1. NO ORDINARY TIME ~ PREFACE and CHAPTER 1 (9 – 39) (10/18/09 - 10/25/09) ~ No spoilers, please

[Andrea]

Despite our view of Missy's relationship with FDR today, I think maybe at the time, FDR's personal time and how he spent it would have been much less open to public speculation than it is today. Part of me gets rather tired of all the speculation about relationships, just because the two people are of opposite gender. We don't wonder about FDR's relationship with Hopkins do we? (not that I think we should start). If women are really to move into positions of leadership and power, they have to be free to network and interact socially with men without there always being sexual speculation. But of course, Missy's relationship with FDR had a very clear social as well as political component. I think Viviane is correct, that Americans are not sure what they want from their politicians. We want them to be like us, but perfect, and yet not elitist, but humble.

[Sera]

I'm not sure that it's possible to create one standard because people are very subjective in their opinions in this area, which is why we should just stay out of it unless there are reasons not to, such as those concerning illegal activity. Recall that John Edwards is being investigated for the payments that he gave his mistress that came from his campaign contributions.

Andrea, if women engaged in the same type of conduct as men in this area, I think that they would suffer much worse than the men do, because there is still a double standard in this area. And, the fact that Americans want to their leaders to be "just like them" presents a whole other set of problems for me. Personally, I want the President to be smarter, more courageous, and more diplomatic that I am. I don't want an average Joe for President - I want someone who excels and who is great in multiple areas.

[Alexis]

I'm with Andrea... I think the culture/media didn't allow for the scrutiny that happens now.

[Virginia]

The 1940's was an entirely different time; there are a lot more media sources/technology now than was then, and also during JFK's time. There were rumors abounding about JFK's affairs and 'visitors'; as Bill Clinton found out, that can't be hidden today, at least not for long. WWII also was a major distraction; Hitler invading Europe was just the beginning, as we know. Nothing else was important but that, and this distraction from 'mundane' things certainly increased.
The Puritanical culture that still exists nowadays makes a lot of people hypocrits, and the over-inquisitive media eggs it on. The lack of 24/7 and instant technology in the 1940's enabled the President and other leaders and politicians to hide their private lives rather well, especially if lived quietly and discretely, with a good front of normalcy, as shown by Eleanor and FDR. FDR's courage with his disability attracted more attention than who was in the White House with he and Eleanor. They showed freely that they were working together, so not many people thought there was anything else going on aside from a 'normal' marriage.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Great posts folks.

[Joe]

Very good indeed, Bentley.

I seem to agree with Viviane with her remarks about character assassination. In today's day, the unfaithful politician has too many Peeping-Tom's who are just waiting to rush to the press with a scandal such as a mistress, or the like. The fanatical elements in each party are willing to do anything to harm the other side... even resolving to go so far as fabricating rumours if the public is thought to believe it. This makes getting things done utterly impossible.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Very true Joe. It really is like politics has taken over and eliminated any common sense and put an end to civility.

[Sarah]

Joe, I agree with you about today's press waiting in the wings for the next scandal. Unfortunately, a lot of that is based on what the people want or the press wouldn't go after it. They are typically after ratings after all. If the people were more focused on the important issues and were against seeing the latest scandal, the press would cease to provide it.

Well the relationships that we have read about in this book are certainly strange. A very interesting dynamic. What I found really shocking was the double betrayal on the part of FDR with his affair. After he got caught, Eleanor offered him a divorce. It seems like he wanted to take her up on that offer until he found out he would be disinherited and that his mistress couldn't marry him anyway because of her religion (which is interesting because I would think the whole affair is against her religion). This seems incredibly selfish to me. It seems like Eleanor's offer was based on a concern for his happiness while his rejection was purely self-motivated. What a strong woman she was to re-define herself and make a new life after such a slap in the face.

[Ed]

Sarah,

I think you are jumping to some conclusions here. Lucy Mercer was a Roman Catholic and could not marry again because divorce was forbidden. If she lived in "sin", she would be excommunicated and doomed to Hell. She could have sex, however, and just confess it later and have it wiped away.

