The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Unreasonable Men
PRESIDENTIAL SERIES
>
THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN - WEEK TWO - PRESIDENTIAL SERIES: UNREASONABLE MEN - April 18th - April 24th - Chapter Two - The Railroad- (pages 31 - 52) - No Spoilers, please
I don't believe BIG government is bad. The people should all be able to have control over companies that are trying to monopolize businesses such Microsoft and AT&T. At no time should any company have more power than the people (aka big government). This would create a dangerous situation of a coup de tat. Imagine Microsoft being able to shut down the country's computers in a moments notice. Perhaps AT&T cutting off all communications. The end result would be chaos of epic proportions such as the stock market crashing, businesses being unable to process transactions, shipping being stopped, or airlines being grounded. Big government gets bad rap because at times there's too much red tape preventing delays in simple things. So there has to be a balance between companies being able to build a successful company that employs lots of people plus provides goods and services while having to compete for business. This keeps prices and wages at affordable rates.
Mod
And government as the watchdog is OK with you too.
Thanks for the information on George Norris Bentley! I need to read a little more about one of Nebraska's favorite sons!
Just curious Ann, where do you live in Nebraska? I'm in Lincoln, with which Omaha probably has a little more of a progressive populous than some of the rest of the state.
Mod
I thought that the folks from Nebraska would enjoy it since we seem to be talking about the Big Four and the Senate - and the greatest Senators.
You are welcome David.
That is fabulous that there are two folks from Nebraska in this discussion. Love it.
In this chapter, I was fascinated by Nelson Aldrich's career path:"With modest prospects, young Nelson Aldrich began his career as a clerk in the wholesale grocery business. But he was a man of uncommon ability, and he soon worked his way up to partner in the company." (p. 38)
I wonder how common it is nowadays for politicians to come from such humble beginnings (professionally), rather than being groomed for politics from Day One. Based on his starting point, I was hoping that Aldrich might enter politics with a more honest approach, but sure enough, he worked his way up through a corrupt political system in Rhode Island and his own ambition for wealth/power.
message 58:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 06:26PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
So there are still quite a few.
It seemed that Aldrich stayed above the fray though. And he paved the way for his family.
Here is a great cartoon with Taft.
Taft tries to get Roosevelt's progressive ideas into Aldrich which of course must have happened later.
Also that Aldridge managed to marry his daughter to the Rockefellers.
Here is an excerpt from wikipedia:
His daughter Abigail Greene "Abby" Aldrich was a philanthropist who married philanthropist John Davison Rockefeller, Jr., and their second son Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller was a four-term Governor of New York who campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination in 1960, 1964, and 1968, and was named Vice President of the United States under President Gerald Ford by the Congress in 1974.
Aldrich's son Richard S. Aldrich served in Congress from 1923 to 1933, and his son Winthrop Williams Aldrich served as chairman of the Chase National Bank.
Source(s): Des Moines Register, Wikipedia
message 59:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 08:17PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Just a couple of things to keep us straight -
The previous thread - the Week One thread dealt with the Preface and with Chapter One (The Bolt) which appears to include events in 1904.
This is the Week Two thread - Chapter Two (The Railroad) appears to include events from 1828 to 1905
LaFollette actually does not come to Washington DC until 1906 and from 1901 until 1906 served as Wisconsin's governor. What was LaFollette doing in 1904 that dealt with the railroads "in his own state"
Here is an excerpt of a write-up which tells you:
During the 1904 elections, the Stalwarts (within the state of Wisconsin) organized to oppose La Follett's nomination and moved to block any reform legislation. La Follette began working to unite insurgent Democrats to form a broad coalition. He did manage to secure the passage of the primary bill and some revision to the railroad tax structure.
When the legislative session concluded, La Follette traveled throughout Wisconsin reading the "roll call"; that is, he read the votes of Stalwart Republicans to the people in an effort to elect Progressives. During this campaign, La Follette gained national attention when muckraking journalist Lincoln Steffens began to cover his campaign.
With the press coverage and his successful re-election, La Follette rose to become a national figure. His message against "vast corporate combinations" attracted more journalists and more progressives.
