This Isn’t The First Time …

Opinion writer Charles Blow, writing for the New York Times, gives us some historical precedents to the extremism we are seeing today and it makes for an interesting and thought-provoking read.


Extremism Is on the Rise … Again

By Charles M. Blow

02 November 2022

After all this country has been through — from Donald Trump and his election denial, to the insurrection, to what prosecutors call the “politically motivated” attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband — it still appears poised to elect candidates next Tuesday who deny the results of the 2020 election. There are 291 election deniers on the ballot. And Trump — the greatest threat to democracy — may make a comeback in 2024.

It’s hard to believe even though it’s happening right in front of our eyes.

In a major speech Wednesday night, President Biden described election denial as “the path to chaos in America.” “It’s unprecedented,” he said. “It’s unlawful. And it’s un-American.” But in truth, the extremism, racism and white nationalism are neither un-American nor unfamiliar.

I am personally fascinated by precedents and historical corollaries, the ways that events find a way of repeating themselves, not because of some strange glitch in the cosmos but because human beings are fundamentally the same, unchanged, stuck in rotation of our failings and frailties.

The presidential election of 1912 offers a few lessons for our current political moment.

William Howard Taft had been elected president in 1908, succeeding the gregarious Theodore Roosevelt, the undisputed leader of the progressive movement of the age, who endorsed Taft’s presidential bid. But Taft was no Teddy. Taft was, as University of Notre Dame professor Peri E. Arnold has written, “a warmhearted and kind man who wanted to be loved as a person and to be respected for his judicial temperament.”

I hear echoes there of the differences between Presidents Barack Obama and Biden.

Progressives at first seemed satisfied with Taft’s election, as they expected him to simply carry Roosevelt’s legacy forward. But they soon grew disaffected, as did Roosevelt.

It wasn’t that Taft was ineffective; he just didn’t do all of what those progressives wanted, much like Biden hasn’t checked the box on all progressive priorities. Riding a wave of progressive anger, Roosevelt challenged Taft in 1912, and when Roosevelt didn’t secure the nomination, he ran as a third-party candidate, taking many of the progressives with him.

That split all but guaranteed that their opponent, Woodrow Wilson, would win, becoming the first president from the South since the Civil War.

Wilson had not been a favorite to win the nomination of his own party — he only secured it on the 46th ballot after quite a bit of deal-making. But once he reached the general election, he sailed to victory over the quarreling liberals. He would go on to campaign on an “America First” platform, which for him was primarily about maintaining America’s neutrality in World War I. But as Sarah Churchwell, author of “Behold, America,” told Vox in 2018, it soon became associated not just with isolationism, but also with the Ku Klux Klan, xenophobia and fascism.

In Wilson’s case, extremists took his language and twisted its meaning into something more sinister. When Trump glommed onto that language over a century later, he started with the sinister and tried to pass it off as benign.

Of course, Wilson was no Trump. Trump is one of the worst presidents — if not the worst — that this country has ever had. Wilson at least, as the University of Virginia’s Miller Center points out, supported “limits on corporate campaign contributions, tariff reductions, new and stronger antitrust laws, banking and currency reform, a federal income tax, direct election of senators, a single term presidency.” He was a progressive Southern Democrat. The newly formed N.A.A.C.P. actually endorsed him.

But there are eerie similarities between him and Trump. Wilson was a racist. He brought the segregationist sensibility of the South, where he had grown up and where Jim Crow was ascendant, into the White House. He allowed segregation to flourish in the federal government on his watch.

And while Wilson didn’t support shutting down all immigration, as long as the immigrants were from Europe, he did embrace ardently xenophobic beliefs. In 1912, he released a statement, saying:

“In the matter of Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration I stand for the national policy of exclusion (or restricted immigration). The whole question is one of assimilation of diverse races. We cannot make a homogeneous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race.”

It was Wilson who screened “The Birth of a Nation” at the White House, a film that pushed the “Lost Cause” narrative and fueled the rebirth of the Klan.

Trump hosted a screening of “2,000 Mules” — a fact-checker-debunked documentary that purported to show widespread voter fraud carried out by “mules” who stuffed ballot boxes with harvested ballots during the last presidential election — at Mar-a-Lago, which Trump has called the Southern White House. That film has helped boost his followers’ belief in his lie about the 2020 election.

Allow me a quick aside to dissect the dehumanizing language of the “mule.” Mules were synonymous with captivity and servitude, and as such, a comparison between them and the enslaved — and later, oppressed — Black people was routine. In fact, in “Their Eyes Were Watching God,” Zora Neale Hurston famously wrote that the Black woman is the mule of the world.