You seem to be discounting the tremendous influence Sara had on FDR. I think her disapproval of divorce carried a lot of weight not just disinheritance.

Some people might say that FDR did the right thing by not divorcing Eleanor and promising to stay away from Lucy. Certainly that was true in the 1920s.

None of this is to deny what a brave and strong woman Eleanor was in all aspects of her life.

These kinds of situations are complicated and defy simple explanations.

[Virginia]

Ed said, "Lucy Mercer was a Roman Catholic and could not marry again because divorce was forbidden...
This is all quite true, technically, or should I say church technically. The influence of having to confess to clear herself of their affair would be how heavily it bothered her to sin in any way.

I agree that FDR's mother's disapproval of divorce carried a ton of weight; also the effect it would have on his political career I believe was of equal consideration against divorcing.
Nowadays, it has become the effects of an affair out in the open rather than divorce itself that can quickly eliminate any high political ambitions; even that has degrees, though. Jon Corzine is divorced because of an affair he had, and he carries on. I don't have to go into the circumstances of the John Edwards affair and the slaughter of his political future. Again, the media is involved, where in the 1940's, one could indeed hide so much more than now.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Virginia, you raise an interesting point about John Edwards and today's climate towards infidelity. His political future is certainly dim; but then again it could be because he cheated on an already ill but very likeable wife, Elizabeth. Of course, I have never liked Jon Corzine, nor would I consider him a paragon of virtue either. In his case, I think at the time the New Jerseyans were choosing between two evils and probably were looking out for themselves versus making a statement about his morals or condoning him or his activities. And you are correct, the media does not have the same set of scruples as it once did.

[Ed]

Bentley,

Scruples or co-option. Reporters didn't zap JFK because they liked him.

Now, if a reporter passes on a story it'll show up in the blog-sphere so why not go ahead with it and help the career. There's nowhere to hide.

Also in the past the press was pretty much an old boys' network and "Boys will be boys." was the prevailing attitude. I've heard that if a reporter blew the whistle on extra-marital escapades he was shunned by his fellow reporters. Don't know if that's literally true.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

You make a point Ed. I wouldn't doubt that what you said about the old boys' network was not true then. But it certainly was a different time for the press and the type of news reporting that was sanctioned or not.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Folks, I went back through the thread and here are a few titles and author's links missed. Always a good idea to make sure link to author is added; there may be other great books by the same author worth looking at.

Message 9 - Jean Edward Smith

(No Photo)

Jean Edward Smith

Message 29 - Alan Winkler

Alan Winkler

Message 34 - Book: Team of Rivals



Team of Rivals The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

Doris Kearns Goodwin already added

[Vincent]

Ed wrote: "Contraire!

I think U.S. voters are smarter than we give them credit for.

As to electing a President with a handicap, the electorate voted in G.W. and he was certainly mentally handicapped. (Gri..."

Late in making comments but I do beleive that it would not be easy for a handicapped person who could not stand to get elected to a major executive position today - maybe more easily a legislative one.

I also would note to Ed that politically the handicaps, limited as they are, for McCain and Dole were earned/received in fighting for their country which is a special political situation for a handicap.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

The comments that you made about Dole and McCain are ones that I think we overlooked; those handicaps would be ones that would be a political plus. Americans would admire both of these men as they did.

[Niki]

Just wanted to make a few comments as I have finally finished chapter 1. :-)

1) Did people notice there were female reporters? But they stood in the back of the room. I found that interesting, especially in light of the "good old boy" comments earlier.

2) I think that some of the difference between the politicians and their affairs that I can think of today and what I see portrayed so far in the book and discussed here is the hypocrisy. The public outcry is far worse due to how often politicians berate their own colleagues for infidelities only to be found to be unfaithful themselves months or years later.

3) I was quite offended by their sons comments that 'if only Eleanor had been more fun than FDR wouldn't have strayed'. My mouth dropped open! I am sure people said it but to have it come from her SONS. Shocking.