As governor, La Follette championed numerous progressive reforms, including the first workers' compensation system, railroad rate reform, direct legislation, municipal home rule, open government, the minimum wage, non-partisan elections, the open primary system, direct election of U.S. Senators, women's suffrage, and progressive taxation.
He created an atmosphere of close cooperation between the state government and the University of Wisconsin in the development of progressive policy, which became known as the Wisconsin Idea. The goals of his policy included the recall, referendum, direct primary, and initiative. All of these were aimed at giving citizens a more direct role in government.
The Wisconsin Idea promoted the idea of grounding legislation on thorough research and expert involvement. To implement this program, La Follette began working with University of Wisconsin–Madison faculty. This made Wisconsin a "laboratory for democracy" and "the most important state for the development of progressive legislation".
As governor, La Follette signed legislation that created the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Library (now Bureau) to ensure that a research agency would be available for the development of legislation.
So BEFORE LaFollette arrived in DC as a Senator - he (AS GOVERNOR OF WISCONSIN) had championed the policies that he held dear in his own state so Wisconsin was his "proving grounds".
The first item on the Wisconsin state agenda for the 1905 legislature was to elect a Senator. While governor, La Follette nominated himself and was confirmed by the State Senate. He kept serving as Governor and left Wisconsin's U.S. Senate seat unfilled until January 1, 1906, when he resigned to join the U.S. Senate. He publicly proclaimed this unusual action was done to ensure that his 1904 platform was enacted in Wisconsin.
Cartoon - The Badger State - Oct. 20, 1904
Senator John Spooner, a Wisconsin conservative, was horrified when progressive pioneer Governor Robert La Follette took control of the Wisconsin Republican Party
Notes on Cartoon - This illustration entitled, "The Badger State", by cartoonist Clifford Berryman, which appeared in the Washington Post on October 20, 1904, shows a concerned Republican Senator from Wisconsin, John Spooner who was not sure that his state would pull through for Theodore Roosevelt, largely due to the efforts of current Republican Governor Robert La Follette, who flirted with the idea of swinging his support to the Democratic ticket in order to ensure his own re-election.
So what is going to happen next!
Fighting Bob is going to challenge the Big Four in the name of reform. He even had started an insurgency against his own state and leader and party. That must have made him increasingly popular in Wisconsin - no wonder some of his enemies voted for him to become Senator and give up his governorship. As Michael Wolraich said on the author's thread - "even many of his opponents voted for him, "perhaps consoling themselves that his Senate duties would keep him far away from Wisconsin." That did make me smile.
Discussion Questions:
1. Why do you think the "railroad rates" were so important to these men? One from Wisconsin, one from Connecticut, one from Iowa and one from Rhode Island? Why was it so important to LaFollette to take up this battle?
2. Why did the Senate and his own party in the state of Wisconsin fight him 'tooth and nail"?
3. What did they get out of it personally?
4. So by starting this challenge - was fighting Bob actually threatening the party structure and how they funded the elections of these Senators?
5, Why did LaFollette want the railroads to be transparent about the taxes they were paying?
6. Were the railroads the most powerful corporations at the time - what other special interests were funded by the corporations during this period and what were the specific corporations, who ran them and what commodity did they represent?
Source(s): Wikipedia, Michael Wolraich, Washington Post, US Senate papers, Library of Congress
Mod
Stand Pat Is Good Enough for Your Uncle Joe - 1900-1906
"Uncle Joe" Cannon, the iron-fisted Speaker of the House, used his authority to stifle political reform. He and his conservative Republican allies were known as Standpatters.
The above was probably published in the Washington Post
Creator(s): Berryman, Clifford Kennedy, 1869-1949, artist
Date Created/Published: [between 1900 and 1906]
Source(s): Library of Congress, Michael Wolraich
Mod
Here are a few cartoons which I will add:
From Harper's Weekly - Keeping Cool” - August 6, 1904 - The artist was William A. Rogers.
Cartoonist W. A. Rogers did not apparently think the 1904 Republican ticket of President Theodore Roosevelt and his vice presidential running mate, Senator Charles Fairbanks, was a compatible one. The artist depicts Fairbanks cramped and frozen in a block of ice, as Roosevelt, in his Rough Rider uniform, shivers from the cold. Fairbanks, though, proved to be an effective campaigner, while Roosevelt reluctantly heeded the tradition against sitting presidents electioneering. In November of that year, voters elected the two men by a landslide.
