First, let's talk about why there was a congressional election in the middle of June. When Donald Trump unexpectedly won the presidency in November, he began to fill his administration with Republicans with experience in Washington. A number of his cabinet members were members of the House of Representatives. Like any president, Trump nominated individuals to his cabinet that were from safe Republican districts. His administration knew that the vacancies that were created would, in all likelihood, be filled by Republicans in special elections. OMB Director Mick Mulvaney was easily replaced by a Republican in South Carolina. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke was a Congressman from Montana before his appointment. Montana was so solidly red that the Republican candidate to fill Zinke's vacant seat was charged with assaulting a reporter the day before the election and still won! Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama was chosen as the Attorney General. Being a senator, his seat was filled temporarily by an appointee of the Governor of Alabama. Of course, the Governor of Alabama is, you guessed it, a Republican. Finally, there is Tom Price, Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services. Prior to his new role he represented Georgia's 6th Congressional District. Like all of the others, Price was chosen in part, because his seat in the House was considered very safe for Republicans. How safe? The seat has been held by Republicans since the 1970s. No Democratic presidential candidate has carried the district in decades, And Tom Price won reelection in 2016 by more than 30 points.
So why the uproar about the 6th? Probably because, though solidly Republican, Donald Trump only carried the district by 1% point over Clinton. By virtue of being a suburb of Atlanta, with highly educated voters, the Democrats knew that these Republicans would be less friendly to Trump, than the rest of the #MAGA crowd. Finally, their candidate, Jon Ossoff, was young (only 30) and a political outsider. The Democrats felt that if they went into a Republican stronghold and stole a seat from the GOP, it would be a referendum on Trump. They failed. Ossoff ran on anti-trump platform against a traditional Republican. Traditional Republican voters might not like Trump, but they do like traditional Republicans. It was a terrible uphill battle from the start. It should be no surprise that Ossoff lost. Progressives around the country felt devastated when Ossoff lost and Trump felt the need to brag about the GOP victory in a rally. Both sides are overstating this race. In the long term, it means very little.
First of all, if Ossoff had won, he would have served roughly 18 months until the November 2018 election in which he, most likely, would have been defeated by a Republican. Things would have returned to normal. The district is red remember. Furthermore, Trump shouldn't feel over confident. The GOP had to spend millions and millions of dollars to defeat a political upstart who didn't even live in the district, in order to win a special election that shouldn't have been close. Both sides can learn something from the race, but by 2018 it will be all but forgotten.
The Democrats have reason to be optimistic about the 2018 midterm elections. For starters, historically the party out of power always picks up seats in the midterm election. The Democrats may not take the House, but they will certainly narrow the gap. The same will probably be true for the Senate. Why? Right now, there are plenty of moderate Congressional districts, with GOP Congressmen, that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. These Republicans, particularly those in places like California and New York, are going to no doubt suffer from the Trump factor. Considering the fact that the President's approval rating is nearing historically low levels, there is reason to believe that the GOP will have to do the same thing they did in the Georgia 6th, spend millions of dollars to protect safe seats. This means they are unlikely to divert resources to vulnerable seats throughout the country. It is 2018 that matters, not 2017. There are 20 or more seats, with far more moderate voters than the Georgia 6th, that should be the focus of the progressive movement. The seats that were open in 2017 were open for a reason, they were considered safe, and the GOP had to fight to protect them. They were successful, but the Democrats should feel good as well.
Of course, good feelings don't win elections. Yes, the base is energized and yes, Donald Trump is very unpopular. However, Democrats can not run on a platform that is nothing more than anti-Trump. Democratic candidates must put forward and actually agenda. Arguably, the reason Trump won the White House is because the Clinton campaign spent too much time focusing on what a horrible person Trump is rather than focusing on a clear economic message that would impact voters' lives. Whoever Democrats nominate for the nearly 5 congressional seats 450+ congressional seats that are up for election in 2018, they'd better have something better than "vote for me because the other side is worse."
Finally, one of the great mistakes of political observers is an over emphasis on the federal government at the expense of the state governments. American's lives are far more impact by the laws passed in state capitols than they are what happens in Washington D.C. However, most of us can't even name our state representative or senator. A shocking number of Americans don't even know the name of their state's governor. What's worse, hundreds of state and local (and many Congressional) races are unopposed in any given election year. This means, incumbent candidates win by default. In 2016, three of my local representatives, all Republicans, ran unopposed. What the Republican party has done a fantastic job of over the past 8 years is focusing on local and state politics. In doing so, they have won control of 32 state legislatures and have elected 33 governors. As a result, they have been able to pass conservative agendas. They have passed voter ID laws, gerrymandered districts, dismantled medicaid expansion, rolled back regulations, and appointed state judges. Whether or not you agree with their politics, their emphasis on state government should be applauded. In America, all politics is local. If progressives really want to limit the power of the Trump administration, the first line of defense is the state capitol. If you're living in Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, Iowa, California, or anywhere in between, you'd be far better served to donate money, knock on doors, and support candidates for local and state offices than you are chipping in $5 in hopes of winning a symbolic victory in Georgia.
As a progressive, I'm disappointed that Ossoff didn't win. Just as I'm disappointed Democrats didn't win any of the other special elections. However, it is important to step back and take a look at the whole picture. Political change is not brought about by winning single, random elections, but rather by years of harnessing momentum and winning when and where it matters. It will matter in 2018, it will matter 2020, and it will certainly matter when it comes time to vote for your state's legislative and executive offices. In the next year, I for one, need to follow my own advice and get active.
When Vice President Calvin Coolidge learned of President Harding's death in 1923, he was with his family in rural Vermont. Despite the fact that it was late at night, a small crowd of reporters, surrounded the farm house. Coolidge's father, a justice of the peace, dutifully grabbed a Bible and administered the oath of office to his son by candlelight. With that, Calvin Coolidge became the 30th President of the United States.
Most Americans don't know much about the man known as "Silent Cal", and that would probably be OK with the former President. Coolidge was a man of very few words who never sought the spotlight. Known for his short speeches and dry wit, I doubt the humble Coolidge would succeed, or have an interest in, modern day politics. Grandstanding, stump speeches, and rallies were not his style. However, in his time, Coolidge appeared to be just the kind of president Americans wanted. He was hands-off, fiscally conservative, and in the background. In short, Coolidge allowed the Roaring 20s, to roar. That's probably why he is so far down on this list.
It is for his policy of low taxes, free enterprise, and quasi-isolationism that Coolidge is remembered. That being said, when you're goal is to get the government to do as little as possible, there is very little to be remembered for. Coolidge lowered taxes multiple times during his 6 years in office. By the end, less than 5% of Americans actually paid taxes. Coolidge's proposals were known as "scientific taxation" which is basically the idea behind supply-side economics; low taxes on the wealthiest Americans will lead to more spending, jobs, and ultimately more revenue. To his credit, Coolidge understood that if taxes were lowered, spending needed to be cut. By doing so, he was able to pay off a sizable portion of the federal debt. However, this inactive government that is praised by many conservatives also turned a blind eye to the suffering of thousands. When the Mississippi River flooded in 1927 it caused destruction and suffering on a scale rarely seen in American history. When Congress began to craft legislation to aid in the recovery, Coolidge resisted. In his mind, such social welfare would be inappropriate. No doubt, he sympathized with those who had lost their homes, and perhaps even loved ones, but bad things happen and they shouldn't look to the government for help. Although he did sign an aid bill passed by Congress, it was not without a heavy dose of regret.
