William Howard Taft

1913: A Year Of Two “Progressive” Amendments To The Constitution, 16 And 17!

A century ago, as the Presidency of William Howard Taft came to an end, and as Woodrow Wilson was about to be inaugurated, the Constitution had two new amendments added within two months of each other—the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.

Other than the original ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, never was the country to be so affected by constitutional change that transformed the nation, as with these two amendments.

President Taft, the so called “conservative” leaving office, supported both of these amendments, and they have have a massive impact on the nation ever since.

The 16th Amendment established the “progressive” federal income tax, at a time when we had seen the tripling of population, and the multiplication of social and economic injustice since the Civil War 50 years earlier. Without the federal income tax, there was no way that the nation could ever have moved forward and met its responsibilities to its citizens. The only problem was that over the years the wealthy would find all kinds of ways to manipulate the system, and so, today, the federal income tax is no longer very “progressive”. And also, there is a move on by conservatives and libertarians to repeal the income tax amendment, and have a national sales tax instead, a move that will not happen, but it if did, it would mean greater taxation based on consumption, and would hurt the poor and the lower middle class much more than the wealthy and upper middle class.

The 17th Amendment, the most democratizing amendment we had yet seen, called for direct popular election of the United States Senate, a move encouraged by muckraker David Graham Phillips and his book, THE TREASON OF THE SENATE, published in 1909. Instead of corrupt politicians in state legislatures choosing US Senators, an indication that the Founding Fathers did not trust the masses to choose their Senators, the decision was to allow the people to choose their Senators for a six year term.

How could anyone find fault with this, even with the recognition that often states may make “bad” choices for their Senators? Whatever we think about the choices, it is still better to have the people select their Senators, and in a sense, to be held accountable if they make an embarrassing, or disastrous choice. This is the power of the people, a movement toward direct democracy. And yet, there is a movement among conservatives to repeal this amendment, as well as the 16th Amendment.

Fortunately, it is very difficult to accomplish an amendment, and only the repeal of prohibition of liquor, the 21st Amendment effectively negating the 18th Amendment, has ever occurred.

We can look back on a century of the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment, and applaud what progressives accomplished a century ago!

Chief Justices And The Presidential Oath Of Office

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

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!

Evaluating Woodrow Wilson A Century After His Election To The Presidency, And On His 156th Birthday Commemoration!

Woodrow Wilson, our 28th President, was born on this day in 1856, and was elected President in the four way race of 1912, running against Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Eugene Debs, arguably the most exciting Presidential election in American History.

The President with the least government experience, only two years as Governor of New Jersey; the only earned PH. D. to become President; the first President elected who grew up in the South (Virginia) since the Civil War; the President to face the greatest war crisis since Abraham Lincoln; the President who emphasized the importance of international affairs and the need for an international organization to promote peace; the President who was the culmination of the Progressive reform movements of the early 20th century; and the President who promoted successfully his domestic agenda, and then took on Theodore Roosevelt’s even more advanced progressive ideas and made them his own—this President has also been bitterly attacked by many for his shortcomings in many areas, and particularly has been viciously attacked by right wing conservatives, including Glenn Beck and George Will, who have torn his image to shreds.

Well, the question is whether the attacks on Wilson are fair and just, so that requires a careful examination of the positive and negative aspects of his Presidency.

Let’s start with the negative points that can be made about Wilson, and they are plenty!

1. Wilson was a white supremacist, despite his stellar education, and failed to treat people of African, Asian, and Latin American heritage in a dignified way, whether in the nation or with foreign nations overseas. His treatment of China, Japan, Mexico, Haiti and governments of other nations outside of Europe were treated in an insensitive and unacceptable manner, and he issued an executive order mandating segregation of the races in Washington, DC, and failed to recognize the contributions of soldiers of other than the Caucasian race during World War I. He legitimized and set back mistreatment of African Americans for another thirty years, until progress was made by President Harry Truman after World War II.

2. Wilson, inexplicably, opposed the woman suffrage movement, and had suffragettes arrested for disturbing the peace in their marches on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House. Theodore Roosevelt had proposed this constitutional change in his 1912 Progressive Party campaign, but Wilson never moved in that direction on his own. Despite his opposition, the 19th Amendment was added at the end of his term in 1920.

3. Wilson had a horrible record on civil liberties in wartime, promoting passage of the Espionage Act, Sedition Act, and numerous other laws violating freedom of speech and press. He displayed total intolerance toward critics, once America was at war, and is regarded as one of the absolutely worst Presidents on the subject of civil liberties overall for his eight years in office.

4. Wilson was intolerant of opposition in Congress, refusing to work with Republicans when events worked against him, and tended to see things in religious terms, with him having God behind him, and often invoking religion in his speeches and comments. So he was seen as manipulative and deceitful in his actions and words that took us to ultimate war in 1917, and refused to negotiate on the Versailles Treaty after the war.

