Herbert Hoover

As John Kerry Becomes Secretary Of State, An Assessment Of The Most Influential Secretaries Of State In American History

Ronald 25 Comments

With Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department, and John Kerry becoming the 68th Secretary of State, it is a good time to assess who are the most influential Secretaries of State we have had in American history.

Notice I say “most influential”, rather than “best”, as that is a better way to judge diplomatic leadership in the State Department.

Without ranking them, which is very difficult, we will examine the Secretaries of State who have had the greatest impact, in chronological order:

Thomas Jefferson (1789-1793) under President George Washington—set the standard for the department, and was probably the most brilliant man ever to head the State Department.

John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) under President James Monroe—brought about the Monroe Doctrine, treaties with Canada, and the acquisition of Florida.

William H. Seward (1861-1869) under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson—brought about the neutrality of Great Britain and France in the Civil War, and purchased Alaska from Czarist Russia, a fortunate development.

Hamilton Fish (1869-1877) under President Ulysses S. Grant—involved in many diplomatic issues in Latin America, had America become more engaged in Hawaii, and settled differences with Great Britain, and often considered the major bright spot in the tragic Grant Presidency.

James G. Blaine (1881, 1889-1892) under Presidents James A. Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur briefly, and full term under President Benjamin Harrison—helped to bring about eventual takeover of Hawaii, and promoted the concept of a canal in Central America.

John Hay (1898-1905) under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt—-involved in the issues after the Spanish American War, including involvement in the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and a major influence over TR’s diplomatic initiatives in his first term.

Elihu Root (1905-1909) under President Theodore Roosevelt—-a great influence in TR’s growing involvement in world affairs in his second term in office.

Robert Lansing (1915-1920) under President Woodrow Wilson—a major player in American entrance in World War I and at the Versailles Peace Conference.

Charles Evan Hughes (1921-1925) under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge—-had major role in Washington Naval Agreements in 1922.

Henry Stimson (1929-1933) under President Herbert Hoover—-was a major critic of Japanese expansion, as expressed in the Stimson Doctrine of 1932.

Cordell Hull (1933-1944) under President Franklin D. Roosevelt—-was the longest lasting Secretary of State, nearly the whole term of FDR, and very much involved in all of the President’s foreign policy decisions.

Dean Acheson (1949-1953) under President Harry Truman—-involved in the major decisions of the early Cold War, including the Korean War intervention.

John Foster Dulles (1953-1959) under President Dwight D. Eisenhower—had controversial views on Cold War policy with the Soviet Union, including “massive retaliation”.

Dean Rusk (1961-1969) under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson—highly controversial advocate of the Vietnam War escalation, but served under the complete terms of two Presidents, and never backed away from his views on the Cold War.

Henry Kissinger (1973-1977) under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford—-easily one of the most influential figures in the shaping of foreign policy in American history, earlier having served as National Security Adviser.

George Shultz, (1982-1989) under President Ronald Reagan—-very close adviser to the President on his major foreign policy initiatives.

James Baker (1989-1992) under President George H. W. Bush—very significant in Persian Gulf War and end of Cold War policies.

Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) under President Bill Clinton—-first woman Secretary of State and played major role in many issues that arose.

Colin Powell (2001-2005) under President George W. Bush—-involved in the justification of the Iraq War based on Weapons of Mass Destruction, which undermined his reputation because of the lack of evidence on WMDs.

Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009) under President George W. Bush—second woman Secretary of State and intimately involved in policy making.

Hillary Clinton (2009-2013) under President Barack Obama—third woman Secretary of State, and hailed by most as a major contributor to Obama’s foreign policy initiatives.

This is a list of 21 out of the 68 Secretaries of State, but also there are 15 other Secretaries of State who were influential historical figures, including:

John Marshall
James Madison
James Monroe
Henry Clay
Martin Van Buren
Daniel Webster
John C. Calhoun
James Buchanan
Lewis Cass
William Jennings Bryan
George Marshall
Cyrus Vance
Edmund Muskie
Alexander Haig
Warren Christopher

So a total of 36 out of 68 Secretaries of State have been major figures in American history, and contributed to the diplomatic development of the United States in world affairs!