More noteworthy was Coolidge's veto of an agricultural bill designed to help the nation's farmers. The Great Depression, in many ways started years earlier for farmers. A devastating combination of over production (thanks to mechanization) and plummeting prices (thanks to a decrease in demand) caused terrible economic hardship for farmers throughout the 1920s. On two occasions, Coolidge vetoed the McNary-Haugen Farm Relief Bill. The bill would have provided subsides to farmers, bought up excess crops, and attempted to sell them overseas if possible. The hope was the agricultural prices would recover, farmers could make a profit, and food would be on grocery shelves across the nation. To Coolidge though, this was an improper use of tax payer dollars. The bill died twice on the executive's desk and farmers continued to suffer. By the end of the decade, so would everyone else.
Calvin Coolidge was a man for his time. The American people wanted an inactive government and his administration gave them one. The American people wanted to retreat from the world stage. Coolidge did his part to make that a reality by signing strong immigration restrictions and endorsing the infamous Kellog-Briand pact which "outlawed war." If the job of a president is to give the people what they want, I suppose Coolidge did a good job. Unfortunately, the booming economy at home and the peace abroad was built upon a house of cards waiting to fall. Hindsight being 20/20, we now know what happened soon after Coolidge left office. The house of cards collapsed.
Throughout the country the seeds of the Depression were being sown. Zero regulation of the stock market led to speculation, buying stock on margin, and inflated prices. The gap between the rich and the poor was growing each year leaving far too many Americans with far too little purchasing power to keep the economy afloat. Zero regulations on banks meant that banks could make incredibly unwise loans to costumers unable to pay them back. Nor were banks required to keep deposit reserves, meaning a run on a bank could kill even a healthy financial institution. Americans were buying new consumer goods like radios and cars, but they were doing so using credit. The average American's household consumer debt was far higher than previous generations. An unstable international finance system gave the illusion of success, but really was propping up failing economies throughout Europe. The suffering of millions in Europe was leading to an increase in nationalism, imperialism, and fascism, while the feckless League of Nations (which the US did not join) sat ideally by doing nothing. Shortly after Coolidge left office all of these problems manifested themselves.
The former President does not deserve blame for the crisis that happened during after his administration, Rather, the overwhelming opinion of most politicians, business leaders, and every day Americans helped to, unknowingly, create fertile ground for economic disaster. It is only through the benefit of hindsight and the lens of history, that we now see the underlying problems during the 1920s. I don't blame Coolidge, or his advisers, for not recognizing them, but the fact remains that they existed during his silent watch.
In my classroom I have a large poster featuring the timeline of the American presidency. A former student once visited my room and began examining the poster. "Mr. Ashcraft" the student said. "I was in APUSH for an entire year, and I passed the test, and I didn't know we had a president named Benjamin Harrison." While this isn't exactly the sort of thing a history teacher likes to hear, I wasn't entirely surprised. Harrison is little more than a footnote in American history. Textbooks hardly mention his name. He is overshadowed by his predecessor/successor Grover Cleveland (the only person to win two nonconsecutive terms) and by his more famous grandfather, William Henry Harrison, who died one month into office. Harrison had an unremarkable presidency and accomplished very little. However, a upon closer examination, Benjamin Harrison had ideas and supported policies that, had he lived in a later era, perhaps would have made him a president of real consequence. Today, we'll examine how Harrison laid a foundation which future presidents would build upon.
Benjamin Harrison was sworn in as President of the United States on March 4, 1889, just a few weeks short of the 100th anniversary of George Washington's inauguration. To many observers, the juxtaposition of the god-like Washington and the short, unimposing, unremarkable Harrison made a statement about the changing nature of our political leaders in a mere 100 years. How far had we fallen? The shadow of Washington, along with Harrison's rather short stature (5'6") made it easy to lampoon the new President. Many political cartoons of the day portray a small Harrison being dwarfed by a large hat, not unlike the one his grandfather would wear. To his critics, he didn't seem up to the job; sure to be overwhelmed. It didn't help that Harrison, like several others, was elected President without the consent of the governed. That is to say, he lost the popular vote to President Cleveland, but eked out a narrow win in the Electoral College.
Because this was an era of weak presidents and a strong Congress, Harrison mostly called upon Congress to take action to ensure civil rights protection for blacks. He did order his Justice Department to prosecute violations of the Fifteenth Amendment which prevented discrimination on the basis of race in elections, but the impact was limited. He called upon Congress multiple times to pass legislation which would empower the federal government to take action to protect African American's access to the ballot. He questioned the mantra of states rights as a euphemism for voter suppression. Though Harrison was ultimately unsuccessful in these matters, his support for an more active role in civil rights protection is certainly noteworthy.
In the area of conservation, Harrison supported legislation that would empower future progressive presidents to do much to protect the environment. Working with Congress, Harrison set aside more than 20 million acres of forest for preservation during his term. He also actively became involved in an effort to prevent the eradication of a species; the fur seal. The open water fishing of seals for their pelts was big business in the late 1800s. While the seals primary lived and bred on in the Aleutian Islands of Alaska, the open sea was where they spent much of their time. This is also where they could be killed in tremendous numbers by various international vessels, most importantly the British. Harrison's navy intercepted Canadian vessels and entered into negotiations to changing fishing rights, and therefore protect the seals, with the British. Negotiations that eventually proved to be successful. Benjamin Harrison is not a man well-known for his conservation efforts, but the work his administration did was fairly forward thinking given the era.
Finally, Harrison made his mark on the economy as well. Though certainly economically conservative, Harrison made it known early in his administration that he was troubled by the concentration and abused of power in the hands a small number of industrialists. His administration supported the groundbreaking Sherman Anti-Trust Act. This act made monopolies (aka trusts) illegal. During the Harrison administration, and the next two that followed, the act was rarely enforced. However, this act would prove critical for future President Theodore Roosevelt who took action on behalf of working Americans earning him the (overstated) nickname "Trust Buster."
That being said, it was also the economy that helped bring Harrison's administration to an end. The economy began to flounder during the second half of his term. A budget surplus from the Cleveland years had evaporated. High tariffs, supported by Harrison, were blamed for a growing recession throughout 1892, eventually leading to the Panic of 1893.
Underwhelmed by his performance, Benjamin Harrison did not have strong support from his own party in 1892. The Democrats renominated former President Grover Cleveland as their candidate. After all, Cleveland had won the popular vote 4 years earlier. As election day neared, Harrison suffered a personal tragedy when his wife became ill and died just weeks before the election. Cleveland won the election comfortably.
After leaving office, Benjamin Harrison became a education advocate, author, and even an international lawyer. He remarried and lived an active life until his death in 1901. Well-liked and fondly remembered in his home state of Indiana, Benjamin Harrison is largely a forgotten figure in American history. His temperament and administrative style were well-suited for his era, but his personal opinions and quiet advocacy were, in many way, well ahead of his time.
Today's story is sad. It's the story about a mentally unwell man having easy access to a firearm and using to do harm. It is a story about advances in science and the willing denial of scientific research. It is the sad story of the death of President James Abram Garfield.