Then came the invention of the “drug mule,” a phrase that first appeared in this newspaper in 1993. Later, the media would often use it to describe Hispanic women.

Now we have ballot mules, an extensive cabal of liberal actors bent on stealing elections.

Once you animalize people, you have, by definition, dehumanized them, and that person is no longer worthy of being treated humanely.

I say all this to demonstrate that we have been here before. We have seen extremism rise before in this country, multiple times, and it often follows a familiar pattern: One party loses steam, focus and cohesion; liberals become exhausted, disillusioned or fractured, allowing racists and nativist conservatives to rise. Those leaders then tap into a darkness in the public, one that periodically goes dormant until it erupts once more.

I fear that too many liberals are once again caught up in the cycle, embracing apathy. My message to all of them going into Election Day: Wake up!

Little Donnie Dark and the Mean Ol’ Press

Ol’ Donnie-boy Trump is talking about maybe stopping the daily White House press briefings.  He was miffed by those who had the unmitigated gall to question him when he changed his story for about the third time regarding his firing of FBI Director James Comey, and said:

“Maybe the best thing to do would be to cancel all future ‘press briefings’ and hand out written responses for the sake of accuracy???”

Well, he didn’t actually say it … he tweeted it.  That seems to be the only form of communication he knows these days.  Speaking of which … have you ever wondered why, every time he signs one of his ‘executive orders’ he has a crowd of people standing around?  I have two possible theories here.  Either they have come to ‘oooohhhh’ and ‘aaaahhhhh’ over the fact that he can actually sign his name, or else they had to help him make his letters.  Apparently he still needs some help …

Trump-signature

Trump’s signature on an executive order

But back to the White House press briefings …

Right before the aforementioned tweet, he twitted:

“As a very active President with lots of things happening, it is not possible for my surrogates to stand at podium with perfect accuracy!”

Oh for Pete’s sake!  Active president?  Active … destroying the environment, alienating our allies, provoking our antagonists, lying, tweeting endlessly, and tooting his own horn!  He could slow down on all those activities, and maybe, just maybe, he would have time to ensure that what comes out of the mouths of his staff is accurate.  And what does it even mean to “stand at podium with perfect accuracy”?  How can we be expected to pay serious attention to a man who cannot even speak properly?

One article I read suggested that perhaps it is time to end the long-standing tradition of the daily press briefings, given that today’s electronic communications would be a more efficient method for communicating news from within to without.  I heartily and vocally disagree!  First, reporters need to be able to ask questions and receive answers – or, at least get a ‘no comment’, which in itself says a heck of a lot sometimes.  Second, there is benefit to journalists spending some portion of their day in the White House, seeing and sensing activities they would not notice from their newsroom desks.  The press, whether Little Donnie Dark likes it or not, is one of our best means for oversight of the administration, and the current administration damn sure requires oversight!

There is some interesting history about how the daily briefings came into play.  In 1870, Philadelphia Free Press’ social correspondent Emily Briggs argued that what happened at the White House should be public knowledge because taxpayers paid for its upkeep, saying, “When we go to the Executive Mansion, we go to our own house. We recline on our own satin and ebony.”

early-reporters.jpg

William “Fatty” Price of the Washington Evening Star was one of the first reporters to ‘work the White House beat’. He started standing outside the gate of the Executive Mansion during Grover Cleveland’s second term and asking visitors leaving the building what their meetings had been about. Shortly thereafter, Cleveland’s first-time private secretary Daniel Lamont (whose job was akin to that of today’s White House Chief of Staff) began the tradition of having a White House aide answer reporters’ questions.

theodore-roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt

Theodore Roosevelt continued the trend of increasing access for reporters. He treated his “newspaper cabinet” to regular direct conversation, typically during his early afternoon shave. In 1902, journalists got their own office in the West Wing. He used favorite correspondents for ‘trial balloon’ stories, with the expectation that he would deny the truth of the story if the reaction was a bad one. (Sound familiar?

woodrow-wilson

Woodrow Wilson

Under Woodrow Wilson, press conferences went from invitation-only gatherings to events open to all reporters. The first official press conference took place shortly after Wilson took office.  His private secretary announced to reporters that the President would “look them in the face and chat with them for a few minutes” at 12:45 p.m. on March 15, 1913. When 125 newspaper staffers showed up, Wilson said, “I did not realize there were so many of you. Your numbers force me to make a speech to you en masse instead of chatting with each of you, as I had hoped to do, and thus getting greater pleasure and personal acquaintance out of this meeting.”