The Vice Presidency NOT Fertile Hunting Ground For Future Presidents

Ronald 1 Comment

Much of the history of the Vice Presidency, whoever has been chosen to be in that office has failed to have much impact, and has seldom been seen as a potential President.

When one looks at those who have held the office, one realizes that in most cases, even those who succeeded to the Presidency during the term, a total of nine times, would be highly unlikely ever to have become President, if it had not been for the death or resignation of the President during that term.

Would John Tyler and Andrew Johnson, picked as Democratic running mates of a Whig (William Henry Harrison) and Republican (Abraham Lincoln) Presidential nominee have ever had the likelihood of being a Presidential nominee on their own, if their Presidents had finished their terms of office?

Would Millard Fillmore, who succeeded Zachary Taylor, or Chester Alan Arthur, who succeeded James A. Garfield, have been likely Presidential nominees, if their Presidents had not died in office?

Would Theodore Roosevelt, who succeeded William McKinley, but was despised by Mark Hanna and conservatives in the Republican Party, and was put into the Vice Presidency to take him out of the Governorship of New York State, have been likely to be the GOP nominee in 1904?

Would Calvin Coolidge, who succeeded Warren G. Harding, have been likely to be the GOP nominee in either 1924 or 1928, after Herbert Hoover had made such a good impression as Secretary of Commerce during a prosperous seeming 1920s?

Would Harry Truman, who as a non controversial Senator, hardly thought about by many before he was selected to run with Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944, and never having any real ambition for the Presidency, have been likely to be the next nominee of a party that had passed by John Nance Garner and Henry A. Wallace?

Would Lyndon B. Johnson, as a Southerner, after not being allowed much of a role as Vice President under John F. Kennedy, and with an ambitious brother, Robert Kennedy, waiting in the wings to run for President in the future, been able to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 1968?

Would Gerald Ford, who had absolutely no ambitions to be President, had remained in the Vice Presidency and Richard Nixon had not resigned or been removed from office by impeachment, would he have been the GOP Presidential nominee in 1976?

The answer in all cases clearly is NO, and when one considers that ONLY George H. W. Bush actually succeeded his boss, Ronald Reagan, the only time since Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson 152 years earlier, it is clear that had none of the eight Presidents who had died or been assassinated in office, nor the one who resigned (Nixon) would have been succeeded in the Presidency by their Vice Presidents.

And when one considers that Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale (four years after), and Al Gore also failed to hold the office of the Presidency, one has to come to the conclusion that the likelihood, in reality, of a President Joe Biden being elected to follow President Barack Obama, is quite unlikely, less than 50 percent, as indicated in the previous blog entry today!

Conflict Between Presidents And Chief Justices Quite Common Historically

Ronald Leave a comment

It is well known that President Barack Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts do not have a warm relationship, with Roberts chosen by George W. Bush, with Obama voting against his confirmation, and with the two men having totally different ideological views. Despite that, and the annoyance of Roberts over Obama’s condemnation of the Supreme Court for the Citizens United case of 2010, Roberts saved “ObamaCare” in June 2012, legitimizing it for the future, and gaining the anger of Republicans and conservatives. Who can say for sure how the relationship between Obama and Roberts will develop in the second term, and whether Roberts will surprise with more support of the administration than just the health care issue?

But the fact of their antagonism is not new in American history, as it is actually quite common that the Chief Justice is picked by a President of one ideological view, and will often clash with a future President of another party during his tenure on the Court.

The examples of such antagonism, far worse than the Obama-Roberts relationship, follow:

Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall (appointed by John Adams), on the Marbury V Madison case of 1803, dealing with Judicial Review. They were also distant cousins, who personally disliked each other.

Andrew Jackson and Chief Justice John Marshall (appointed by John Adams), on the removal of the Cherokee and other Indian Tribes after the Worcester V. Georgia and other similar cases in the 1830s.

Abraham Lincoln and Chief Justice Roger Taney (appointed by Andrew Jackson), over the Dred Scott V Sanford case in 1857, and the President’s use of war powers during the Civil War years until Taney’s death in 1864.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (appointed by Herbert Hoover), over Supreme Court decisions during the New Deal years, and specifically FDR’s Court “Packing” Plan in 1937.