If you've read my earlier blog entry about Chester A. Arthur (if you haven't I'm insulted), you know that James Garfield's nomination and eventual election represented a compromise within a divided Republican Party. Two wings of the party, the Stalwarts and Half-Breeds, represented to different view points in regarding political appointments. The traditional, Stalwart point of view was that government jobs should be given to party loyalist and those that supported victorious campaigns with money and influence. This traditional way of doing things was known as the Spoils System. The Half-Breeds, accurately believed that such political patronage led to corruption and inefficiency. Garfield, like other Half-Breeds, advocated for civil service reform believing that political jobs should be given out on the basis of merit. A radical idea to be sure. At the Republican convention of 1880, the two sides were bitterly divided as to who should be the party standard bearer. Garfield, a nine term Congressman from Ohio, was chosen, in part, because he was well respected by both factions. As a consolation, Chester A. Arthur, a product of the Spoils System and a die hard Stalwart, was chosen as the Vice Presidential candidate. This convention is also noteworthy because it is first time in history that a person sought a third term as President. Former President Ulysses S. Grant tried to secure the nomination but was defeated by Garfield.
There is a great deal to like about James Garfield. Everything he achieved in life was due to a tireless work ethic and intellect. Garfield came from a humble background and had to work his way through college. This included working as a teacher, a career he continued after graduating. Garfield was officially a lawyer by trade, but also worked as a minister, making him the only preacher to be elected to the Presidency. During the Civil War, Garfield left his job in the Ohio legislature to join the Union army. Despite no previous military training, Garfield quickly moved up the ranks eventually being promoted to Major General. Garfield, obviously, was against slavery and became an advocate for legal protection for freedmen after the war. During the postwar years, Garfield was elected to the United States House of Representatives where he was a chairmen of numerous committees. His election to the nation's highest office makes him the only sitting member of the House to move from the capitol to the White House. Given his track record, there is reason to believe that James A. Garfield could have very well had a successful presidency. Unfortunately, he didn't have time to make much of an impact.
One person who supported James Garfield in 1880 was Charles Guiteau. Guiteau has been recorded in history books as a disgruntled office seeker. But in reality, Guiteau was much more than a person with a grudge, he was a troubled man who most likely suffered from some kind of mental illness. Throughout his entire life, Guiteau struggled to hold down job, develop close relationships, and generally fit in. He decided to take an unconventional path. As a young man, Guiteau joined the controversial Oneida Community. Oneida was one of a handful of so called Utopian societies that were popular in the mid 1800s. The extreme religious sect sought to create a perfect, sinless community, focused on manual labor, communal property, and "complex marriage." Even within this fringe community, Guiteau was considered too odd to fit in. It seems to be the issue of complex marriage that ultimately caused Guiteau to leave Oneida; not because he disagreed with it, but rather because he wasn't allowed to participate. Complex marriage meant that all adults in Oneida were married to all other adults. As I explain to my students, "In Oneida, men and women would go on 'dates' with whomever they wished, whenever they wished. We know that despite asking lots of girls to go on a 'date', no one would ever agree to go out with Guiteau. Even within a community with such low standards and odd view points, Charles Guiteau was considered too much of an odd ball."
After leaving Oneida, Guiteau tried his hands at a variety of trades, failing at all of them. He declared himself a lawyer (a profession not well regulated at the time), argued one case and lost miserably. We know that he must have had many troublesome personality traits because there were multiple people in his life that tried to have him institutionalized. Nevertheless, Guiteau eventually took an interest in politics and threw his support to Garfield. Despite not having any official role in the campaign, Guiteau wrote pamphlets supporting Garfield and once gave a speech, attended by virtually no one, advocating for the Republican ticket. The closest he ever got to being involved with the campaign was he once shook the Garfield's hand in passing. When the Republicans were victorious, Guiteau believed his support had been crucial and looked forward to being rewarded with a political appointment. After all, he was a Stalwart.
Obviously, Guiteau was not qualified for such a job and never stood a chance of getting one. However, within his troubled mind he clearly believed he deserved one. After months of harassing cabinet members, writing numerous confusing letters, and trying to get close to the President, Guiteau was finally told, under no uncertain terms, that he would not be getting an appointment. It is at this time, that he decided to kill the President. Guiteau, went to a local gun dealer and purchased a revolver. He is said to have purchased the more expensive model with the ivory handle because he thought it would look better in a museum. Obviously, there were no restrictions on gun sales or ownership in 1881. Then again, a person such as Guiteau probably would have very little trouble purchasing a firearm in 2017 either. After weeks of target practice, Guiteau began to stalk the President at public appearances. In July of 1881, Guiteau put on a suit, had his shoes polished, and went to the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station. When he saw President Garfield walking through the lobby, Guiteau calmly walked up and shot Garfield twice in the back. As he was being arrested, he famously proclaimed, "I am Stalwart [..] Arthur is president now!"
Guiteau was taken to jail to await trial. While in jail, he did a lot of writing including letters to President Arthur, assuming he would be pardoned. When his case went to trial, his defense argued that he was insane, but the judge wouldn't accepted it. It appears that Guiteau was convinced that he had done nothing wrong, that he would be acquitted and made plans to embark on a speaking tour once freed. After all, Guiteau was acutely aware of the fact that he was a celebrity now. Guiteau's story ended with a hangman's noose.
Many modern day doctor's who have examined Garfield's case argue that the President's wounds were not mortal. Some argue that because the bullet missed vital organs, the President could have recovered with minimal medical intervention and lived a full life with the bullet still lodged in his body. Although such view points are not universal, the majority of doctors believe that Guiteau's bullet was not the true cause of President Garfield's death. So why then did President Garfield, suffering from serious but perhaps non-life-threatening injuries die 2 months after being shot? The answer is most likely poor medical care. Groundbreaking scientific research had led to the discovery of germs a few decades earlier. Although microorganisms were not well understood, many in the medical field had begun to advocate for the sterilization of medical equipment when treating wounds as a means of preventing infection. Though the ideas had been around for a number of years, there were many who rejected the science. One such science denier was the chief physician tasked with treating President Garfield, Dr. Willard Bliss.
Bliss rejected the idea of microorganisms. He once argued in a paper that the things we can't see can't possibly make us ill. Almost immediately after Garfield was shot, Bliss and other doctors began sticking their unwashed hands into the wound searching, unsuccessfully, for the bullet. Most doctors at the time believed retrieving the bullet was essential to recovery. Once the President was stabilized, he was moved to the White House to recuperate. Nearly every day for weeks, Dr. Bliss and others would probe Garfield's wound still hoping to locate the elusive bullet; they never found it. At one point, Bliss enlisted the services of Alexander Graham Bell, who used an early version of a metal detector to find the bullet. Bell failed. In the first few days after the attack, the prognosis was positive for the President. He was in good spirits and even wrote family members reassuring them that he would soon be back to his old self. However, as the weeks passed, Garfield's condition worsened. His wound, never properly cared for began to show signs of infection. He began losing strength daily and was in terrible pain. Garfield developed a very high fever, caused by the terrible infection, most likely the result of unsanitary medical care. In addition, their are reports that Bliss refused to allow Garfield to eat much of anything save a small amount of oatmeal. As summer began to draw to a close, Garfield had lost an incredible amount of weight and his condition was dire. The President was moved from the White House to New Jersey to be with his family. There, on September 19, 1881, James Garfield died.
