially exclusionary past to something very different.  I was Eleven at the time, my Dad and I (no TV) sat in front of the radio and listened, and then kept a talley of the vote, while all the time my Mom wanted to get going to a Family Picnic, as she had the potato salad on ice, and ready to go.  We stayed and finished counting the votes. 

Four years later the Republicans had a Floor Fight between the Taft and Eisenhower wings of the party -- Taft, who voted against Public Housing and joining NATO and the Marshall Plan, and Ike who was an internationalist associated with the Vandenberg wing of the Republican Party.  Fascinating floor fight that settled Republican International Politics till the Neo-con's came along. 

Democrats had another one in 1972 -- whether to seat the California and Illinois delegations, elected in opposition to the open and proportional representation rules of the McGovern-Fraser Report of that year.  It settled the matter, we do proportional representation, and gender balance. 

And can one ever forget 1964 and the Floor Fight over the seating of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party delegation, led by Fanny Lou Hammer?  Poor Hubert, sent by LBJ to deal with the problem, but no real and easy compromise was on offer.  It was a year before the Voting Rights Act, but it set the course.  Mississippi would be seated, but two Freedom Democrats would get the At Large seats, and sit in the delegation.  The Mississippi whites walked out, and quietly the Freedom Delegation were allowed into their seats.  Mississippi was "told" no seats next time unless the process for selection includes everyone.  They quickly became Republicans. 

As I say, I love floor fights if they are about ringing the bells and saying real political cultural change has transpired, and the convention is observing and supporting the reality.  The real spirit behind what Hubert did in 1948 was Eleanor Roosevelt, who was super busy at the time drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but who had pushed, shoved, pinched, kicked and other things --- Franklin, to do the right thing on Race, even though every Committee in the Senate was in the hands of a Southern Segregationist and a Democrat.  Truman thought what Humphrey did would cost him the election.  In fact it won it for him, and it is enlightening to read Robert Caro's description of how the Southern bigots comprehended in November 1948, when they read the detailed returns and realized that their own Committee Chairs, and Truman's Office had been saved by the working class black vote in the industrial north.  One has to read the editorial pages in the Black Press to understand why old Humph moved that election as he did.   Yes, Floor Fights can have great meaning.  But is Hillary setting one up that will have meaning?  That is the argument we should be about, understanding the sometimes obscure rules of the Democratic Party.

I remember when we were doing the talley in 1948, my Dad commenting that I was adding up real history.  Yep, he was right.  I wish I had saved our scratch sheet.  But rules informed how that floor fight was done, and anything done this year will be by current rules.  I only hope TV is willing to properly broadcast and has pundits who can properly interpret what might happen.  But maybe the voters will settle it well in advance, and there will be no event.  In a sense, that might be sad.  No bells.   

 

Dynasty

by emptypockets

Hillary Clinton made an interesting statement in the debate last night. She was asked how, as a member of one of the two families who have led the country the last 20 years, she could call herself an "agent of change".

[Side note for word watchers: "agent of change" brings up 25,000 google hits with "Clinton" and "Obama" together; 17,000 with "Clinton" alone; and only 9,000 with "Obama" alone. On the other hand, it brings up 22,000 with "Bush" and without the other two, a warning not to read google's tea leaves too quickly.]

I've been thinking a bit about the dynastic objections that are often raised around Clinton's candidacy. They come wrapped in some interesting packaging.

One wrapper, as noted above, is the idea that Clinton is a Washington insider and cannot embody the change that Americans deeply desire. This objection makes very little sense, because the change we're seeking is change from eight years of tax-cut-and-spend deficits, treating the military as a doormat, and a failure to use public money for the public good. The fact that she's part of a family who has a record of fixing exactly those problems is not really a drawback.

