Hubert Humphrey

The Robert Kennedy Presidential Race Began 44 Years Ago Today: What His Death Meant

Ronald Leave a comment

On this day 44 years ago, when my generation was young and idealistic, Senator Robert F. Kennedy of New York, who had moved to the left politically, and come out against the war in Vietnam, announced his candidacy for President, and his challenge to the establishment of the Democratic party represented by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and when he dropped out of the race two weeks later, that of Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Being a personal loyalist to Hubert Humphrey, I was not supportive of RFK at the time, but came to realize after his tragic death by assassination on June 6, 1968, that we had lost a politician who was unique, in the sense that he could bridge the gap between rich and poor, unite people of diverse backgrounds, and that he had an idealism and vision rarely found in American history.

As much as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have worked at accomplishing much of what RFK represented, none have been able to accomplish his goals and vision in a full sense, with Obama the closest, but even him often causing disillusionment among liberals and progressives, although not this author and blogger.

Of course, people tend to idealize RFK, because he died, and one has to wonder when and how he would have caused disillusionment among his supporters, when the inevitable inability to keep all his campaign pledges would have become obvious.

One thing seems certain; that RFK would have defeated Richard Nixon in 1968 with Hubert Humphrey coming ever so close, that RFK would have weakened the third party candidacy of George Wallace, and that we could have avoided Watergate, an extended Vietnam War, and the disillusionment which led to the rise of Republican conservatism under Ronald Reagan.

In that sense, RFK’s death was a true turning point in American history, which many people in their older years can look back on as a truly regrettable moment. The question is whether a second term of Barack Obama can see the fulfillment of more of the RFK vision than has been possible in a difficult first term of the 44th President!

Ten Other Presidential Elections That Transformed American History For Better Or Worse

Ronald Leave a comment

In addition to what are considered the ten most important Presidential elections in American history, there are also ten other elections that transformed our history, as history would have been different had the results been the opposite of what they were.

In chronological order, these elections are as follows.

Presidential Election of 1844—If James K. Polk had not won over Henry Clay, the likelihood of gaining the Pacific Northwest by treaty with Great Britain, and gaining the Southwest by war with Mexico, together the greatest land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase under Thomas Jefferson, would have been far less likely. But also the Civil War might have been delayed without the battle over freedom or slavery in the Mexican Cession territories gained from the war.

Presidential Election of 1864—An election often ignored, if Abraham Lincoln had not won over General George McClellan, who he had fired from Union Army military leadership, the Civil War, in its late stages, might have ended differently in some form, hard to determine.

Presidential Election of 1876—If the Electoral Commission and Compromise of 1877, giving Rutherford B. Hayes victory over Samuel Tilden, had not occurred, after a disputed election result in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there might have been civil war erupting all over again.

Presidential Election Of 1896—If William McKinley had not defeated William Jennings Bryan, there might have been no Spanish American War, no Filipino Insurrection, and no gaining of overseas colonies, as Bryan opposed the idea.

Presidential Election Of 1916—If Woodrow Wilson had not squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes, he had readied plans to hand over the Presidency to Hughes early, with the Secretary of State resigning, Hughes being named Secretary of State, the Vice President resigning, and then Wilson resigning. Wilson left behind a hand written memorandum to this effect, concerned about the transition of power as the dangers of World War I came closer to the possibility of American participation.

Presidential Election Of 1928—If Herbert Hoover had lost to Alfred E. Smith, the likelihood of a very different reaction to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 might have led Smith to being the equivalent of Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his New Deal.

Presidential Election of 1968—If Hubert Humphrey had defeated Richard Nixon, it is likely that the Vietnam War would have ended earlier, and that there would not have been a Watergate scandal, and instead a continuation of the Great Society begun by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential Election of 1976—If Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter, it is likely that after 12 years of Republican control and growing economic and foreign policy challenges, that the Democrats would have retaken the White House in 1980, and there would have been no Ronald Reagan Presidency.

Presidential Election Of 1992–If George H. W. Bush had not had to deal with an economic recession and the third party challenge of Ross Perot, the second highest popular percentage third party effort in US history, it is very likely that Bill Clinton would never have been President.