There are many lessons to be learned from Garfield's assassination. Even today, just as in 1881, when there is a tragedy, we ask "what could have been done to prevent this?" Charles Guiteau needed medical treatment; very little was available at the time. Guiteau should not have been allowed to purchase a weapon. But in 1881, the idea of background checks, or any form of gun control, was impossible. Garfield's doctors should have relied on the most advanced scientific research, instead they trusted traditional means of treatment. Garfield's death was the result of a series of unfortunate events, that have a great deal to teach us. It is important that we take the lessons to heart.
Evaluating President Garfield's time in office is difficult because he had so little time to accomplish anything. His presidency last just over 6 months, the second shortest in history. Not much time to leave an impression. However, for his vocal support of civil rights and education reform, along with his attempt at cleaning up political corruption, Garfield deserves some credit. As a result of his Garfield's death, Congress summoned the courage to pass the Pendleton Act which was the first meaningful civil service reform act of the nineteenth century. The anti-corruption legislation, though modest, no doubt would have won Garfield's approval.
It is easy to complain about one's job. "The pay sucks." "I don't feel appreciated." "The hours are too long." "We need a union!" are all common complaints. And I've been more than guilty of making many of these same statements throughout my career. However, occasionally, it is healthy to reflect on the positive aspects of one's place of employment. I am blessed to have a job. I'm also blessed to work for an organization that has afforded me some awesome experiences. This month, I had yet another awesome opportunity. I spend 10 days with 21 students, 5 medical professionals, and a good friend/colleague in La Paz, Honduras.
This was only my second trip to Honduras. Although, the school at which I work sends a team every summer. The purpose of the trip is to share the love of Christ through medical services. Each Spring our school has an annual medical drive where we collect several thousand bottles of vitamins, cough medicine, eye drops, allergy medicines, and various other essential items. We also raise money to purchase large amounts of antibiotics and receive generous donations of hundreds of toothbrushes, toothpastes, and reading glasses. All of these items are packed into luggage and taken with our team to Honduras.
Upon arrival in the capital, Tegucigalpa, we boarded a bus and headed to the city of La Paz, in the district of La Paz. Once there we unloaded at our very comfortable and spacious mission house/compound. In my opinion, everyone, at some point in their life, should spend ten days living with 27 other people in one house. Especially when 21 of those people are teenagers (18 of which were girls), there is no A/C, limited water for showers, and a strict no flushing policy for toilet paper! But there's good food and quality coffee, so it's actually quite nice. One of the cool things we do in Honduras is confiscate our students cell phones. Surprisingly, the kids don't complain. Free of the distraction of social media for 10 days, students spend their time playing games, singing songs, journaling, and making new friends. You know, the kind of things kids like to do when not staring at a screen. Most would be surprised at how little the students actually miss their phones throughout the 10 days. Many remark that they appreciated the chance to unplug.
On Monday, we began our 5 days of clinics. In total we visited 4 different towns. A local church had distributed tickets to the clinic a few weeks in advance of our arrival allowing for roughly 250 patients to be seen each day. Students, with help from local bilingual students, recorded patient symptoms, measured blood pressure, and took temperatures. Then patients would visit one of four doctors. Students sat with the doctors, took notes, occasionally helped with medical procedures, and received a hands on learning experience. If necessary, patients would go to the dentist who spent a lot of time pulling troublesome teeth. At this station, students would assist by holding flashlights and occasionally help with the extraction. Patients then headed to the pharmacy, which is where I spend all of my time. In the pharmacy we did our best to fulfill the doctors' requests. I mixed dozens of bottles of antibiotics and counted dozens of bags of pills. Students worked filling orders, dividing cough syrup, grabbing pre-counted bags of Tylenol, Advil, and vitamins, and making sure children took their worm medicine. After pharmacy, patients went to the foot washing station where students cleaned their feet before praying with them. It is a rather heartwarming site to see admittedly privileged American students, humble themselves and willingly wash the feet of people they've never met. Many of our kids already have, or are quickly developing, the kind of servant's heart that will make a positive impact in their communities for years to come. Finally, patients were all then given toothbrushes and toothpaste and sent on their way.
All in all, roughly 1000 men, women, and children received much needed medical attention. It isn't that medicines and doctors don't exist in Honduras, it is simply that your average person can not afford these basic services. Most all medical procedures require cash payment in advance before any work can be completed. This includes surgery. Many Hondurans don't receive much needed surgery because they can't afford the cost, which includes renting the necessary surgical equipment. For many, the visit with our doctors is the only opportunity they have all year to receive help. The Hondurans will wait for hours in heat waiting to be seen without so much as a complaint. I don't remember the last time I went to a doctor and didn't find myself getting aggravated because it took so long. An emphasis on time is a very American quality.
The doctors that take the trip are amazing. All of them are taking time off of work, sacrificing personal time, money, and comfort to meet the needs of others, share their gifts, and impact students. We are very blessed to able to work with such wonderful people.
Medical care occupied the majority of our time, but it certainly wasn't the only thing we did in La Paz. The first Saturday in Honduras, we helped the church host a party for local children. Our students did a great job of playing games with kids and allowing them to have a great time. The next weekend we visited a local orphanage where our students served a meal to roughly 20 kids before spending a few hours having fun. Early one morning we went to one of the poorest areas of town where we, along with the local church, delivered meals to those in need. Walking through a village consisting of homes built out of tarps, cinder blocks, and sheet metal, helps one to be thankful for the blessing in his own life. Of course, we attended church. Like most things in Honduras, church takes as much time as is needed. They are not bound by the clock. Sunday services start at 4:00 PM and last roughly 3 hours. How many times have I become annoyed because the pastor spoke a little too long and I didn't beat the lunch crowd? The services are long, but they are so filled with so much energy and worship that it is easy to forget the heat and enjoy the moment. Four of our students were able to share their stories with the congregation. They did a wonderful job.
Finally, I have to take a moment to thank my wife, Erin. I'm a high school history teacher, yet I probably spend more time away from home than most teachers. By comparison to those whose career has them on the road each week it may not seem like much, but I spend about a month traveling for work each year. Between an annual senior trip to California, mission trips to Poland and Honduras, and other responsibilities, my job gives me the chance to do some really cool stuff. However, none of this would be possible without the support of my wife. Erin willingly encourages me to travel and takes on full responsibility around the house in my absence. With a 2 year old in the picture, this is not an easy task. I'm very blessed to have such a wonderful partner who gives me the support I need to experience wonderful things like my recent trip to Honduras.
Upon reflection, I am very happy that I went to Honduras this summer. To be honest, I wasn't looking forward to the trip. We're in the middle of selling our house. I feel guilty leaving my wife with our son. Its hot. I had lots of reasons to stay home. However, as is always the case, I received far more from the trip than I could ever hope to contribute. It is true that Christians take mission trips to serve others, however in truth mission trips allow us to grow in our own faith in ways that aren't always possible at home. Our kids did an amazing job and I'm so proud of them. Those who complain about the selfishness of the younger generation don't know the amazing kids I work with on a daily basis. It was an honor to serve with such fine people and I look forward to going back.