Niki

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Yes, there was most assuredly gender discrimination. It does seem that those who are the quickest to chastise and criticize others are usually most guilty themselves of whatever they are focusing on. So many of our politicians who have been caught in the worst infidelities or other sexual situations...were the town criers of the Senate or House about so many others. I felt extremely bad for Eleanor; even the children seemed to give Dad the wink. It was not about Eleanor; but about FDR. Once again you see the mores of that time period and how easy it was to blame the women for the man's indiscretions. Like she drove him to cheat on her. Pretty appalling, I agree

[Elizabeth S]

Good comments, Niki. I didn't notice or remember that the female reporters were in the back of the room. Wonder if there was any attempt at rational for that. My guess is the women were invading the man's world, so were kept at the back. And they probably didn't have much ability to complain, since they were lucky to be there at all. I'm glad things aren't quite that bad anymore.

I agree with you on the hypocrisy (just as aggravating as the infidelity itself) and the sons' comments (made me grind my teeth). Times were certainly different then. Not that things are perfectly right now, but I do think we are closer.

[Vincent]

Elizabeth S wrote: "Good comments, Niki. I didn't notice or remember that the female reporters were in the back of the room. Wonder if there was any attempt at rational for that. My guess is the women were invading..."

I just want to comment that times change -

In 1932 to have an experienced qualified reporter with 20 years experience a reporter would have had to of been working in 1912 and certainly there were fewer woman working in fields like this in 1912 - the President is covered by the more experienced members of the press.

And before we get all our ire up 1932 was 80 years ago - more than half way back to 1860 when the mores were such that the President could not even free the slaves as there was no constitutional justificaiton.

Less than three times as far back - 1789 - only white men could vote.

Society evovles and as it does it seems so do morality and values.

To quote Elizabeth "not that things are perfect right now"..............

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Excellent post Vince and very insightful about the times and mores and how things change sometimes slowly.

[Elizabeth S]

I like how you put that in perspective, Vince. It helps to look at the history that way.

[Ed]

Elizabeth S wrote: "I like how you put that in perspective, Vince. It helps to look at the history that way."

It's important, as Vince has documented, to look at history as, just that, history, not current events. That's why groups suing or advocating compensation for events that are sometimes hundreds of years in the past makes no sense.

History has lessons to teach us but only if we understand the context of the times.

I'm 72 and I shudder to think about some of my beliefs and attitudes 50 years ago.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Ed, belief systems are created and take form over a number of years; so the ones that you have now are often (believe it or not) formed by those other systems that were discarded. You are in many ways: what you were only somewhat different; it is really a developing and evolving process.

What we believed was also a part of our cultural understanding at that point in time.

Shuddering at what you believed only really means that you have been changing over time and have new filters and different information. Everything really as the song goes is fairly true to form..."It's the sign of the times."

History is history of course...but our current events become tomorrow's history.

Let us take the Indians - Native Americans...I still think they have a point (smile). What about slaves in this country? Is the fact that we freed them enough?

I believe that you can learn more from history if you understand the context of the times; but you can still learn from history even if you don't. Let us say that your great grandfather and your grandfather hypothetically had heart attacks at least that is what your family folklore says; you have no idea what caused this medical situation or the history surrounding it; but you would do well to heed these facts and learn from them and find out a little bit about your own heart health and preventative measures. Just so history does not repeat itself.

[Alias Reader]

Bentley wrote: "Ed, belief systems are created and take form over a number of years; .."

----------

You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught


You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You’ve got to be carefully taught!

--South Pacific
Rodgers and Hammerstein

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Alias Reader wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Ed, belief systems are created and take form over a number of years; .."

----------

You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught


You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to b..."

So true Alias and so true how belief systems are formed without our even knowing it.

[Ed]

Bentley wrote: "So true Alias and so true how belief systems are formed without our even knowing it."

----------

What you say is true but I know, from personal experience, that it is possible to recognize those dysfunctional and destructive learnings and ameliorate them and even in some cases eliminate them or at least act "as if" they are not ways to live one's life.