5. Wilson had a supreme, and self righteous ego, and this made him blind to reality much of the time, as when he had a severe paralytic stroke, but refused, along with his second wife, to keep Vice President Thomas Marshall informed, or to consider resigning in 1919-1921 so that the nation would have a President capable of leading the nation in the difficult post war days, when Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer led the Red Scare or Palmer Raids, another massive violation of civil liberties, which helped to spur the creation of the Civil Liberties Union in 1920. The nation was basically leaderless for a period of 18 months, as Wilson slowly recovered and even thought of running for an unprecedented third term despite his poor health.

Now to the positive side of Woodrow Wilson!

1. Wilson was the most successful President in domestic policy achievements up to his time in office, and only surpassed later by Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s and Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s. He accomplished all of his original domestic agenda, including legislation that has stood the test of time, despite criticism by conservatives and Republicans over the years, including the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the Clayton Anti Trust Act, as well as the first attempt at so called “free trade”, the lowering of tariff walls on foreign goods.

2. Wilson also accomplished the passage of laws originally promoted by Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, including the temporary end of child labor, protection for some workers on hours, workers compensation, and the protection of the merchant marine workers who are employed on ships offshore. Also, the first real attempt at agricultural aid to farmers to encourage expansion of acreage and the buying of new equipment, was also an idea promoted by TR. Basically, Wilson adopted much of the Populist Party and Progressive Party agenda of earlier times, and brought Progressive reform to its peak in the period before the conservative 1920s.

3. Wilson dealt with a war that was the most massive for America in 50 years, and was skilled enough to keep America out of war for two years and eight months after World War I began in Europe, but his role in the eventual entrance of America is still highly disputed even today, seen by some as dishonest and deceptive, but praised by many others as the best one could have expected.

4. Wilson had a vision of a peaceful post war world, and saw an international organization, the League of Nations, as the most important accomplishment of the Treaty of Versailles, and was stunned by the rejection of the US Senate to any international commitment, with America going into isolation. But his vision came to fruition a generation after his passing, with the establishment of the United Nations, but with many conservatives and Republicans bitterly opposed today in the US involvement in that international organization.

5. Wilson comes across, despite his many faults and shortcomings as worthy, in the minds of most experts, to be rated in the top ten of all Presidents–number 6 in the C Span 2000 poll and number 9 in the 2009 C Span Followup poll, and this despite bitter condemnation by so many right wing sources who only emphasize the evil side of Wilson, and give him no credit for his accomplishments. There is no question, however, that he had an important impact on the growth of Presidential power, the exact reason why the right wing hates his guts.

This blogger and author understands the mixed legacy of Woodrow Wilson, but still sees him as an influential President, who still impacts America a century after his first election to the Presidency!

So Happy Birthday, President Wilson, a man we will hear a lot about as we commemorate the major events of his administration over the next eight years from March 4, 1913, to March 4, 1921!

Presidents Who Did Not Seek The Office

With the recent comment by Tagg Romney that his father, Mitt Romney, did not have a great ambition to be President of the United States, it brings up the issue of actual Presidents who in the past century did not lust after the job, and it was promoted by others, or the job fell into their lap symbolically.

Six Presidents would fit this description as follows:

William Howard Taft (1909-1913) was prodded by his wife and President Theodore Roosevelt to run, with him preferring to be a judge, later becoming the only President to serve also as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (1921-1930), and being much happier in that position.

Warren G. Harding (1921-1923), who also was prodded by his wife and political professionals in a so called “smoke filled room” to run, and actually hated the responsibilities of being President.

Harry Truman (1945-1953), who was drafted for the ticket as the fourth term Vice President under Franklin D. Roosevelt, and never imagined himself as President, before he was, suddenly, thrust into the position in the last months of World War II.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was wooed first by the Democrats in 1948, and finally convinced by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. of Masachusetts and other moderate Republicans, that he was needed to be a candidate in 1952 to stop the conservative candidacy of Senator Robert Taft of Ohio, son of President Taft.

Gerald Ford (1974-1977), who was planning on finishing his career in the House of Representatives, with his only desire being to be Speaker of the House some day, but suddenly was thrust into the Vice Presidency when Spiro Agnew resigned, and soon became aware that he was likely to become President due to the Watergate crisis of President Richard Nixon.

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989), whose wife prodded him, along with conservative supporters, to run at the advanced age of 69 in 1980, when he had given up any thoughts of being President after losing the nomination to President Ford in 1976.

So six Presidents of the past century, if the situations had been different, would not be part of the exclusive “Presidents Club”.

Chris Christie’s Weight: A Disqualifying Factor For The Presidency?

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was asked last night by Barbara Walters of ABC whether his weight was a disqualifying factor the Presidency in 2016.

His response was negative, with the comment that he has done eighteen hour days, particularly in the recent Hurricane Sandy crisis which devastated the shoreline of his state.

But his statement does not remove the concern about whether the 50 year old New Jersey Governor is healthy enough to take on the burdens of the Presidency in four years, and for a theoretical eight years beyond 2016.

William Howard Taft was our heaviest President at 325-350 pounds, and is famous for taking long naps in the middle of the day, and being much less active than his predecessor, Theodore Roosevelt, and his successor, Woodrow Wilson.