As a history teacher, discussing modern political figures always presents a unique problem in the classroom. Because of the hyper-political era in which we live, any criticism or praise of a living president immediately results in charges of bias or partisanship. Yes, I have my political opinions All teachers do. But that shouldn't take away from our ability to fairly and accurately assess the successes and/or failures of politicians and policies, regardless of our political leanings. Some will immediately dismiss my low ranking of our 43rd President as "liberal propaganda", but I hope that you will find that my arguments are based upon historical trends and observable truths. That being said, please feel free to share your thoughts if you disagree with anything I've written.
First, let me start by saying "I like George W. Bush." To my super liberal friends, I'm sorry. To my ultra-conservative friends, I'm serious. I find George W. Bush to be an engaging, likable, and honorable man. Whether it be through his inarticulate speaking style or his Texas confidence, Bush has a way of connecting to voters. At no point, even during my more liberal college years, did I ever find George Bush to be anything other than genuine. I have never doubted George W. Bush's patriotism or sincerity. When he would give a speech, support an policy, or sit for an interview, I never questioned that he truly believed the ideas he supported were in the best interest of the country. I believe George W. Bush is a man of principle and his brand of "compassionate conservatism" is something the current GOP could certainly benefit from.
All that being said, George W. Bush entered the White House under less than ideal circumstances. He like 3 Presidents before him, was elected without the consent of the governed. That is to say, he lost the popular vote to Vice President Al Gore. This fact has hampered every administration that has entered office under such circumstances. Bush would be no different. Of course, given the disaster that was the 2016, in which Donald Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million ballots, the roughly 500,000 that separated Gore and Bush seems laughable. Bush's inability to win a majority of votes wouldn't have been as serious an issue had it not been for the state of Florida. Bush's brother, Jeb, was the governor of Florida and elected officials in the Sunshine State had close ties to the Bush campaign. Because the vote was so close, state law required a recount. Of course, before all ballots were recounted, the Supreme Court intervened. Voting along ideological lines, the high court ordered that the recount stop. To interfere with a state issue like election administration is certainly an odd thing for conservative judges to do. Nevertheless, the court awarded Florida and the election to Bush. Did George W. Bush actually win the state of Florida? Probably. However, the optics of the scenario looked very bad. In the end, George Bush was elected, took the oath of office, and the country moved on. The peaceful transition of power, even in the midst of so much controversy, is a testament to our nation and our Constitution.
George W. Bush took office and began moving forward with a strong conservative agenda. He had big ideas: a huge tax cut, education reform, and entitlement reform. Some of these policies he was successfully able to implement. However, Bush's presidency will always be defined by the events of September 11, 2001. When Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and thanks to heroic passengers, into an empty field in Pennsylvania, the world forever changed. Suddenly, the singular focus of the United States government became keeping Americans safe from terrorism.
I was a junior in high school, living in rural Ohio on September 11th. I remember being very confused as my classmates and I spent the entire school day watching coverage of the attack. The first thing my dad said to me when he walked through our front door that afternoon was "This is the worst thing that has ever happened." Truth be told, he was probably right. No single day in American history had ever been worse. Later that evening, my parents and I rushed out to the fill our cars with gasoline. When we arrived at the gas station we found long lines and police officers. Older Americans, remembering the 1970s, were worried that renewed struggle in the Middle East would lead to an oil embargo and economic catastrophe. I was confused. The story seen in my hometown played out in small towns across the country. In large cities, families worried that their city might be next. I can't imagine the horror, fear, and uncertainty that played out in New York and Washington.
As President Bush addressed the nation following the attacks, Americans experience a sense of unity not seen since the days of World War II. Americans have differences; deep and significant. However, at the end of the day, we all love our country. Tea Parties, Bernie Bros, NRA members, and libertarians, we all love our country and will rally together. It is a shame that it often takes unspeakable tragedy to unify us. But in 2001, all Americans looked to President Bush to leadership. For a few short months, the President did not disappoint.
When the United States invaded Afghanistan to dislodge the Taliban and destroy Al Qaeda, we did so with nearly universal support. Americans of all walks of life rallied to the cause. Our Allies did their part as well. Invoking Article 5 of the NATO charter, the western alliance sent troops to Afghanistan. Canadian, French, German, British, and numerous other troops fought side-by-side with American servicemen and women. This is to say nothing of the invaluable amount of intelligence sharing that took place between European allies to bring terrorists to justice. NATO is important.
This isn't to say that there were not debates in early days of the "War on Terror", because there were. A good example of this would be the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Realizing that intelligence agencies and security organizations didn't do a good enough job communicating in the years leading up to 9/11, the decision was made to put them all under one cabinet level department. The role of the DHS, the NSA, the FAA, and many other organizations tasked with keeping us safe is still something that is hotly debated today. It is ironic however that Bush, a conservative who has decried the expansion of government, oversaw the single greatest centralization of federal government power in a generation. Fear makes us do funny things.
The extraordinary thing about the Bush presidency is how his support evaporated in the years following 9/11. Historically, Americans will give a President the benefit of the doubt during times of crisis. Therefore, it must tell us something about the magnitude of the mistakes the Bush administration made in the years following 2001 to explain the President's loss of support.
George W. Bush had a historic opportunity to transform the United States for the better following September 11th. Had the U.S. stayed focused on Afghanistan, given the political and international support the mission had, it is possible that American troops would not still be fighting and dying in Afghanistan today. Bush could have announced that 9/11 would mark the beginning of the end of our nation's reliance on Middle Eastern oil. Without economic dependence on the Middle East, the U.S. would be less likely to engage in military operations in the region. With the support of our allies, the NATO alliance the Western world could have become stronger than ever. The democratic world could use our alliance to further combat terrorism, address economic concerns, and combat climate change. Instead, due in large part to the terrible decisions made by the Bush administration in 2003, Afghanistan once again fell into chaos, the Middle East was destabilized, and a generations old alliance was strained. In 2003, the Bush administration made the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history: the invasion of Iraq.
Looking back, it is hard to understand how the the United States allowed itself to be pushed into war in Iraq. We know that within weeks of 9/11 discussions at the highest level of government began to focus on Iraq. We know there were those in the White House and those in the Pentagon who hungered for war in Iraq and salivated at the idea getting access to Iraq's oil supply. We know that Saddam Hussein's government, while evil, had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. We know that despite some very shaky intelligence suggesting that Iraq might be pursuing Weapons of Mass Destruction, the overwhelming opinions of intelligence agencies around the world and the United Nations, they were not pursuing WMDs. We also know that no weapons were ever found in Iraq. We also know that Iraq, isolated and alone, with a second rate military, posed no threat to the United States or our allies. Despite all of this, members of Bush's inner circle, many of them with strong financial ties to the Middle East, convinced the President to order the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Without the support of our allies (save a halfhearted Great Britain), valuable resources were diverted from the unfinished work in Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf. In March, the war had begun with the support of more than 60% of Americans.
All of us remember the scenes on television. The American military quickly dismantled the Iraqi security forces. within weeks Baghdad had fallen and Saddam Hussein was hiding in a spider hole. On May 1, 2003 aboard an aircraft carrier President Bush declared that major military operations in Iraq had ceased, The United States had won. In short, "mission accomplished." Soon all hell would break loose.