Along the way, President Harding would answer only questions submitted in writing, and President Hoover required all questions to be submitted 24 hours in advance.  Rather limiting, yes?  The most visible president was Franklin D. Roosevelt who often held press conferences twice a week. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s press secretary, James Hagerty was the first to organize televised presidential press conferences, the first on January 31, 1955.

free-press

Throughout the years, some presidents have embraced the press briefings, while others found ways to curtail them.  Ronald Reagan’s press secretary James S. Brady, for whom the Briefing Room is named, used to joke that he and Reagan always planned on installing a trap door so reporters who “got out of line” would fall into the swimming pool if he pushed a button on his podium. But ultimately, most have come to the conclusion that having reporters and photographers available on a daily basis to carry their message to the public is more of an asset than a liability.  And then along comes Little Donnie Dark …

press-1Trump has not been a fan of the press, even referring to them as “the enemy of the American people”. In truth, the press are the guardians of American democracy, holding elected officials accountable and defending free speech. Trump’s real nemesis is the truth. By attacking the media, he opens up a new line of attack against facts, his true target. He is, after all, the Gaslighter in Chief. He is trying to confuse the public so that they will not believe inconvenient truths.

So now Trump is considering halting the daily press briefings.  The past week has been the epitome of conflicting alternative truths, proving that this administration cannot even keep their lies straight.  Does the daily briefing have any value anymore, if we cannot believe a single word that comes out of the mouths of Sean Spicer or his assistant, Sarah Huckabee Sanders?  If this administration continues to eschew truth, facts, and transparency as they have done for almost four months now, then we must make a choice.  We must choose between a president who will become an autocrat and rule under the cover of darkness, or we must choose to oust this administration in favour of one that respects the rights of the people to know what their government is doing.

The press is not infallible, but they are our last best hope to maintain the freedoms and the system of government that enables us to write as I am writing today, to walk down the street without fear of harassment, to speak our minds without fear of being imprisoned.

Review of Dead Wake by Erik Larson

Almost everybody has heard of the RMS Lusitania, a British passenger ship owned by the Cunard Line that was torpedoed by a German U-boat (submarine) as it neared its destination of Liverpool on May 7th, 1915. Those are the bare facts that we all know. But other “facts” you might believe you know may be only partly true or even myths that have been promulgated throughout the past century. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Lusitania and, as such, we can expect a torrent of books and documentaries on the subject. If you read no other, I highly recommend Erik Larson’s Dead Wake.

As always, Erik Larson has deeply researched the subject and his book, which could have come out as a dry stating of facts, reads almost like a novel. Even though we all know the final outcome, I found this account to be fascinating, keeping me up reading well past the time I should have been asleep. Mr. Larson provides humanistic characterizations of both the Lusitania captain, William Thomas Turner, and the commander of U-20, Kapitänleutnant Walther Schwieger. As was the case with A Higher Call by Adam Makos (previously reviewed), we come to see the antagonist as a man, a human being, doing the job he has been ordered to do, rather than a cruel and heartless monster. The sinking of the Lusitania would have a profound effect on the lives of both of these men. We also get to know some of the passengers, some famous, others relatively unknown, but all individuals, human beings, rather than simply passenger #xyz.

Among the myths and half-truths we have come to believe are that the sinking of the Lusitania was what brought America directly into World War I, but as Larson reminds us, the U.S. did not actively engage in the war until two years later, 1917, and that as a result of the decoding of the Zimmerman telegram in which Germany offered to return to Mexico certain lands in the southwest U.S. in exchange for Mexico attacking the U.S. While certainly the sinking of the Lusitania strained relations between the U.S. and Germany, it was not the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back”. Another is that the ship was hit with two separate torpedoes, while in fact it was the work of a single torpedo that just happened, quite by accident, to strike at the exact right spot to bring the ship down within 18 minutes. And lastly, the reader will learn that which I considered to be the most surprising and scandalous part of the entire episode, which is the involvement of our “allies”, the British, and the role they played, including the fact that it was well within their power and ability to have prevented this catastrophe. But enough said … since the outcome is known, there should be some surprises left for the actual reading of the book, right?

Again, Erik Larson is known as a thorough researcher and excellent, gifted writer of historical non-fiction and in Dead Wake he does not disappoint. I bought the Kindle edition of the book, but wish I had bought the hardcover, as it would make a wonderful addition to my history library.