Charles Fairbanks was born into a family of poor Ohio farmers in 1852. He attended Ohio Wesleyan University, where he edited the school newspaper. After graduation in 1872, he took a job with the Associated Press in Pittsburgh before matriculating at the Cleveland Law School. Passing the bar in 1873, Fairbanks moved to Indianapolis, Indiana, where he worked as a lawyer for a railroad company. His successful legal career, including a stint as counsel to financier Jay Gould, and wise investments allowed him to purchase railroads and become a millionaire.
A supporter of protective tariffs and the gold standard, Fairbanks became active in Republican Party politics. In 1888, he managed the unsuccessful campaign of Walter Gresham, the former treasury secretary, for the GOP presidential nomination. In 1892, Fairbanks failed in his bid for a U.S. Senate seat, but his prominence on the money question led to his selection as the keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention in 1896. That same year, he was elected to the Senate, and reelected in 1902. Although he was not very influential in the Senate, Fairbanks had close ties to President William McKinley, who choose him in 1898 to chair a joint commission to resolve a boundary dispute between Canada and the United States. The city of Fairbanks, Alaska, is named after him (and probably accounts for the cartoonist's choice of an ice block).
In 1900, Fairbanks was considered as a possible running mate for McKinley, but the ticket would have lacked geographical balance since both men were Midwesterners. In 1904, though, delegates to the Republican National Convention selected him as the party's vice presidential nominee, recognizing that the senator's conservative philosophy and Indiana home were a good contrast to President Theodore Roosevelt's progressivism and New York residency. Fairbanks took an active part in the campaign, delivering speeches in 33 states. In November, the Roosevelt-Fairbanks ticket scored an impressive victory--336-140 in the Electoral College and 56%-38% in the popular vote--over the Democratic ticket of Alton Parker and Henry Davis.
Fairbanks was a typical vice president of the period who mainly attended ceremonial functions and had little influence on policy or administration. In 1908, Roosevelt's handpicked successor, William Howard Taft, secured the Republican presidential nomination, although Fairbanks received Indiana's first-ballot votes as a favorite-son candidate. Four years later, Fairbanks endorsed the reelection of the more conservative Taft over his new rival, former president Roosevelt, who ran on the Progressive Party ticket. In 1916, Fairbanks was again chosen as the Republican vice presidential nominee. He and his presidential running mate, Charles Evans Hughes of New York, were defeated as President Woodrow Wilson won a second term. Fairbanks died in 1918, leaving an estate worth nearly $5 million.
Robert C. Kennedy
Source: Michael Wolraich, Harper's Weekly
message 62:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 18, 2016 08:43PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Time! - July 20, 1904
TR and the Democratic nominee, Alton Parker, shake hands at the start of the 1904 presidential campaign, caricatured as a boxing match refereed by Uncle Sam.
Creator(s): Pughe, J. S. (John S.), 1870-1909, artist
Date Created/Published: N.Y. : J. Ottmann Lith. Co., Puck Bldg., 1904 July 20.
Summary: Illustration shows President Theodore Roosevelt and Alton B. Parker as boxers in a boxing ring, shaking hands before the start of the match; Uncle Sam, as the referee, stands in the background.
Subjects:
Roosevelt, Theodore,--1858-1919.
Parker, Alton B.--(Alton Brooks),--1852-1926.
Uncle Sam (Symbolic character)--1900-1910.
Source: Michael Wolraich, Library of Congress,
Mod
Chicago, June 21, 1904 - "All in favor of the nomination will say aye!",/i>
Creator(s): Keppler, Udo J., 1872-1956, artist
Date Created/Published: N.Y. : J. Ottmann Lith. Co., Puck Bldg., 1904 June 15.
Summary:
Illustration shows an interior view of the convention hall, with an oversized Theodore Roosevelt leaning forward at a podium, holding a gavel raised in his right hand, in the foreground are the delegates attending the Republican National Convention, June 21, 1904, in Chicago, Illinois.
Source(s): Michael Wolraich, Library of Congress
Mod
Putting the Screws on Him - Nov. 2, 1904
Industrialists bankrolled TR's campaign despite his trustbusting. Here, his campaign manager, George Cortelyou, squeezes money from a bloated man labeled "The Trusts."