Bush was reelected in 2004. The true cost of the Iraq War was not yet known. Americans appreciated the President's leadership in the days following 9/11, and the Democrats put forward an honorable but ultimately weak candidate, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. It also helped that the Bush campaign successfully, in my opinion, took advantage of people's faith for political gain. Rallying the Religious Right against the "threat" of gay marriage, the strong evangelical voting block organized in Bush's favor. For me the election of 2004 was important for two reasons. It was the first election in which I could cast a vote, which I found to be very exciting. It was also the first time I was told in a Sunday School class that it was my Christian duty to vote for the Republican Party. I quickly looked around half expecting to see a money changer a few tables over.
I always jokingly say to my students "I don't know why presidents run for 2nd terms, no one has ever had a good one." There is a lot of truth to that statement. However, George W. Bush might be the standard bearer for bad second terms. Thanks to the polices he pursued and events outside of his control, the younger Bush's 2nd term might be the worst in history.
For starters, Iraq descended into sectarian chaos. Without a stable government, without security, without jobs, sometimes without basic necessities, the centuries old powder keg in Iraq exploded. Terrorist organizations which had previously not been in Iraq set up operations. They were easily able to find recruits, because there were so many desperate people in Iraq. When the U.S. took over Iraq, the new government it set up fired all members of the military. Now there were thousands of unemployed young men, trained in warfare, willing to displace the invader. Thousands more, driven by extremism, traveled to Iraq to enter the fray. There was one such organization, known as Al Qaeda in Iraq, that fought the United States to terrible effect during what came to be known as the Iraqi Insurgency. Today that organization is known as ISIS. Throughout 2005 - 2006, the situation in Iraq worsened. American soldiers, many times lacking the proper funding or support from Congress or the Bush administration, were under constant attack by Iraqi insurgents. Dozens of Americans died every month. The situation in Iraq did improve after Bush, to his credit, ordered a "surge" of troops to combat the violence. By the end of his presidency, the violence had (temporarily) eased. A new, extremely corrupt government would lead Iraq. The corruption and incompetence of the new Iraqi government would allow for ISIS to take control of much of their country after American forces left. Bush negotiated an end to American occupation before leaving office scheduling a withdrawal of troops that wold take place during President Obama's first term.
All told, nearly 4,500 American servicemen and women died serving our country in Iraq. The vast majority of these brave warriors died after President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." The war in Iraq was a war of choice. The war weakened America at home, destabilized the Middle East, created a power vacuum that allowed organizations like ISIS to thrive, exploded that national debt, and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. There is very little one can say in support of the argument that the War in Iraq was good for America. However, the war should serve as a reminder of the amazing blessing Americans have in our servicemen and women. Thousands of American soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors bravely and honorably served in Iraq and continue to do so throughout the world today. We owe it to these brave Americans to only send them into harm's way when absolutely necessary and to give them every resource they need to be successful on the battlefield. We owe it to them to provide them with the best medical care and educational opportunities when they return home. On these issues, even in these divided times, there should be no partisan debate.
The summer of 2005 saw another dark moment of the Bush presidency. Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast in August creating never before seen damage and suffering. The city of New Orleans was most affected, much of the city was overwhelmed by flood waters. Hundreds were killed, while thousands more fled for their lives while their homes were consumed by the sea. While obviously, it is not a president's fault if a hurricane hits the United States, President Bush was rightly criticized for his slow response. The areas most affected by the storm were generally the poorest neighborhoods which were overwhelmingly black. The delayed and inadequate response by state, local, and federal agencies caused many to question whether race played a role in the slow response. Many have argued that the reaction to Katrina highlighted the struggles associated with American federalism. Such arguments are correct. The division of power between the states and the federal government can be a complicated thing. Who should take the lead in dealing with the crisis, the state's governor or the President of the United States? While federalism is a fundamental principle in our Constitution, the middle of a natural disaster, when people are dying, is not the time to debate the proper role of the federal government. People needed help. They looked to their government for assistance and their leaders let them down.
Sadly, no discussion of George W. Bush's presidency would be complete without discussing the near collapse of the American financial system and the Great Recession that followed. As I've stated before, no President simply by their actions alone can cause the economy to grow or cause a recession. George W. Bush did not cause the failure of the housing market or bankruptcies of financial institutions. However, the underlying problems that led to the downturn had their basis in years of deregulation of the financial markets. Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers were allowed to market and sell dangerous and risky products, such as sub-prime mortgages, to far too many Americans. Credit was easy, debt was high, and wages were stagnant. All of this led to a bursting of the housing bubble. When Bush, correctly in my opinion, encouraged Congress to step in and bailout the banks to prevent further suffering, his administration allowed for CEOs, many of whom were responsible for the mess, to receive lavish bonuses after taking taxpayer money. George W. Bush became the first President since Herbert Hoover to oversee a net loss of jobs.
There is so much more to talk about when discussing the presidency of George W. Bush. No Child Left Behind, his failed attempt at privatizing part of Social Security, the huge tax cuts, but there simply isn't enough time. When evaluating a presidency, one must harness their inner Reagan and ask whether or not the country was in better shape at the end of the President's term than at the beginning? In the case of George W. Bush, the answer is a resounding "no." At the end of Bush's time in office the nation was in the midst of the worse recession in 70 years. America was still fighting two wars, one of which was a war of choice, and the nation was deeply divided. Bush does deserve credit for his leadership in the weeks and months following 9/11. He showed strength, determination, and spoke words that encouraged and comforted a shocked nation. However, in the years that followed economic turmoil, foreign policy blunders, and an unfulfilled domestic agenda overtook the Bush presidency.
That being said, I still kind of like the guy.
Allow me to paint a picture for you. A political party is having trouble connecting to voters. With internal divisions, it is unclear who their standard bearer will be. However, desperate for a electoral win, the party looks to an outsider as a way of appealing to average citizens. Their candidate has no political experience. Their candidate has never run for public office. Their candidate doesn't seem to have any firm political principles at all. But, their candidate is a national celebrity. His fame and his ability to connect to the average American voter wins him enough support that he is elected President of the United States. No, I'm not talking about Donald Trump. Rather, I'm talking about our 12th President, Zachary Taylor.
"Old Rough and Ready" as he was known was a true political outsider. Despite familiar connections to the political establishment of his time (Jefferson Davis was his son-in-law), Taylor never expressed much interest in politics. Taylor joined the army as a young man and served with distinction throughout his career. Taylor commanded troops in the War of 1812, the Black Hawk War, and the Seminole War. However, it was his leadership in the Mexican-American War that brought him national fame. In 1846, the United States hungered for northern Mexico, the territory now known as California, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. When Mexico refused to sell the U.S. the land, President James K. Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to provoke a war with our southern neighbor by invading disputed territory. When the Mexicans took the bait and attacked the American invaders, Polk asked Congress for a declaration of war. Congress did as the President asked and the Mexican-American War began. The conflict that ensued was one-sided and controversial. To many Americans, it seemed as if the United States was attacking Mexico for nothing more than a desire for territory. Such behavior didn't seem to be in line with our nation's principles. Ulysses S. Grant, who was a young officer at the time, summed up the feelings of many regarding the war when he wrote:
"I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. [...] I do not think there was ever a more wicked war."
Nevertheless, despite the opposition by many, the Mexican-American War was a resounding military victory. This was in no small part due to the leadership of Gen. Taylor. The treaty that was signed at the end of the conflict ceded all of the modern southwest, most importantly California, to the United States.