Richard Nixon and Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by Dwight D. Eisenhower), who Nixon had criticized in earlier years, and were rivals in California politics,and Warren trying to leave office under Lyndon B. Johnson, so Nixon would not replace him, but unable to do so due to controversy over Johnson’s nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas in 1968, leading to rejection, and Warren’s replacement, Warren Burger, being chosen by Nixon in 1969.

Bill Clinton and Chief Justice William Rehnquist (appointed by Ronald Reagan), who had major disagreements on policy, but Rehnquist conducted himself well at the Bill Clinton Impeachment Trial in 1999.

So the antagonism and rivalry of Presidents and Chief Justices is nothing new!

Chief Justices And The Presidential Oath Of Office

Ronald Leave a comment

Just a day and two away from the next quadrennial historic moment of a Chief Justice giving the oath of office to the President of the United States, it is interesting to look at the history of Chief Justices and Presidents they have sworn in.

The record of the most Presidents sworn in by a Chief Justice is Roger Taney, appointed by Andrew Jackson,who swore into office a total of seven Presidents–Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, James K. Polk, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and Abraham Lincoln. And Lincoln was a great antagonist of Taney.

However, Chief Justice John Marshall, appointed by John Adams, had more total swearings into office of Presidents–a total of nine times–Thomas Jefferson twice, James Madison twice, James Monroe twice, John Quincy Adams once, and Andrew Jackson twice. And all but John Quincy Adams were his antagonists.

Then we have Chief Justice William Howard Taft, the 27th President of the United States, who as the appointee of Warren G. Harding, swore in Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

And we have a former Presidential nominee, Charles Evans Hughes, who as Chief Justice, chosen by Herbert Hoover, swore in Franklin D. Roosevelt three times, and was a major antagonist of FDR and his Court “Packing” Plan.

And we have Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by Dwight D. Eisenhower, who swore in Ike, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon, with Nixon being a major antagonist of Warren.

Finally, we have Chief Justice John Roberts, who has had a difficult relationship with Barack Obama, and who messed up the Inaugural oath in 2009 and had to redo it the next day for accuracy; made clear his annoyance at Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United decision in his State of the Union Address in 2010; and yet backed ObamaCare in June 2012, legitimizing it for the future and saving it from extinction. Still, Roberts is no “friend” of Obama.

And of course, some extremists talk of impeaching Roberts just for the act of swearing in Obama as President for the second time. But Roberts will not be deterred from his responsibility to do this, although in reality, any Justice or judge could swear in the President of the United States.

The Truth About Presidential Executive Orders From 1893-2013

Ronald 3 Comments

New statistics have emerged regarding the use of Presidential executive orders, now being hotly contested because President Barack Obama is issuing 23 such orders on gun regulation, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Massacre.

All Presidents from Grover Cleveland’s second term through Obama’s first term are covered in assessing how much these Presidents utilized executive orders. Thanks to New York Magazine for these statistics.

So for conservatives and Republicans, they can be excited to point out that Franklin D. Roosevelt, who they hate, issued, by far, the most executive orders. But of course, FDR presided during the Great Depression and World War II, the greatest crises since the Civil War, and, of course, FDR also served three complete terms and started a fourth before dying in office.

But after FDR, one discovers that Herbert Hoover was a close second in the four years of his term, having to deal with the Great Depression erupting in his first year in office. Of course, some conservatives think of Hoover as a progressive, but that is a major misunderstanding in fact!

Woodrow Wilson comes a close third, and this makes conservatives feel justified that it is Democrats, such as FDR and Wilson, who are the biggest “villains” on executive orders.

But then, how does one explain that below Wilson are Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, not much behind Wilson, but adored by conservatives? And next is William Howard Taft, considered a conservative when Chief Justice of the Supreme Court a decade after his Presidency. These three Presidents are Republicans, imagine that!

The list continues in order as follows:

Theodore Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Jimmy Carter
John F. Kennedy
Gerald Ford
Lyndon B. Johnson
Richard Nixon
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
George H. W. Bush
William McKinley
George W. Bush
Barack Obama
Grover Cleveland

Hey, wait a minute here! Obama is next to last of these 21 Presidents? How is that possible, after the rhetoric employed by Republicans such as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky? Could it be that Paul does not know the facts, and does not know history very well? You know the answer!