Subjects:
Roosevelt, Theodore,--1858-1919.
Cortelyou, George B.--(George Bruce),--1862-1940.
Presidential elections--1900-1910.
Political campaign funds--1900-1910.
Industrial trusts--1900-1910.
Mod
Date Created - May 19, 1904
Summary: Montage showing a drawn hand holding four playing cards labeled "sound money, expansion, protection, prosperity" and the fifth card with a photographic portrait of Theodore Roosevelt.
Source(s): Library of Congress, Michael Wolraich
wow. this is great. so much to talk about. I work full time so I might not be able to delve into all this till the weekend! One thing I was surprised about is that in TRS day the present didn't give a State of the Union speech but wrote it and had someone read it to congress.
1. a) I think it's possible, but not necessarily predestined. Government is nothing more than the space in which individuals come together to affect things that they could not do by themselves. We, as citizens, are also the caretakers of this endeavor, and are responsible for holding to account those who we send in our stead to govern. Corruption is as much an indictment of citizens as politicians. b) I'm from Ohio, so all the time haha. Flint is not a unicorn. Many rust belt municipalities across the Midwest have similarly aged sewer/water systems. In Cleveland, you're advised not to swim in the lake after a heavy rain, because the sewer system was built 100 years ago when the population was much smaller, and cannot handle the capacity today, causing the swell to push raw sewage into Lake Erie. These are all "inconvenient truths" that no one wants to confront due to the cost of action, but such an attitude ignores the cost of inaction: sick people, wasted resources, and less livable cities.
2. Ohio is lucky because it doesn't suffer hurricanes or (natural) earthquakes often. If it were located in the southeastern US, I don't think it would be able to handle a natural disaster without federal aid. There's nothing wrong with needing federal aid for a big disaster though: if states were completely self sufficient then they would have little interest in belonging to the Union in the first place.
3. America's social safety net can best be described as "good not great". Social Security has kept millions out of poverty, but the potential for unfunded cost explosion is a concern. The problem is, like anything else, there is no good solution. Raising the retirement age under the trope of "people are living longer" is unfair, as the longer lives are generally concentrated in the white collar sector. Janitors are not living much longer than they were 50 years ago. Why would we punish janitors because lawyers live longer?
4. Of course not. Those who believe in this John Galtian delusion are divorced from reality. Even if you went to private school your whole life, and received scholarships to college, the society itself in which you were able to remain free and prosperous was the fruit of our collective labor.
5. No. Corruption is distinct from output. There are plenty of local and state government in rural America that do almost nothing for their constituents, yet are rife with corruption.
6. I prefer more authority residing with the federal than the state. This is because a lot of progress (civil rights, gay and lesbian) can be subverted by states if given the opportunity.
7. He was working off no experience, as the government of the US prior to the Progressive Era could never even be conceived as centralized.
8. They do, but it's a more complex issue than Bernie frames it. In a globalized world, legislators have to always keep in the back of their mind the rules of competing countries. In the age of the internet, when entire companies can be moved with less effort than ever before, it's understandable that they would be interested in going to the "lowest bidder". Legislators should craft tax policy in a way that walks this line between the needs of the republic and the desire to maintain domestic business.
Mod
We are here - so as long as you are posting that is what is important.
David asked: Just curious Ann, where do you live in Nebraska? I am from Omaha, and you are absolutely right that Omaha and Lincoln are different from the rest of the state. It's so nice to hear from another Nebraskan in this discussion!
Bentley, South Dakota was a good state to grow up in. My family lived in Sioux Falls in the eastern part of the state - far from the Black Hills area that most tourists visit. It was the "big city" in a state with sparse population. The only complaint I have about South Dakota is the weather - too cold!
If you were surprised by the landscape traveling by train across South Dakota, imagine my surprise when I first went to New York City at the age of 15! Same country - another world.
Mod
You must have been blown away. You probably said to yourself - wow there is a big world out there and I had better get going (lol). I can only imagine your excitement.
La Follette again - I was pleasantly surprised to read here that La Follette worked closely with academics from the University of Wisconsin in developing his policies. (see Msg 60) It was also interesting to read in the book that La Follette insisted on getting the major parts of his electoral program passed before he took up that Senate post. In fact, in order to get a bill passed on regulating railroad rates, :"La Follette did what he had vowed never to do: he compromised." Page 46.