In 1848, the Whigs were in search of a candidate to run for president. The young party was not as well organized as the Democrats, nor did it have as unified a platform. The Whigs had successfully run a candidate before. In 1840, William Henry Harrison was elected President, however he died just 31 days into his administration. If you've read this blog before you know what happened in the years that followed. However, despite Harrison's death, his election proved that a candidate with the right image could win votes from the common white man; votes that usually went to the Democrats. If General William Henry Harrison could be elected, why not try the same tactic again. Zachary Taylor was courted by the Whigs and reluctantly accepted their nomination. Now, a man who had no political experience, had never shown an interest in politics, and had never even registered to vote, was a major party's candidate for the nations highest office. The gamble paid off and Zachary Taylor was elected President of the United States.
Soon after taking office, President Taylor was faced with a uniquely American problem: the addition of a new state to the Union. In this case, the new state in question was the recently won territory of California. In 1848, gold was discovered near Sutter's Mill, California. As word spread, thousands of prospectors headed west in hopes of striking it rich with a majority of settlers arriving in 1849. These "forty-niners" led to an explosion in the population. With hundreds of hopeful fortune seekers arriving daily, California was struggling to keep up; after all there was no real government to speak of. Towns popped up around riverbeds and supposed gold deposits. Quickly California was overrun with bars, brothels, gambling halls, and a desperate need for law and order. Local officials quickly appealed to Congress to begin the process of applying for statehood. In fact, the Californians had already drafted a state constitution, which included a provision banning slavery in the soon-to-be state. Ordinarily, the addition of a star to the flag would be a reason for celebration. However, in 1849-1850 it was a point of great contention. Southern leaders realized that if California entered the Union as state free of slavery, the United States Senate would firmly be in the hands of Senators from free states. After all, the more populated North already controlled the House of Representatives. Fearing that the institution of slavery was under siege and angry at Northern states for refusing to return runaway slaves, some Southern leaders began to openly discuss secession.
In a surprise to everyone, Taylor a southern slave owner himself, firmly stood up to the secessionists. This included rebuking his son-in-law Jefferson Davis. Taylor, a man who had never taken a firm stand on any political issue, was now planting his feet firmly on the side of the Union. Taylor believed that California should enter the Union as a free state and nothing more. No concessions needed to be made to the South, no deal needed to be brokered, California would become a state and that would be that. To Taylor, like many in Washington, the idea of plantation slavery in arid California was ridiculous and therefore the entire controversy was meaningless.
The President understood that the religious devotion to slavery that many in the South felt had less to do with economics and more to do with the consolidation of power. Slavery had brought the planter aristocracy great wealth and influence. Any threat to the institution was therefore a threat to their power. President Taylor, who had promised that he would stay out of Congressional business and never use his veto power, also took an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. Therefore, he was not about to let southern oligarchs tear apart the country over California.
The issue of California went unsettled throughout much of 1850. Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky introduced a compromise bill that would admit California to the Union and also give generous (and immoral) concessions to the South. However, the bill became bogged down in Congress and lacked presidential support; the issue remained unresolved.
On July 4, 1850 President Taylor attended a groundbreaking celebration for the new Washington Monument. Throughout the day he consumed a pitcher of milk and a large bowl of cherries. By the evening, Taylor was complaining of severe stomach pain. Over the course of the next few days the President's condition worsened. On July 9th the President died. His body was transported to his family plot in Louisville, KY. However, soon after his passing rumors began to swirl that perhaps he had been poisoned by angry southerners. It would not be until the early 1990s that his body was exhumed and forensic tests revealed that he had not been poisoned, but rather most likely died of a gastrointestinal disease.
Millard Filmore assumed the presidency following Taylor's death. Within months, the ominous Compromise of 1850 was passed which admitted California to the Union, but also enacted the horrendous Fugitive Slave Act. Whether or not this would have occurred had Taylor lived can never be known. However, his hard line stance against secession and in favor of union suggests the outcome may have been different. President Taylor's time in office is certainly unremarkable. He died with no significant legislative or diplomatic achievements. He was either unable or unwilling to put forth a policy vision for the nation that his administration would pursue. However, for his willingness to stand up to southern secessionists over the California question, he deserves credit. Looking back, it appears that rugged general was indeed old, he was rough, but he wasn't ready to lead the country.
When Charles Guiteau was being hauled away after shooting President James Garfield, he loudly exclaimed "I am a Stalwart! Arthur is President now!" While those words may not mean much to political observers today, in 1881 would have represented a very real divide in the Republican Party. Indeed, Chester A. Arthur was a Stalwart. And he was, in fact, President now.
Chester A. Arthur, in many ways, represented all that was wrong with American politics in the late 1800s. The era, known as the "Gilded Age", was characterized by the ruthless pursuit of wealth, the centralization of power into the hands of Robber Barons, and most importantly, political corruption. During the Gilded Age, government, both state and federal, was controlled by a few powerful political machines. These machines were organizations that sought to control politics through winning votes and awarding supporters with cushy, high paying government jobs. It wasn't so much the Governor or President that appointed tax collectors, chairmen, and postmasters, as it was the political bosses that had ensured their election in the first place. Every major city, and indeed the federal government, was packed with corrupt, incompetent party loyalist who had their jobs and their large salary because they were willing to extort money, accept bribes, win votes, and sign contracts all in favor of the party machine's preferred candidate. One such party hack was Chester Alan Arthur.
Arthur liked to live the good life. He ate well, he dressed well, and he lived comfortably in Gilded Age New York. A lawyer by trade, Arthur had worked his way up the political ladder by proving to be a loyal servant of the New York Republican machine controlled by Senator Roscoe Conkling. By the 1870s, Arthur found himself Chief Collector of the Port of New York. Whoever controlled the Port of New York controlled the flow of money into the city. Whoever controlled the flow of money ensured that a portion of it would make it's way to the pockets of machine politicians. Chester A. Arthur had reached the pinnacle of machine politics and made sure that his party reaped the benefits of all the "honest graft" that came with it.
Of course, not everyone was OK with the political climate of the day. Many political leaders, in both parties, sought to clean up the system. A national movement began that called for Civil Service Reform. Government jobs, the advocates claimed, should be awarded on the basis of merit, rather than political loyalty. While this might seem like an obvious point of view today, in the 1800s it became a defining issue for the Republican Party. Those in favor of reform were known as Half-Breeds, while the traditional machine politicians who resisted reform were known as Stalwarts. This schism in the GOP came to a head when the reform-minded President Hayes fired the Stalwart Arthur from his post at the New York Customs house in 1878. Whether the Republican Party would embrace the modest reform started by Hayes or return to the Stalwart favored spoils-system was the most pressing issue of the Republican Convention in 1880.
In 1880, President Hayes decided not to seek reelection. The Republican Party, who had controlled the White House for much of the past 20 years, didn't want to let their internal disagreements lead to electoral losses in November. The decision was made to put forth a compromise ticket. The Presidential nominee would be the well-liked reform-minded Congressman from Ohio, James A. Garfield. The Vice-Presidential nominee would be none other than the Stalwart of all Stalwarts, Chester A. Arthur. It is worth noting that Arthur had never been elected to any office in his entire life to this point. His selection was clearly to make sure that the Stalwarts had a voice, however quiet, in the new administration. In November, the Republicans won an extremely close race. James Garfield was the new Commander-in-Cheif and Chester A. Arthur was now a heartbeat away from the presidency.