Presidential Election of 2000—If the popular vote recount in Florida had been continued, and the Supreme Court had not intervened to declare the election over, then Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush, and there might not have been a September 11 terrorist attack, the resulting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely not a tremendous growth in the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion

How much history would have been different if only the results of these elections had been other than what they were!

Are Progressives Going To, For A Fourth Time, Harm The Democratic Party Out Of Dissatisfaction With Imperfections Of Their Leadership?

Ronald 4 Comments

Progressives and liberals have often, by their expectations of perfection from Democratic Party leadership, brought about a result far worse–a conservative Republican takeover!

This occurred in 1968, when discontent over the war in Vietnam convinced many on the Left to bad mouth and abandon Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and the result was President Richard Nixon!

In 1980, discontent with President Jimmy Carter led to abandonment by many progressives, and the result was President Ronald Reagan!

In 2000, dissatisfaction with the imperfections of Vice President Al Gore led to the election of President George W. Bush!

Of course, Barack Obama has not followed through on all his promises and pledges in 2008. He has disillusioned many progressives and liberals who believed he would accomplish everything he spoke about in the campaign.

But that is totally unrealistic, and the fear is that if there is an abandonment of the President, we could end up with President Mitt Romney or President Newt Gingrich, the two most likely choices at this point, at least, in the Republican nomination race. Of course, anyone else except Jon Huntsman would be even worse!

When, oh when, are those on the Left going to understand, finally, that there is no perfection, but that Barack Obama is far preferable to anyone the Republican Party might run!

it is time for the discontented to get on the ship, and be thankful for what Barack Obama has managed to achieve, the most since the Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s!

Racism Accusation Against Democrats By Cain Pastor Supporter: Is It Valid?

Ronald Leave a comment

A new controversy has developed around a pastor supporting Herman Cain, an African American pastor to boot, that it is the Democratic Party which historically has been racist and segregationist and prejudicial, while the Republican Party is the party of opportunity and liberation of blacks.

How true is this interpretation of the past and the present?

It is literally TRUE that for a long time, the South was solely Democratic, the “Solid South” from the time of Reconstruction through the mid 1960s, including such outrageous figures as Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, Tom Watson of Georgia, Harry Byrd Sr. of Virginia, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, Russell Long of Louisiana, Richard Russell of Georgia, George Wallace of Alabama, James Eastland of Mississippi, Jesse Helms of North Carolina and many others, all of whom promoted racism, segregation, prejudice, and in many cases, were members of or endorsed actions of the Ku Klux Klan. This also included the openly racist Presidential campaigns of Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in 1968.

However, during this period from Reconstruction through the 1960s, the Republican Party, which had once stood for racial equality, and had promoted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments during Reconstruction, abandoned blacks to the white Democratic South after 1877, and did not resist the loss of the right to vote for African Americans in the South. When blacks migrated north, and started to vote in substantial numbers, they switched over to the Democratic Party in a massive wave in the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Beginning with President Harry Truman promoting civil rights by executive order in 1948 and calling for civil rights legislation in his term of office, and the activities of Northern liberal Democrats led by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, and later leading to civil rights legislation under President Lyndon B. Johnson in the mid 1960s, Southern whites migrated in massive numbers to the Republican Party, with the first political move being Senator Strom Thurmond’s switch in 1964, endorsing Barry Goldwater for President.

The Republican Party ever since the New Deal has shown little interest or support of the advancement of civil rights as a party, although individual moderate to liberal Republicans have supported such reforms.

So the statements of this pastor supporting Herman Cain are true in the long run of history, but saw a massive change beginning slowly with the New Deal, but culminating with the Great Society, and nothing has changed that dynamic since the 1960s.

Barack Obama And Progressive Disillusionment: What Is The Alternative?

Ronald 1 Comment

With the announcement of a deal on the Debt Ceiling Crisis last night, but still to be voted on today by both houses of Congress without a guarantee of its passage at this moment of writing, the question arises as to what is the future of the progressive movement in America.

Many might say the answer is to give up on Barack Obama and challenge him in the primaries, and or run a candidate on a third party line in November 2012.

If one looks at the history of such efforts, however, it always leads to the worst alternative to progressivism being triumphant!