Another wrapper, most vocally espoused by Chris Matthews, is that she didn't make it here on her own. This attack is sometimes bundled with a critique of her experience, such as Blitzer made last night when he asked why she considers herself more experienced than Obama considering she has been a senator for about the same period and was not in an elected position as First Lady. This critique is also garbage, because obviously nobody makes it on their own -- we have all enjoyed the help of family, mentors, and colleagues to get where we are. Even Bush, as much as it pains me to say it, did not get to be president by being born into it. If that were the case, then surely first in line to the throne would not have been the children of a one-term wonder like Bush Sr (and even among his spawn Junior is not the sharpest tack). If nepotism were that powerful, the Clinton currently in office would as likely be Roger as Hillary. Surely, all these people have had advantages (though 90% of opportunity is recognizing it when it arrives) -- but even the most-privileged 1% of the country are still 3 million strong. And there are only two people left in the race.

But this attack comes closest to the real reason I think people are rubbed the wrong way by American political dynasty. It hews close to what it means to be an American -- the rejection of royalty or aristocracy or any privilege by birthright, of being born into one's class. That is the root of the great national fairy tale called the American Dream, that anyone can grow up to be president. And its fairy-tale nature is struck at quite directly by the cold reality that someone who's a Bush or a Clinton has got better odds at the big time than someone who's just a Schmoe, or a Suarez, or a Saad.

Obama obviously embodies the American Dream in a fairly straightforward way (as does Edwards, who reminded audiences he was the son of a millworker so often as to diminish its power). He plays on it often and successfully when he refers to the younger version of himself as just "a skinny kid with a funny name." Clinton embodies it no less. Her father was a conservative Republican curtain-maker. Born a Rodham, and having become a Clinton before Clintons were cool, her story is no less an affirmation of the national fairy tale than her husband's was, or Obama's is. (In fact, with so many fairy princes and princesses on the stage, one has to wonder if I'm right to disparage it as a fairy tale!) Yet she is cast effectively as an heir to power, not as someone who pulled herself up by the bootstraps.

Is this a sexism thing? Is it just a Hillary thing? Certainly we hear much more about her husband, about his parents, and about Obama's parents, (and about Edwards's parents) than we have heard about Hillary's. Could she have pre-empted some of the dynastic criticisms by talking more often about her childhood? Or would this have been seen as simply exploitative, a hollow cry of "I'm just one of you" from someone who has been elevated well above most of us for the last two decades, and who we've grown accustomed to seeing as American royalty and not as the daughter of a Chicago curtain-maker?

FDR, Some Cultural History, and the Sub-Prime Crisis

by Sara -- a reconstruction

Sadly, the last version of this disappeared into Typepad Heaven. 

Way back when I was teaching, I used to give students zerox copies of the forclosure and bank sale notices from the local papers from the early 1930's, and send them out to map and describe what they could actually see as the indications (in an almost anthropological sense) about the impact of the Great Depression of the late 20's and early 30's.  What I wanted them to comprehend was less the arguments about what was done about those times, but more about what really went wrong, and ultimately how things were fixed.  In essence, I wanted them to have good pictures in their heads as we evaluated what FDR actually did, and the results, and how we should evaluate those results. 

Virtually every city in the US has an architectual line between late 1920's domestic construction, and what was built in the late 1930's.  Most of the lines are mixed constructions -- you will find 2 story houses with gables and creative lines, mixed in with small, well-built, what we today call starter homes, single story, cape cod or ranch styles, rather simple in design.  This is where the speculative builders of the 20's left lots in between their offerings, and then in the late 30's, with land released by the banks, those who were following the modest income and credit codes of FDR's FHA Mortgage program, built the next generation of houses.  Between the houses of the 20's, and the late 30's is a revolution in Housing Finance as well as ultimately, a considerable cause of the Great Depression. 

Prior to the Depression, the majority of homes were purchased on a short term note.  You got a note for 5 years, with a balloon payment at the end, and then one negotiated with the bank for a new note covering the balloon.  Of course the rate of interest would be adjusted with the new note.  But what happened in the 1920's, at a time when commercial and investment banking were not seperate, was that Banks moved assets into the attractive stock market which was zooming, and then, after 1929, when they went bust in the market, the liquid cash available to re-finance the balloons simply disappeared, and the Banks took back the housing where owners could not meet the balloon or had cash to cover.  It was not at all unusual after 1929 for Banks to repossess homes that were nearly 2/3rds paid up, with all owner-equity being lost.  So families doubled up, tripled up, and tried to keep one note paid up.  None the less the Banks, repossessing acres of property, mostly failed by the dawn of the FDR Administeration.   As an example, the Bank of Akron President Wendell Willkie, eventually, after reorganization, paid .07 cents on the dollar for savings accounts when it became Second National. 