And executive orders have become quite rare after Truman, so were most utilized by the eight Presidents from TR through Truman.

In other words, Barack Obama has NOT abused the executive orders authority, and has hardly used it, and Republicans TR, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover all used it an amazing amount of times!

But do conservatives really care to know the truth? Again, the answer is obvious!

Presidents Who Began As Democrats But Were Elected To The White House As Republicans!

Ronald 1 Comment

In the past century, we have had three Presidents who were originally connected to the Democratic Party in some fashion, but ended up becoming President as Republicans.

Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) originally served in government under Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, providing Belgian relief at the beginning of World War I, and serving Wilson as an aide throughout the war and at the Versailles Peace Conference. He was rumored to be a possible candidate for President in 1920, but was bypassed, and ended up serving as Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, before running for President in 1928.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) served in the military as one of the top generals of World War II under Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and was offered the chance to run as a Democrat for President in 1948 by Truman himself. When Ike decided to stay nonpartisan, Truman ran for a full term, and then became a critic of Eisenhower, when he ran as a Republican in 1952, and their relationship was frosty for years after until after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) was for many years a Democrat, and active as a labor leader for the Screen Actors Guild. He was a loyal supporter of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman, and then had a change of view, due to his marriage to Nancy Reagan and his working for a very conservative oriented corporation, General Electric, and switched his loyalties to the Republican Party, and got noticed when he gave an inspiring speech for the Presidential campaign of Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona in 1964. Two years later, he won the Governorship of California as a Republican.

So three Republican Presidents of the last century converted from the Democratic Party roots they originally shared!

Best Team For America’s Future Security: John Kerry For Secretary Of State, And Chuck Hagel For Secretary Of Defense

Ronald Leave a comment

In the midst of the “Fiscal Cliff” battle, President Obama is also deep into Cabinet selection, and it was heartening to hear that former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican who served in Vietnam and became an acknowledged expert on foreign policy in his years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been at the White House, and is a hot candidate for Secretary of Defense.

This author has long raved about the credentials of Hagel, and suggested him for the cabinet in the first term, and it now seems more likely that he might become the head of the Pentagon when Leon Panetta leaves soon.

This would be continuing the tradition of past Democratic Presidents to decide to choose reputable Republicans for the Defense Department, and it even goes back to when it was called the War Department before 1947.

The historical record shows Franklin D. Roosevelt having Henry Stimson, former Secretary of State under Herbert Hoover, as his Secretary of War, along with Frank Knox, who had been the Republican Vice Presidential nominee in 1936, being named Secretary of the Navy, both in 1940, when Great Britain was being attacked by the German Air Force in World War II, and the threat to America was seen as dire by many as a result.

John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson utilized Robert McNamara as Secretary of Defense in the 1960’s.

Bill Clinton had former Maine Senator William Cohen, a responsible and reputable Republican Senator, as his Secretary of Defense in the second term, and he received kudos for his performance.

And Robert Gates, George W. Bush’s second Secretary of Defense, became Barack Obama’s first Secretary of Defense, and did a wonderful job for more than two years.

So the reasoning to pick Hagel is clearly there, but to make the foreign policy-defense team complete, the President also needs to choose Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran too, and 2004 Democratic Party Presidential nominee, to replace Hillary Clinton at the State Department, after 28 years of service in the US Senate, and chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry has had a distinguished career, and would be an excellent choice, and the team of Kerry and Hagel would be sensational.

In a time of trouble and turmoil, America needs its strongest team on national security, and Kerry and Hagel fit the bill, without any question or doubt.

Susan Rice, the UN Ambassador, is also outstanding in many ways, but quite frankly, is not on the same level as Kerry, and her nomination would cause unnecessary turmoil over the issue of Libya, a sad commentary, but a distraction which should not be allowed to continue by choosing her, when Kerry is really a better choice!

So, Mr. President, pick John Kerry for State and Chuck Hagel for Defense, and America will be very well served at Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon!

Losing Major Party Presidential Nominees And Their Futures: A Summary

Ronald 1 Comment

Losing Presidential nominees usually go on to a future public career, with a few exceptions.