This, and the fact that he threatened to give up the Senate seat if he could not get his legislation passed in Wisconsin, did the trick.
I will be interested to see if La Follette was willing to compromise once he got on the national stage.
Bentley,Yes, I was fascinated by New York. From childhood, I always wanted to travel and see the rest of the world. I have been fortunate enough to cover a lot of ground.
My husband always wants to take one of those cross country railroad trips. One day he will probably talk me into it.
The idea that a large federal government is inherently more corrupt than less government is wrong, IMHO. When power is in the hands of too few, especially in the Gilded Age, we had massive inequality. Just like a purely socialistic system is inefficient, a complex government apparatus is essential to regulate incomes, quality control, and fair taxation. Since Reagan's presidency (which really started under Jimmy Carter), the move to massive deregulation has led to inequality levels not seen since before the New Deal. The balance between government/business would best be restored to the mid-20th century levels, where middle class incomes and benefits better kept pace with inflation and the like. If only we had adopted FDR's Second Bill of Rights--which was essentially the GI Bill, but for all Americans.
Mod
Where did you get the idea for your most recent book?
Michael Wolraich - I was playing tourist at Occupy Wall Street, marveling at drum circles and general assemblies. It was a new kind of protest, wonderfully inspiring and tragically flawed. Yet, while the form was new, the ideas and rhetoric were very old. The condemnation of wealth inequality, mistrust of corporations, and celebration of average Americans echoed the language of long-dead progressive leaders.
I realized that too few protestors knew the history of the slogans they shouted. Some of the older ones paid tribute to mid-century progressives like FDR and JFK. But the pioneers of the progressive movement--Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, William Jennings Bryan, and especially "Fighting Bob" La Follette, have been relegated to dull high school textbooks or at best, lionized in biographies that glorify their leadership and charisma while soft-pedaling their ideas.
So I decided to write about the origin of the progressive movement in a way that brought these fascinating leaders and their struggle for political change to life. I hope the book will inspire a new generation of reformers and revolutionaries by reminding them of their rich history. At the very least, I hope readers will understand how this battle started and why we're still fighting.(less)
In a way, TR is playing it smart by trying to do something about the popular resentment in the wake of the railroad monopolies.It matches what Hillary needs to do with Sander's supporters-listen-in order to unite a party.
Mod
It was also in..."
Yes he did Ann - I think they called it or a part of it the Wisconsin Idea - yes very interesting that he used Wisconsin as his "proving grounds" and good catch Ann - he compromised. However you are right - they were keen on sending him on his way.
We shall see on the other.
Mod
Yes, I was fascinated by New York. From childhood, I always wanted to travel and see the rest of the world. I have been fortunate enough to cover a lot of ground.
My husband always wants ..."
Yes, I laughed when you spoke about your husband wanting to do the same thing - I fly so often that I wanted to be grounded but did not want to drive all that way - knowing that I had to drive back. But it is long - bring plenty of reading or listening material - I listened to books along the way which was quite enjoyable but if you are the type that is itching to get going - you might feel confined as I did at times. I love the travel to foreign countries - always have but I had never really spent the time discovering and seeing all of the nooks and crannies of my own country aside from the business travel so this was a nice reprieve.
Mod
It matches what Hillary needs to do with Sander's supporters-listen-..."
Good point Bryan
So many questions...1. I have to agree that larger government increases the likelihood that government will be corrupt. It's also been my experience that larger companies are inefficient - so it's not a giant leap to think that large government would also be inefficient. Just consider how long it takes to get your income tax refund, even if you file electronically.
2. New Mexico seems to do a better than average job of road maintenance. I was really irritated with the increase in sales tax in California to fix the roads the earthquake damaged - seemed like absolutely nothing happened in Northern Cal, but Southern Cal made a very quick recovery after theirs. I don't think money is always the answer - seems like that particular situation was more about political will to get it done. However, our interstate highway system could use some attention. What I'm most worried about is the state of the electrical grid. I know they've been working on it, but about 10 years ago it was in a very scary state.