The New Deal contained three elements of a solution to this problem.  First, the division of Banking into two segments, Commercial and Investment, with only small accounts in the commercial segment insured. In addition, the Savings and Loan segment was created, which advantaged small savers with insured accounts, and a small advantage in savings interest rates, but a clear restriction on lending -- limited to local housing that met FHA standards.

What FHA offered was pretty simple, an inspection system that validated whether the construction of a house met all codes, local, and their own, and insurance to the lender if buyers met credit standards.  FHA had a cap on the amount of loans, which was what forced the change in design from the gargoyles of 20's style, to the cape cod or ranch design of the late 30's.  Porches, sun and front were eliminated, Entry Halls disappeared, rooms got downsized, and kitchens became streamlined with the efficent work triangle, but became much smaller. Compared with the 1920's nothing anticipated having household help. 

But financially, these new houses, and all that came after them with VA and FHA insured mortgages, offered relatively low down payments, and 20 year or later 30 year mortgages at a fixed rate.  Over time the cap on loans was raised to accomodate inflation and some additional expectations in what was a basic house, but until the late 1970's the early 1930's reforms held.  Local savings converted into local mortgages, with the lender insured. 

In his second Inaguaral Address, FDR's famous words were about one third of this nation being Ill Housed, Ill Clothed and Ill Fed. FHA which was on the books, but had not yet kicked in, began to deal with the housing problem on the margins.  That's what those older "Starter Homes" really represent that I taught my students to find and mark on maps as an indication of the impact of the Great Depression.  But what made that recovery possible was not white lightening or political rhetoric, it was something we hate to discuss -- pure and simple regulation of the banking and financial sectors of the economy. 

While FDR died in early 45, and Truman retained all his regulatory policy well into the 50's, and Eisenhower did not change much, nor did Kennedy or LBJ, it began to change with Nixon, with moving up the cap on FHA loans beyond the rate of inflation, and then following the Carter inflation, the regulation of Savings and Loans was eliminated, leading to the crash of these institutions in the late 1980's.  Without understanding cause, or the reason for these plain jane savings organizations in sustaining middle and working class home ownership -- Congress just bailed out the lenders who had the wit to reorganize, and let it go at that.  Essentially they financed the next bump in housing inflation, whether it be in inflated prices for existing homes, speculation in lots for tear-downs in good areas, or McMansion housing far from jobs and culture in the exurbs, that requires vast investment in infrastructure on the part of existing home owners and the states.  Essentially we are back to 1928 what with ARM Mortgage arrangements (like the old Balloons) that can be massively increased without any relationship to wages or salary or the economy, and the "right" of the financial institutions (probably foreign speculators in our Real Estate Market) to again foreclose acres and acres of housing.   

I don't know that Obama has said anything at all about this -- Hillary wants a 90 day moritorium on forclosures.  Neither discuss re-regulation of the Finanial Institutions so as to protect capital dedicated to working and middle class home ownership, which is what will be necessary.   FDR did it by inventing FHA Insurance (good home and good credit was insured) and by banking regulation that isolated small private and insured savings for the home ownership market.  What worked is his legacy well into the late 1970's.

 

   

 

A Political Culture approach to Obama v Clinton

by Sara

The decision by some in the Kennedy Clan to endorse Obama after the SC Primary last week may have surprised many, but it shouldn't.  For in a very interesting way it represents the unification of two wings of the 1960 power center that elected John Kennedy.  What should surprise is that so many of our pundits have missed the call. 