William Jennings Bryan, three time nominee in 1896, 1900, and 1908, went on to become Secretary of State for two years under President Woodrow Wilson.

Alton B Parker, the losing candidate in 1904, went on to become temporary chairman and keynote speaker at the 1912 Democratic National Convention.

Charles Evans Hughes, the losing nominee in 1916, went on to become Secretary of State under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court under Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

James Cox, the losing nominee in 1920, built up a newspaper empire, Cox Enterprises, which would become very influential in the world of journalism, and still is, as the publisher of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Palm Beach Post, as well as cable television and internet enterprises under his heirs.

John W. Davis, the losing 1924 nominee, had a distinguished career as a lawyer who argued cases before the Supreme Court, including being in the losing side of the famous school integration case, Brown V. Board Of Education Of Topeka, Kansas in 1954, and the Youngstown Steel Case of 1952, ruling against President Truman’s seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War. He was on the side opposing school integration and Presidential power, being a true Jeffersonian conservative throughout his life.

Alfred E. Smith, the 1928 losing nominee, became head of the corporation which built the Empire State Building in 1931, and was an active opponent of Franklin D.Roosevelt and his New Deal.

Al Landon, the losing 1936 nominee, spoke up on foreign policy issues as World War II came on, but spent his life in the oil industry, playing a very limited role in public life after the war.

Wendell Willkie, the losing 1940 nominee, proceeded to write a book about his vision of the postwar world, and was thinking of running again in 1944, but died early in that year.

Thomas E. Dewey, the losing nominee in 1944 and 1948, continued to serve as Governor of New York, and was a power player in the Republican Party after his time in office.

Adlai Stevenson, the 1952 and 1956 losing nominee, went on to serve as United Nations Ambassador under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.

Barry Goldwater, the losing 1964 nominee, went back to the US Senate, and served three more terms in office.

Hubert Humphrey, the losing 1968 nominee, went back to the Senate and served seven more years in that body.

George McGovern, the losing 1972 nominee, went on to serve eight more years in the US Senate, and kept active in work for the United Nations in various agencies.

Walter Mondale, the losing nominee in 1984, went on to serve as Ambassador to Japan under President Bill Clinton.

Michael Dukakis, the losing nominee in 1988, went back to two more years as Governor of Massachusetts, and also has served as a professor at various institutions, including Northeastern University and Florida Atlantic University.

Bob Dole, the losing 1996 nominee, has engaged in much public activity, including fighting hunger with fellow former nominee George McGovern, and is seen as an elder statesman who is greatly respected.

Al Gore, the losing 2000 nominee, went on to become an advocate for action on climate change and global warming, and also created the cable channel called CURRENT.

John Kerry, the losing 2004 nominee, has continued his distinguished career in the Senate, and may be tapped to join President Obama’s cabinet as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense.

John McCain, the losing 2008 nominee, has continued his career in the Senate, being last reelected to a six year term in 2010.

The question is what, if any role, Mitt Romney will have in public life, with no hint at this point that he intends any, even after his White House meeting this week with President Barack Obama.

Traits We Need In Our President: Competence, Compassion, Empathy, Sincerity—Barack Obama Possesses All Four, While Mitt Romney “Maybe” At Most Has Competence!

Ronald 2 Comments

Essential qualities needed in an American President, particularly in this 21st century of a complex world, and a growing population of what is now 315 million people, would include:

Competence
Compassion
Empathy
Sincerity

We need a leader who demonstrates care about ALL of us, not just the elite and wealthy!

We need a leader who has known struggle in his life at some point–such as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama—whether it is:

Family Problems And Issues While Growing To Adulthood—Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Obama
Personal Health Issues—Roosevelt, Kennedy
Major Challenges To Success—Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Reagan, Obama

Only the two Bushes really did not have major family problems while growing to adulthood; personal health issues; or major challenges to success.

But even they had compassion and empathy for the disabled (the elder Bush), and for the victims of September 11 (the younger Bush), although later, both the elder and younger Bush botched up the emergency of Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Katrina in a massive wave of incompetence!