In November 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy entered the race for the Presidency against President Lyndon B. Johnson, followed by Senator Robert Kennedy in March 1968, leading to his withdrawal and replacement as the administration candidate by Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The split engendered in the party over the war in Vietnam led to a divided Democratic convention, and the defeat of Humphrey by Richard Nixon, who proceeded to continue the war in Vietnam another four years, something assuredly that would not have happened under a President Humphrey. This tumultuous split in the Democratic Party helped to make for a Republican advantage, and permanently changed the Democratic party, whereby they would only win the Presidency three times out of the next ten national elections.

In late 1979 and early 1980, President Jimmy Carter was challenged in the primaries, for being too moderate and centrist, by both Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Governor Jerry Brown of California. The effect of the primary challenge was to weaken Carter for the campaign, with all of the attacks by Kennedy and Brown used by the Republicans against Carter, and Ronald Reagan won the election, setting back the progressive movement dramatically, still having an effect in 2011!

There was similar discontent among some progressive elements with Bill Clinton in his first term, but no revolt or challenge from within the progressive movement, and Bill Clinton, with his faults and shortcomings, was reelected to a second term, the only Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

So while there can be discontent and disappointment with Barack Obama, that he has not achieved everything that progressives desire, try to imagine President John McCain instead, and try to imagine whether any of the many accomplishments of the Obama Presidency would have been achieved, and the answer is clearly negative.

So when Ralph Nader, who helped to defeat Al Gore by running in Florida in the 2000 election, talks about challenging Barack Obama, the answer is to steer clear of him unless one wants another 2000 election, unless one wants a Republican likely to be further to the right than George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan were in 2000 or 1980.

And when one tries to consider what progressive spokesman could really win the nation in 2012, one comes up empty handed. Certainly, Ralph Nader has no credibility and is seen as fringe in nature. Dennis Kucinich has appeal for some of what he advocates, but has run twice in the Presidential primaries and comes across as loony to many with his personal quirks. Bernie Sanders is appealing to many, but is actually a Socialist, not a Democrat, and could not possibly have broad based appeal. Russ Feingold is probably the most attractive alternative, and has formed Progressives United, an advocacy organization in Madison, WIsconsin, but he is weakened by the loss of his Senate seat in 2010, and it would be better if he ran for Senator Herb Kohl’s Senate seat with Kohl retiring, with a good chance to come back to the Senate in 2012 and promote the progressive cause from that location, in a more constructive manner.

Who else is possible, with any credibility? Realistically, NO ONE, and therefore, there is no alternative but to support Barack Obama, have him and his party fight the good fight over the next 15 months, and work to create a solid majority for progressive causes in the House of Representatives and the Senate!

If that quest is successful, and with a second term and no reelection to face, Barack Obama would likely turn further to the left, stick his neck out, and become more progressive than he has been able to do, logistically, in this first term. With all the criticism that has been and will be made of Barack Obama, he still has the most progressive term in office since Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s with his Great Society!

Gay Rights, Minnesota, And Separation Of Church And State

Ronald 2 Comments

Minnesota is the land of Ten Thousand Lakes, the state of such luminaries in the past as Hubert Humphrey, Harold Stassen, Walter Mondale, and Paul Wellstone. It is the state of Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar.

However, it is also the state of Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty, both of whom profess to be Tea Party supporters and social conservatives, who appeal for support from those who believe in church and state being one, rather than supporting separation, as the Founding Fathers intended.

The hate mongers in the state legislature have forced a question on the 2012 state ballot, to ban gay marriage in the state constitution, a concept which does not belong in ANY constitution anywhere!

Democratic State Assemblyman Steve Simon spoke up in dramatic fashion against such a constitutional amendment, stating how much longer will we try to believe that being gay is not innate in a human being, and Republican John Kreisel, who lost both legs in Iraq, also opposed it on the grounds that gay soldiers die in defense of their country, and we have no problem with that, but don’t want to give them basic human rights to marry who they love!

As the polls indicate a majority of Americans have no problem with gay marriage rights, it is time for all decent people to organize against the hate mongers and the religious zealots who wish to promote a narrow minded change in the state constitution, which in future years will serve as a major embarrassment to the history and heritage of a state much more famous for progressive and liberal traditions!