Barack Obama is, without question, the candidate of the Daley Family wing of the Democratic Party.  Democrats from Illinois simply do not move into a position to be elected Senator without the blessing of what remains of the Chicago Machine -- and much remains and is led by the current Richard M. Daley.  But if you dig back into your Daley Family Political History -- all the way back into the 1950's you find the relationship with the Kennedy Family.  Old Joe owned a significant part of what counted in Chicago, beginning with the Merchandise Mart managed by his son-in-law, Sarge Shriver, and if you dig into the other high gross commerce, you find the liquor trade, supermarkets, and much else in obscure Kennedy Family holdings.  In the days before reporting of campaign funding -- the Kennedy Family was able to generate much of what Jack needed out of Chicago, and one of the principle players in this was Mayor Daley, then and now perhaps know as Hizzhonor.  On election day in 1960, Daley was able to hold the vote in the River Wards out of the report long enough to make certain it covered the excess Republicans from downstate.  When Daley controlled his city and its institutions, he made certain that Chicago never had enough old lever voting machines to cover all the precincts.  When the number the city owned reached about 66%, he would surplus some.  Voting machines went into Republican Wards.  Paper Ballots went to the River Wards.  And on election night, 1960, his services in making certain those wards covered the excess Downstate Republican vote, may have played a role. 

The last call Robert Kennedy took at the Ambassador Hotel before he went to the Victory Party downstairs, back in May of 1968, was from Mayor Daley, who called to tell Kennedy that he would be holding a press conference the next day to pledge the whole Illinois Delegation to Bobby's campaign for President.  As we know, that didn't happen, but those were the days when a Machine Boss could make such promises. 

Most people think the days of the old machines are dead and gone -- I beg to differ.  I simply think some have been smart enough to adapt to a new environment, and learn how to survive.  Thus the attraction as a candidate to the Illinois State Senate of a Harvard Honors Grad Lawyer -- not part of the Black Establishment in Chicago, but at the same time a skilled organizer able to work with all sides, the Business Community, the Daley Machine, and yes, if Larry Johnson's material holds water, even some elements of "the Outfit" which is what the mob is called in Chicago.  So when Obama had proved his skills in Iowa and South Carolina, why would anyone be surprised if the Daley Family did not call in a few chit's from the Kennedy Family? 

Now my point here is not what I believe to be a marginal relationship to "the Outfit" and all -- rather it is to focus on a very long term political alliance between the Kennedy's and the Daley's and their organizations.  It is, what Political Scientists call a Power Center.  You can describe it with old slogans, "The City that Works" or "Chicago ain't ready for Reform."  I rather suspect that what the Daley side wants out of this is to send that bothersome Jesuit, USA Patrick Fitzgerald, back to New York.  He has been drawing the circle too close to Mayor Daley's office, and with the Former Republican Governor already in Jail, The local Newspaper Owner on his way, and the investigation getting close to the current Democratic Governor, it is easy to see how Power Centers are threatened, but the threat can't be easily upended. 

But we need to understand the Political Culture here -- one anyone familiar with Chicago probably comprehends.  This is a culture that takes care of its own.  It isn't neo-Liberalism, or neo-Conservatism, it laughs at things like the DLC or many of the reform movements -- it is essentially Irish Catholic, it knows there may be a famine or worse just over the Horizon, and while one must be suspicious of power, one must also have a good deal of it in all the institutional structures. 

Now in contrast, reflect on how different this is from the Clinton Power Center as it has been constructed by both Bill and Hillary.  The so called New Democrats movements that made the coalition around the Clintons in the early 90's -- one that was not based in Urban America precisely, one that didn't have any sort of passionate connection with the Labor Movement, one based more in the academic Meritocracy, less in the relatively mundane problem solving approach of an urban political machine, this is the Clinton Power Center.  It is the Robert Reich's who will tell you how the economy is changing in dramatic and revolutionary ways, eliminating the networks that were dependable in the past if you supported your Union and the local alderman, but offers nothing substantial as to how you can secure the life of your family if you haven't the talent or means to access post-modern skills.   But all this is attractive to those who see old systems as a drag -- which probably explains why Hillary, who is unwilling to commit to a strong save Social Security plank ironically seems to attract the more elderly, the service jobs workers, and the all round more vulnerable, while Obama is attracting the wine and quiche crowd with advanced degrees.  The irony is that no one seems to comprehend the competition within the Democratic Party Circle of this culture divide.