Grover Cleveland was the second heaviest President at about 250 pounds, and no other President has been anywhere near as heavy as Taft and Cleveland. However, Bill Clinton did have problems with weight from his fast food habits before and during his White House years.

It is believed that Christie is far heavier than Taft, and it is a serious matter, as to whether he would have a long life span, and could handle the pressures of the Presidency with such an obesity problem.

At the least, it would have to be required that Christie provide detailed health information, and if he refused, a la Mitt Romney failing to provide detailed financial information, then he should be eliminated as a potential Presidential nominee, as we need a vigorous, healthy person running for President!

1912–Triumph Of Progressivism! 2012–Triumph Of Progressivism!

A century apart, America veered to the left, and we had a triumph of progressivism both in 1912 and 2012!

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Eugene Debs, and even, to some extent, William Howard Taft, promoted an agenda that would set the standard for the future New Deal and Great Society and ObamaCare.

Now, in 2012, we have institutionalized the New Deal, Great Society, and ObamaCare for the future; and we have seen more women elected to the House and Senate than ever before; we have seen openly gay candidates win in the Senate and House and in local races; we have seen the first Buddhist Senator and Hindu House member from Hawaii elected; we have seen labor help elect a whole group of progressive Democratic Senators across the nation; we have seen Hispanics and Latinos play a major role in politics; we have seen a more progressive House and Senate emerge; we have seen Barack Obama given political capital to bring about greater change in his second term; we have seen the Supreme Court preserved as a balanced body for the long term; we have seen the progressive vision of TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, even Nixon and Ford, Carter, and Clinton preserved and enhanced; and we have seen a repudiation of an interventionist foreign policy , as under the neoconservative influence during the Presidency of George W. Bush.

America is moving forward into the 21st century, just as in 1912, we moved forward into the 20th century. We have repudiated, in 1912 and 2012, returning to the 19th century!

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

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!

The Tension Is Rising On The Vice Presidential Debate: Can Joe Biden “Save” Barack Obama And Himself From Likely Historic Oblivion If They Lose Election?

Vice President Joe Biden, who has faced many crises in his life, has always been a man of principle and courage, and he now faces the greatest challenge of his entire political career: resuscitate the Obama-Biden Presidential ticket from possible historic oblivion if they lose the election 27 days from now!

It is sad, but true, that when Presidents lose reelection, they end up in the historical wilderness—not appreciated, to a great extent forgotten, taking generations for any historical recognition.

Ask John Adams, William Howard Taft, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush–all of whom have not been treated well historically–because they came in between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson; Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson; and Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, in the cases of Adams, Taft and Bush, and before Ronald Reagan in the case of Carter, with Reagan being mythologized in a unrealistic way! Only Adams has finally been recognized, due to the work of David McCullough, as a President worthy of respect and admiration!

It would be a tremendous shame to history if the contributions of Barack Obama were to be relegated to the dustbin of history, particularly if much of what he has accomplished was reversed by a right wing Republican Congress and a President, Mitt Romney, who has no principles or beliefs beyond simply being President!

Special Commemorative Issue Of Newsweek On “The 10 Best American Presidents” (Of The 20th Century And 21st Century)!

Newsweek Magazine this week came out with a special commemorative issue, dealing with the American Presidency since Theodore Roosevelt. It is well worth investigating and purchasing by all political junkies and Presidential followers!

Since the issue only deals with “modern” Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and James K. Polk, usually rated the best Presidents before 1900 in that order, are not discussed.

Instead, there is a look at the 19 Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt to Barack Obama, and it is certain that most Republicans and conservatives will have “problems’ with the discussion and ranking that Newsweek provides!

The rankings of the top ten by historians are as follows:

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
Lyndon B. Johnson
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Woodrow Wilson
Harry Truman
Bill Clinton
John F. Kennedy
Ronald Reagan
Barack Obama

Note that seven of the top ten are Democrats, and only three Republicans are listed! And only Eisenhower and Reagan would not be considered “liberal” or “progressive” Presidents!

There is plenty of room for debate by all scholars, and most ratings of the modern Presidents would not put Johnson, Eisenhower, Wilson and Clinton so high; and Truman, Kennedy and Reagan so low, and even having Obama in the top ten!

But notice that one does not see “conservative” Presidents Harding, Coolidge and Hoover mentioned, and only Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush are even picked in the “public’ poll, from the other nine Presidents who served since 1900, eliminating Johnson and Wilson altogether!

The “public” list of the top ten is as follows:

Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
Franklin D. Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Barack Obama
Harry Truman
Theodore Roosevelt
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Jimmy Carter
George H. W. Bush

The knowledge base and expertise of the “public” is obviously far less than the experts, as the ranking is very different!

The “public” poll, disagreeing in many ways with the historical experts, still shows that “conservative” Presidents other than Reagan do not make the list—not only Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover, but also Taft, Nixon, Ford, and the second Bush! And the case could be made that Eisenhower and the first Bush were not really “conservative”!

First Ladies are also surveyed, and specific elections are discussed, and David Frum, a conservative, gives thumbs up to a Democrat, Harry Truman, while Sean Wilentz, a liberal, gives justice to a Republican, George H. W. Bush.

This issue is great food for thought!