Barack Obama possesses all of these qualities mentioned above, while Mitt Romney has not proved his worth in these regards, even so much as competence as Massachusetts Governor, although he has rose colored glasses in looking back on what was, basically, a term in office that made him so unpopular he could not have won reelection as Governor of his state had he decided to run!

Mitt Romney, simply, does not have the qualities needed for our Presidency in the 21st century. He lacks, for sure, compassion, empathy, and sincerity!

He is much more like Herbert Hoover, and yet, even Herbert Hoover first became famous for reacting properly in human tragedies in the time of the Mississippi River Flood of 1927, the massive Soviet relief effort in the 1920s, and the Belgian relief effort in World War I!

So we would have to push Romney back to the Gilded Age of monopoly capitalism, before the Progressive Era ended the concept of a limited government, which had ignored the needs of its citizens en masse!

The 20th century dawned, and the battle for the federal government to play a major role in people’s lives began, and we are not about to revert to the late 19th century!

Sorry, Mr. Romney, your attempt to go back one hundred years and more to the worst times of the Gilded Age is rejected, and YOU ARE FIRED as a potential President of the United States this coming Tuesday, November 6, 2012!

If Obama Loses, We Lose MUCH More Than He Loses!

Ronald 4 Comments

President Obama has made the statement that were he to lose the Presidential Election Of 2012, he and Michelle would do just fine, and that is certainly true.

After all, he has been President, will go down in history as a President who had some positive effects on the nation, and will be able to spend the rest of his life with great earnings potential, and rising popularity over time, and would be mourned when he dies, with a state funeral, and always be part of the story of American history.

Being a one term President, he would be likely to have a lower ranking in the list of Presidents, as Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush have had, along with William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, and Gerald Ford, the five Presidents of the 20th century who lost reelection.

Obama has had a record deserving of being listed higher, but he needs a second term to reach the ranks of the more outstanding Presidents.

But, ultimately, the biggest loser if Obama is not reelected, are:

Women–who will see their movement toward equality and dignity stalled or reversed in massive ways.

Gay men and women–who will likely lose the advancements on gay rights and gay marriage, and true equality in all ways.

Hispanics and Latinos–who will see more anti immigrant backlash, and will lose the advancements for young Immigrants under the proposed DREAM Act.

African Americans—who will see greater racism and discrimination, and setbacks in the promotion of equality and fairness of treatment.

Labor–who will see more attacks on workers rights, favoritism toward corporate employers, loss of collective bargaining rights, and setbacks in the lives of ordinary, struggling Americans who have no union representation.

Environmentalists–who will see more oil drilling, air pollution, refusal to understand the dangers of climate change, and allow economic development that endangers the health of millions of Americans, all for the motivation of profit over health concerns.

The poor–who have rough lives, will see a lack of concern or action to deal with the reality of child poverty, homelessness, hunger, the lives of single mothers, and further condemnation of the poor, reminding us of the Gilded Age and Social Darwinism.

The Middle Class–who will suffer further degradation, loss of opportunity to advance, and the potential for their children to succeed being lessened dramatically.

Young People–who will have fewer opportunities to advance in education and work, and will be embittered and disillusioned about the American Dream, which will be unfulfilled for millions.

Senior Citizens–who will have to live in fear of dangers to Social Security and Medicare, and will lose the sense of security and contentment in their older years.

The Disabled—whether young, middle aged, or old, who will see a loss of concern and support, as through Medicaid and other government programs.

Civil Libertarians–who will see further erosion of the Bill of Rights, and the promotion of narrow minded views of Muslims and Hispanics-Latinos by government policy.

The Peace activists–who will see America engaged in more wars, because of the power of Neoconservatives who will promote further foreign adventures.

Military Personnel and Veterans–who will see more soldiers killed in the future, and more ignoring of the needs of veterans who are fortunate enough to come home alive.

Educators and Intellectuals–who will be less appreciated and admired, and will be labeled “Communists, Socialists, Terrorists” by people in the Republican Party, who will do everything they can to attack education and freedom of thought, and call critics “unpatriotic”.

So Barack Obama will do just fine if he loses, but we, the American people, will lose so much, and it will transform our lives in so many negative ways that most people cannot conceptualize or imagine!