The Split Political Personality of Minnesota

Ronald Leave a comment

Minnesota is certainly not the only state to have a split political personality, but right now it really stands out as unusual!

My colleague, Professor Steve Watnik, pointed this out today, and made me really think about this, so here goes!

Minnesota had great political luminaries in the past, including Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Eugene McCarthy, and Paul Wellstone, and continues to have some today in Senators Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, and Congressman Keith Ellison, who is the first Muslim in Congress.

But it is also the state of two potential GOP candidates for President: the solid conservative former Governor Tim Pawlenty, who has managed to avoid looking or acting loony or weird, as so many others in the party have appeared; and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who has no problem in looking loony and weird, and seems to revel in it, as she displays total ignorance and outrageous comments while claiming to be religious and led by God’s command. Only Sarah Palin may be more outrageous in her behavior and comments than Bachmann, but certainly it is a close race between the two ladies!

So Minnesota is likely to see two home staters competing for the nomination, along with others, and Pawlenty seems legitimate, while Bachmann most certainly does not, all adding to the allure of following Minnesota politics for the Presidential Election year of 2012!

Senator Bernie Sanders Of Vermont: A Truly Principled Progressive In The Vein Of Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, And Russ Feingold! :)

Ronald Leave a comment

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is still in process on his personal filibuster of the Obama-GOP tax deal, which has caused a major split in the Democratic Party in Congress.

Sanders is an Independent Socialist who allies with the Democratic Party in the Senate. He was a member of the House of Representatives from 1991-2007, and was elected to the Senate in 2006. He has the distinction of being the longest serving Independent member of Congress in American history.

While some would say, “but he is a Socialist!”, the answer is “So what!” There is nothing wrong with Sanders’s brand of Socialism, as it is in the tradition of great progressives of the past, including Robert La Follette, Sr, Robert La Follette, Jr., George Norris, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Russ Feingold and many others.

He is the champion of the working man and woman, of the middle class, of the poor, of the sick, of the elderly, of the young, of ethnic minorities, of ALL average Americans who will NEVER achieve the so called “American dream” of becoming wealthy. All they want is a fair shake from their government, instead of a government that favors the wealthy and upper class and corporations that promote monopoly, greed and selfishness.

Sanders is to be applauded for his principled stand, his high moral and ethical beliefs, and his willingness to remind us of how desperate conditions are for millions of Americans, who cannot afford gasoline, food, rent, medical costs, clothing etc on their struggling low income jobs if they are fortunate enough to have one, and the millions of Americans who have no work, are losing their homes, and whose children are facing the scarring nature of economic deprivation. 🙁

Sanders’ filibuster speech, lasting seven hours at this point with no set end in sight, is a speech for the ages, a speech which should be honored historically as much as the speech of Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963, along with the great principled speeches of the people mentioned above, and others not named.

If only we had one hundred Bernie Sanders in the Senate, or a combination of Sanders and the various progressive leaders mentioned above, who are part of our history, we would be a far better nation.

Instead, through the ignorance and fear of many poor and middle class citizens, plus manipulation by special corporate
interests in the recent campaign, and assisted by the Supreme Court Citizens United decision in January, the country is now faced with the reality of a Republican Party which is going to make the plight of the American people MUCH MORE NIGHTMARISH over the next two years! 🙁

They have Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in a tough position for the moment, necessitating, unfortunately, the striking of a deal just to accomplish short range goals.

But starting next year, Barack Obama and his party MUST fight the good fight that Bernie Sanders represents, and work to convince the American people that the Democrats are indeed the party of the people who have their best interests at heart, and deserve control of both houses of Congress and the White House in the 2012 elections!

Liberals, Progressives, And The Reality Of American Politics

Ronald 2 Comments

Liberals and progressives in large numbers are denouncing the agreement reached between President Obama and Congressional Republicans on the issue of the so called Bush tax cuts being continued for another two years.

The author is not happy with this agreement, which will raise the national debt by nearly a trillion dollars, take money away from the Social Security reserves by the fact of a lower collection of Social Security taxes, and allow the further stratification of America by making the rich richer, the poor poorer, and the middle class further exploited! 🙁

However, the restoration of the estate tax, the continuation of unemployment compensation for the millions out of work in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the retaining of other tax credits for the poor, and the two year limit on the extension of tax cuts, are all good points in an unpleasant but realistic compromise for the moment, so that taxes do not go up for everyone on January 1!