While as Morris Massey said years ago on one of his video-taped lectures, "What you are is what you were, then." He also said, though, that a person could experience "significant emotional experiences" that would undo the conditioning of our youth. I still believe that.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Yes, I think along the way Ed we all discard those thought patterns and belief systems which we know were handed down to us from well meaning and for the most part loving family, etc. But we know in our hearts and intellectually they do not fit with how things are changed. My grandmother (the most loving and most wonderful woman) use to call a lovely woman she knew "just the most wonderful Negro woman you could ever meet" and this wonderful woman who absolutely adored my grandmother as someone who you could count on would not have been offended. Now of course, if my grandmother were alive, I probably would be aghast if she referred to Mrs. X that way today.

I think we try to unlearn a lot...and I think most of us are successful. You know what is odd..as you grow older you remember more and more of those things that you were "carefully taught" and these situations that you probably just buried underneath everything else in your busy life; suddenly you remember and you have an Aha moment.

We are all a product of our past...no getting around it and we keep living trying sometimes to escape elements of it.

It wasn't so long ago that there was a story about an Indian boy named Little Black Sambo who prevails over a group of hungry tigers. Even that has had to be made more politically correct.

I just wonder sometimes how much more politically correct we can become. I think some of the profoundly sad situations are probably the indoctrination that goes on in some of the madrassas which promotes the cycle of destructive learning which can ultimately kill innocent people.

I sense you have gone through some relearning from what you have conveyed in your post...but be assured that this is probably what most folks go through.

[Ed]

Bentley wrote: "Yes, I think along the way Ed we all discard those thought patterns and belief systems which we know were handed down to us from well meaning and for the most part loving family, etc. But we know ..."

I Hope you are right about the idea that most people re-evaluate their early conditioning. I'm not so sure!

I've had people in my life like your grandmother. I would seldom risk telling them that what they were saying might be seen as offensive because I didn't want to endanger my relationship with them and also I believe that I just have to take people as they are not as I want them to be.

I think the whole "Politically Correct" movement has gone too far. As in most movements, the ideologues have gained ascendancy, especially in Academia and Government, and the result could be the homogenization of our culture.

I recall when my son was young, I would say something to him and instantly realize that I was merely re-stating a tape my parents had implanted in me. Talk about struggling to undo conditioning. That was tough.

I am constantly reminded of the old saw that, "The more I know, the more I realize I don't know."

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Most people who I know have...and those that seem to be able to go with the flow understand that times change and things were what they were.

My grandmother was so special and folks loved her exactly the way she was...I doubt that they would have wanted her any less real frankly.

I am not so sure that we are not all being programmed to say little and think a lot. Not so good always because nobody is sharing their real thoughts.

Your only models for parenting are guess who...your parents good or bad. And sometimes you can do the complete opposite of your parents and you end up overcompensating which is worse.

You can't be too hard on yourself..you have to love who you are and just go with it. People who love you will love you anyway and the others it really doesn't matter a hoot.

Our family history is just that history...it does not have to be repeated unless you let it happen.

[Vincent]

Bentley wrote: "Most people who I know have...and those that seem to be able to go with the flow understand that times change and things were what they were.

My grandmother was so special and folks loved her ex..."


Well - what an interesting mix of comments on how we are or can change our indoctrination or upbringing.

I want to agree with Bentley - I would like to think more strongly that Ed is not right.

I think that a good percentage of people don't think that deeply = and I think that in this modern time (for those of us in developed nations) there is always something to take up your time - TV - video games - music - ESPN etc etc.

I don' think so many people take the time or the energy think that deeply -

I also dread that the advertising industry is attacking - (no - they would not like that) train children starting at one and two years old thru TV etc.
I fear we are getting a pretty homoginized society but we are so many with so many means of mass expression - e-mail - face book - utube - that we may think a greater percentage of people are thinking but I am not sure.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Vince...it is true there is a lot of noise in our life and for those folks who cannot be far from their cell phone, their computer, twitter, etc....these folks can never give others the attention they ask for and/or deserve. The worst situation with the above is that they are not even paying attention to their own needs.

Who thinks deeply if they are attached on a tether to technology..look at the kids with their cell phone texting all of the time.

Less TV, less watching the news might actually improve our quality of life. You have to be able to find some quiet meditative time to just listen to silence sometime and look around and like our parents and grandparents told us (and they were not wrong on everything) - take time to smell the roses.