3. I won't know if I'm happy about social security for a few more years. However, I intend to file ASAP because I think I can do a better job of managing my money than the government can. I never counted on Social Security being there for me in the first place, so it will be nice if there's anything left. I'm not impressed with the changes to our healthcare system, It seems like all of us are now paying for insurance, but now paying all of the medical bills also. I have to wonder where the money is going. When I had my student loans, they were really low interest and not managed by the banks - it was Fannie Mae. I don't know how they're working now, but it seems like a lot of young professionals are paying double digit interest and are buried in student loan debt. I don't have a label for myself. My parents were republicans, but if I look at the discussion points of the parties, I think I'm more libertarian - I'm not really invested on the social issues. I believe people should live their own lives and manage their own consequences. I don't believe the government should dictate as much as it does, and I'd like to see it spend less money.
4. As a matter of fact, I did do it all on my own. I put myself through college, got a job, got a Masters degree. I think we should spend more time helping others change their lives and stop expecting the government to do it all.
5. I think that a larger government has more projects to fund, therefore spends more time talking about how much to give to each project. We have only had 1 budget in the last 10? years that I can recall. If they had less to manage, does the group think that they could do a better job on the basics?
6. I haven't given enough thought to what ideal would look like. I'm open to suggestions.
7. If this is the quote: "If the Federal Government continues to centralize, we shall soon find that we have a vast bureaucratic government, which shall prove inefficient if not corrupt." --- Uncle Joe. I'd have to agree.
8. I think corporations should be allowed to bring offshore profits back home at either the same tax rate or a lower tax rate. This was done in the 80's and what happened was re-investment. More R&D, more cool new products, more sales, more jobs = more taxes for the government, but a better economy. We have to keep our tax rate for corporations manageable or they'll move overseas, like many are. However, I don't think the corporations can have 100% free reign. Not all CEOs make decisions that include what's right for folks outside of their company and stockholders. I think it's up to congress to set that bar. Since congress is not homogeneous, perhaps the compromise will result is some realistic limits.
Mod
a) You are also worried about infrastructure problems at the state level and given current news reports about infrastructure failures - I can understand your feelings.
b) Social Security is helping many older people and without it they would be devastated. Do you have parents or grandparents on Social Security - maybe they can talk to you about their need for it.
c) You have big student loans and I suspect you would like the government to do something about it but then again you believe that they should stay out of your affairs - if I got this wrong - I apologize in advance.
d) Are you talking about the state budget?
e) Remember Robin - Uncle Joe was making that quote - during one of the most corrupt time periods in our history.
f) I think corporations are moving overseas for cheap labor as well and that is hurting the country. But you want Congress to determine that level and bar for corporate tax rates, etc.
I just wanted to be sure that I understood your ideas and responses. Thank you for the very complete post.
Mod
Nick - an interesting paragraph about corruption and you are right we are the keepers of the constitution and we should all be more mindful of that and vote and root out those elements from our government (not be over zealous of course - but striving for integrity in the folks we elect).
I will be sure not to swim in Lake Erie (smile) - you know these are things that our country should be taking care of and are clear examples of the things that municipalities, towns, and even states sweep under the rug because of lack of funding, inertia, graft or whatever the local issue happens to be. It is not that the federal government can do things any better - but I believe it is true that they don't have a local dog in the fight.
Bentley wrote: "Robyn so you are of the viewpoint that there is more of an opportunity for larger governments to have more corruption and you therefore make the leap of faith that it also shows that it will theref..."I was trying to make the point that when it comes to size, both corruption and inefficiency are possible consequences. I don't think either is guaranteed. But, I also think it's very likely that either corruption or inefficiency or both are possible to some extent as an organization grows. What's important is that the organization polices itself to make sure that corruption and/or inefficiency aren't growing as it grows. I think this is why large companies do "right-sizing" (or some other buzz-word term) when they've grown too big, and preventing corruption is why office supplies need so many levels of approval ;)
I no longer have student loan debt, and it was never that big. I have lots of family members on Social Security, I just never really expected it to last to cover me. I've never counted on the money. So, I'll be ready to retire regardless. What I'm concerned about in retirement is health insurance. There's a gap between when social security kicks in and when health insurance starts.