Barack Obama made clear yesterday at his news conference that he felt the GOP were “hostage takers”, but that the American people would be further victimized by the GOP, which he said only cares about the super rich, if he did not make a temporary deal!

Obama made clear that the battle over taxes was just delayed, not resolved, and that he would make it an issue in the 2012 campaign. So although he may be seen by many as “caving in” and “surrendering”, his contention is that the fight will be brought to the GOP in the next election, and it sounded as if he was prepared to be Harry Truman a la 1948, and “give them hell”!

Certainly, his rhetoric was aggressive and confrontational regarding the GOP. But it was also critical of the “purist” progressives and “pie in the sky idealists” who are criticizing his strategy!

Obama pointed out that he has either accomplished what his goals were, or has made progress on those that are not achievable in the short term. He is looking to the long term, and he feels that he has kept the promise of his campaign to bring change, or start to bring change in many areas where the politics make it impossible for now to accomplish success!

Obama said compromise is unavoidable in American politics, and that playing politics alone would not bring about desired results. We would not be the nation we are if not for compromise, Obama asserted. In that, he is absolutely right!

And when one looks at the history of the Democratic Party and the progressive and liberal crusade for a better America, one unfortunately MUST realize that this nation is fundamentally a conservative nation slow to react to the need for change! 🙁

Progressives, liberals, and the Democratic Party have accomplished great things since the 1930s, but the resistance and opposition to these changes has been fierce, and therefore, progress has been incremental, often delayed and often frustratingly slow! 🙁

But one thing is absolutely clear: When Democrats, progressives and liberals fight and divide amongst themselves, the right wingers of this country triumph! 🙁

When discontent leads to a decision to work against a Democratic President because everything is not ideal and perfect, the Republican Party wins! 🙁

It happened in 1980, when liberal opposition to President Jimmy Carter, as exemplified by Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown, helped to lead to Ronald Reagan in the White House!

It happened in 1968 when liberal opposition to Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey led to Richard Nixon in the White House!

It led to Al Gore losing Florida in 2000 when Ralph Nader, a true “pie in the sky idealist” took enough votes away to throw the state to George W. Bush!

So do we want Barack Obama to be damaged and cause his loss for 2012 and get a far less desirable Republican in the White House? 🙁

Certainly, a second term of Obama will bring more chance of change and reform than if a Republican is elected!

If nothing else, the Supreme Court and lower federal court judge appointments will be a lasting legacy, which would be better under the control of Obama than a Republican President from 2013-2017!

So the reality of American politics is that compromise is often essential, as only TWICE has a Democratic President had enough of a margin of his party to be able to accomplish most of his goals: Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s!

Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama have had to work within the framework of a strong opposition blockading a lot of change!

This is the sad truth and reality of American politics, and progressives and liberals NEED to recognize this and work with President Obama and give the Republican Party “hell” over the next two years and in the Presidential Election of 2012!

Minnesota: The Ultimate Split State Politically!

Ronald Leave a comment

Here we are four weeks after the election, and still the Governorship race is not settled in Minnesota! 🙁

Democrat Mark Dayton, former Senator, leads Tom Emmer, the Republican and Tea Party favorite by a little over 8,000 votes, and the recount is still on, with Emmer challenging the result since it is within one percent or less of a lead held by Dayton.

This recount brings back memories of the Minnesota Senate race of 2008, which was ultimately won by Al Franken over Senator Norm Coleman by just a few hundred votes, after lawsuits and recounts that went on for six months!

Minnesota, once the state of such luminaries as Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, Eugene McCarthy, and Paul Wellstone, today is the true epitome of a state with a split personality!

It has two Democratic Senators, Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, but it has had Tim Pawlenty, a very conservative Republican as its governor, and Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party and conservative Congresswoman, as another major factor in the increasingly conservative GOP, and the voters have been truly evenly split about the direction of the state, leading to the excruciatingly close results in these statewide elections!

Minnesota is truly now a microcosm of the political state of the nation, and it is not a promising political climate for the future! 🙁