I hope we're not as corrupt as we were during the Guilded Age - but how do you measure corruption? Usually, you know when some big scandal breaks - but how do we know there's not a scandal brewing? I guess I'd like to see more transparency.
I agree about corporations moving for cheap labor, but maybe they wouldn't be as enthusiastic if they didn't have a pot of money to spend in those countries? Global companies usually need to invest locally if they want to sell locally, and that drives some if it also. I'd just like to see more R&D jobs at home.
So, here's a question for the group that may be off topic - how do we decide where we're going next? The industrial age is over, so we don't manufacture as much - should we go back to more domestic manufacturing? A lot of our revenue comes from tech and service sector - is this where we want to stay? Are we preparing our kids to take over in this economy or switch to something else? I'm really concerned about the state of education. In New Mexico, folks who can afford it send their kids to private school because the graduation rate and national ranking of our public schools is so low. As a product of California public schools, I'm not sure the education was much better there. Are we focusing on the right stuff to set our kids up for success?
Mod
More transparency is fair, more high paying jobs in this country - of course.
I think the last questions is off topic but we do have spoiler threads where you can have that discussion - the glossary thread comes to mind. You raise a lot of good questions but I would like to get back to the subjects of the book or a subject where there is a direct or indirect connection. But all good questions.
Mod
Hello Paul - welcome to the discussion on Week Two - please make sure to go back to the week one thread and answer the preliminary questions - they are always fun and give a brief intro too so that everybody knows what state you are hailing from.
Some thoughts about the current situation as compared to the gilded age - you said - "When power is in the hands of too few, especially in the Gilded Age, we had massive inequality."
Many are comparing the current time period to a new gilded age. Do you think that is a fair comparison?
Corruption in government? I think that any human endeavor is open to corruption. That's human nature. I keep thinking of the chorus to "The Waltz for Eva and Che" in the musical Evita by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice: " There is evil, ever aroundFundamental system of government
Quite incidental."
Mod
Question 2: I'm from California. I sometimes think that the Federal government has an ABC mentality (anybody but California). It is often assumed that we have the resources for any disaster. However, we have a lot of disasters... Earthquakes, wildfires, mudslides, etc. Federal disaster funds can make a difference in recovery. We had an earthquake epicentered under our town in 1987. It took a decade for all signs of the damage to finally be gone, even with federal help. Disasters are expensive and complicated. State and local governments don't have the resources that the federal government does to marshal in the time needed, even in California. We prepare for disasters as well as anyone does, and still need help.
Question 5 Some interesting questions. I am going to start with taking a shot at 5."5. How did the industrialists push out the small railroad owners and take over becoming what we call "robber barons"?"
I sure there were a lot of methods used to kill off competition in the railroad business. A while back I read a book about Vanderbilt. He was very involved in ferries for transporting people and goods. He would drive people out of the ferry business by reducing fees on a ferry run to ridiculous lows. He had enough money to take the loss longer than his competitors and they will have to sell out or move to another area.
Also, the early railroads didn't have a standard gage. So one railroad would need to unload their goods and put them on another train or boat. By controlling the transfer at these point you could drive out competition.
Last the the government controlled where RR could be built and give land grants to RR companies to add rails.
Mod
I hear you Jan so you would not be a proponent of Uncle Joe Cannon or Nelson Aldridge.
Mod
I did not know that about a standard gauge - so they made money at the transfer point too.
Were these land grants free if they just built the railroad?
" Or do you think that your state can only afford so much and if it did not get the help of the federal government many things would be swept under the carpet and ignored like the pipes in Flint, Michigan? "Since I am from Michigan, I had to reply to this part of the discussion. While there is enough to blame the Federal and the State governments. It was the state government that created the problem by trying to save money by changing the source of their water to save money.
The State of Michigan appointed a manager to fix financial problems in Flint. He decided they could save money by getting water from the Flint River instead of Water from the Detroit Water System that gets their water from deep water in Lake Huron.
The state wanted to move forward quickly and opened the plant without testing and adding safeguards. It was later that the EPA got involved. It was interesting that the Government Office brought in large water dispensers for their drinking water while telling the people of Fint that they water was fine to drink.
It wasn't corruption. It was mismanagement and a lack of knowledge. It turn into people trying to cover up their mistakes. Michigan is one of two states that do not make emails public or available through the Freedom of Information.
Social SecurityI do think Social Security is important to myself and others throughout the United States. However, I do think there needs to be some significant changes.
1. Education of people that they should have other sources of income for retirement. Social Security should not be their primary source. Also, people believe they paid for SS and should get paid back. The first person to collect SS drew three times what she paid in and most people will get close to that also.
2. We need to change the age of when you can draw "Full SS."
People are living longer. See for a chart on life expectancy.
Mod
A very interesting post Jim about Michigan and its infrastructure issues and lack of transparency
Mod
Hi everybody! I'll be back to post soon (I still need to finish the last few pages) but I wanted to share this radio piece I heard today concerning New York politics, Teddy Roosevelt, and evolution in the Republican party. It made me think of the book and I wanted to share it with you all! You can hear the interview at this link here. I promise I'll catch up soon. Oh, and Bentley, if this is not appropriate or I shared it wrongly just tell me and I'll fix it. :)
Mod
Thanks for the link Jordan. That was good and so appropriate.
message 99:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited Apr 20, 2016 07:57AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
I agree that Charles Carroll was an innocent bystander and could not possibly have known. He outlived both Jefferson and Adams - who died on the same day -which I always thought was an uncanny coincidence (July 4th, 1826) - 50 days to the day of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Link: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-hi...
Good answers Jovita - you are keeping up the reading - excellent.
Bentley, you're funny. I'm glad you looked up the Alabama governor and attached that info. Yes, he will likely be recalled or impeached!
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Belle La Follette: Progressive Era Reformer (other topics)The Big Scrum: How Teddy Roosevelt Saved Football (other topics)
Profiles in Courage (other topics)
Profiles in Courage (other topics)
Unreasonable Men: Theodore Roosevelt and the Republican Rebels Who Created Progressive Politics (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nancy C. Unger (other topics)Nancy C. Unger (other topics)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (other topics)
John Fitzgerald Kennedy (other topics)
Michael Wolraich (other topics)
1851-1877
July 11, 1861
Senator George Norris of Nebraska
Nebraska’s George Norris, the man many consider history’s “greatest United States senator,” was born on July 11, 1861.
He served in the Senate for 30 years, from 1913 until 1943. Fiercely independent, George Norris emerged politically as a western agrarian progressive Republican. Yet, throughout the New Deal era, as he regularly collaborated with President Franklin Roosevelt, some optimistically labeled him the “Democrat of Democrats.”
When the Senate established a special committee in 1955 to select five outstanding former members whose portraits would be permanently displayed in the Senate Reception Room, that panel solicited recommendations from 160 distinguished American historians and biographers.
More of those scholars recommended George Norris than any of the other 41 names submitted.
A definitive three-volume biography, published 30 years ago and the largest ever written about a senator who did not become president, catalogs Norris’ skills as a master of parliamentary maneuvering—from committee room, to cloakroom, to the Senate chamber.
History textbooks usually note four of his legislative accomplishments. They include the 20th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which ended the 13-month “Lame-Duck” gap between the election of a new member of Congress and that member’s seating; the 1932 Norris-La Guardia Act, which strengthened organized labor’s collective bargaining hand; the campaign that resulted in Nebraska having the nation’s only unicameral state legislature; and, as his greatest legislative monument, the Tennessee Valley Authority.
In 1958, the Senate Reception Room Committee, under threat of a filibuster by Nebraska’s conservative Senators Roman Hruska and Carl Curtis, who disagreed with their progressive predecessor’s political positions, reluctantly dropped Norris from consideration.
In 1999, when the Senate added two more former members to its Pantheon, Norris again made the short list, but not the final cut.
Although excluded from this “Famous Seven,” Norris is immortalized among Senator John F. Kennedy’s Courageous Eight in his 1956 book Profiles in Courage.
Kennedy admiringly quoted Norris, whose willingness to speak his mind against the prevailing views of his constituents ultimately led to his 1942 defeat in a bid for a sixth term. Said Norris, “I would rather go down to my political grave with a clear conscience than ride in the chariot of victory.”
Kennedy concluded, “Nothing could sway [George Norris] from what he thought was right, from his determination to help all the people, from his hope to save them from the twin tragedies of poverty and war.”
Source: US Senate