In September, 1881, only 7 months into his presidency, James Garfield died as a result of a gunshot wound he had received 2 months earlier. Arthur took the oath of office in New York and became the 21st President of the United States. The assassin, Charles Guiteau claimed he shot the President because Garfield had refused to give him a political appointment as a reward for his support in the campaign. In truth, Guiteau was a deranged individual with sociological and psychological problems. However, the headlines that Garfield, who fought for reform, was gunned down by a disgruntled office seeker convinced many Americans that politics had become to corrupt and civil service reform was necessary.
It would have been easy for Arthur to quiet the calls for change. After all, everything he had achieved in the his political career was thanks to the spoils-system. He was a the beneficiary of corruption and graft. The Stalwart way of doing things had brought him wealth and power. However, a career spent as part of a political machine no doubt gave him unique insight into the reality of Gilded Age politics. To the surprise of many, President Arthur, a product of the old system, signed into law the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act. Modest by today's standards, the law required that some government jobs be awarded on the basis of merit. Applicants would take exams to prove they were capable of fulfilling the responsibilities of the office. The law only applied to 10% of the federal workforce, but it was the first piece of meaningful civil service reform.
Over the remaining 3 years in the White House, Arthur accomplished very little. Other than advocating for the modernization of the navy, there is very little one can point to as a a success. Not particularly popular with voters in his day, Arthur did not seek the Republican nomination in 1884. He returned home to his New York law firm and died a few years later. Chester A. Arthur was not a successful President. However, for his support of civil service reform, whether done out of pragmatism or a change of heart, our 21st president deserves credit.
The Election of 1876 was a turning point in American history. For the previous 11 years, Reconstruction, the occupation of the South by federal troops in the years following the Civil War, was remaking the former Confederacy. During these years of Reconstruction, the United States bore witness to a number of events that would forever shape the make up of our country and relationship between the people and their government.
The previous 11 years had witnessed the assassination of President Lincoln, the impeachment of President Johnson, and the corruption of President Grant. The Constitution had been amended 3 times during Reconstruction, abolishing slavery, defining citizenship, establishing civil rights, and banning discrimination at the ballot box on the basis of race. The occupation of the South allowed for the protection of recently freed slaves, the dismantling of the Ku Klux Klan, and election of Republican majorities in Southern capitals. African Americans in the South, though still facing extreme discrimination, poverty, and racism, were experiencing a level of freedom only dreamed of by previous generations. Numerous African Americans were even elected to public office. The nation was, however timidly, taking the first grueling steps toward the "new birth of freedom" of which Lincoln had once spoke. However, all this political reform became expensive and Americans have short attention spans. Southern Democrats hated Reconstruction and wanted the Yankee "carpetbaggers" to leave so that they might "redeem" the South. Fiscally conservative northern Republicans were getting tired of paying for an endless military occupation of the Southern states. The scars of the Civil War were far from healed, but the nation no longer wanted endure the necessary treatment.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes was nominated by the Republican Party to be their candidate for president. After 8 years of corruption in the scandal-ridden Grant administration, the Republicans knew they had to put forward a candidate with a reputation for honesty. Hayes had been an officer in the Civil War, a Congressman, and a successful Governor. He was known as a person of high character and was from the all important state of Ohio. For these reasons, he was chosen as the nominee.
On Election Day 1866, the race was deadlocked. As the days passed, it was unclear whether Hayes or Samuel Tilden, the Democratic Governor of New York, had been elected the new President. When all votes were counted, it was appearing as if Hayes had lost. Behind by hundreds of thousands of ballots in the popular vote, Hayes had resigned to the fact that he wouldn't be elected. However, 3 states, South Carolina, Louisiana, and yes, Florida each set two sets of officially election returns for Congress to verify. In short, one set of returns from each state was legitimate, the other fraudulent. This is not surprising given the extremely corrupt nature of Gilded Age politics. It was unclear who won these three states, but the election hung in the balance. Both parties declared victory. The contentious election led to very real threats of a new Civil War.
By early 1877, Americans still didn't know who would be the new commander-in-chief. And you though 2000 was bad? Congress and President Grant agreed to form a new bipartisan electoral commission consisting of congressmen, senators, and member of the supreme court. After weeks of negotiations, the commission awarded the election to Hayes, the loser of the popular vote. Why? There was a quid pro quo in which the Democrats agreed to let the Republicans have the White House if the GOP would in turn end Reconstruction allowing for a return of Democratic control of southern legislatures. With the end of Reconstruction came the implementation of Jim Crow, the reversal of progressive social polices, and the political domination of blacks by whites. It isn't clear whether or not Hayes personally agreed to this proposal, but nevertheless it happened.
Hayes' presidency has been forgotten by most Americans, but it was certainly divisive in its day. Being elected President without winning the popular vote, without the consent of the governed, is an unenviable position for anyone and Hayes was no different. To many Americans, the President was known as "Ruther-Fraud" or "His Fraudulentcy". Being considered illegitimate by a large portion of the population makes enacting a real agenda quite difficult.
Unlike other Presidents far down on this list, there are no scandals or policies personally enacted by Hayes that had dire consequences for the nation, rather a complacency that seemed to allow social and economic problems to persist without action on the President's part. Unlike the previous Grant administration that, for all of it's shortcomings, attempted to bring about change to the nation, Hayes was content to "let 'em alone." This is not only true of the tragic discrimination of blacks in the South, but also toward the growing influence of corporate America and the unfair treatment of industrial workers that came to characterize the Gilded Age. We know that Hayes was personally concerned with the treatment of blacks in the South, but he did nothing. We know that the President had real concerns about the growing disparity between the rich and poor, but his reaction to labor unrest was to send in federal troops. This can be seen with his handling of the Great Railroad Strike. We know that Hayes was disgusted by the corrupt nature of late nineteenth century politics in which party bosses filled government posts with loyalist and those willing to pay the highest price. However, Hayes was politically hamstrung by the fact that many viewed him as illegitimate (That happens when you lose the popular vote) and accomplished very little.
Hayes honored a pledge to serve only one term. After leaving office he became a champion for education reform. The former president helped raise money that opened the door for education opportunity for many. For his post-presidency work he should be commended. What is obvious is that Rutherford B. Hayes believed in the power of collective action. He believed that government, at least from a nineteenth century perspective, could have a positive impact on the lives of Americans. It is truly ironic however that during his time in White House he did very little to use the powers of his office for good.
Herbert Hoover is a true American success story. Orphaned at a young age in Iowa, Herbert was sent to live with family in Oregon. Young Herbert dropped out of school at the age of 13 and never attended high school. His only formal education came in the form of tutoring in the evening. However, his true education came working as a clerk in his uncle's real estate office. Eventually, Hoover was accepted into Stanford University where he studied Geology. After college he traveled the world, from Australia to China working in mining operations. By the early 1900s, Hoover had founded his own successful mining business and become a multimillionaire. The poor orphan kid from Iowa, was now an international capitalist.
When World War I began, Hoover helped to organize the a relief effort to send food to war-torn Belgium. Given the scale of the suffering in Europe during WWI, it would not be an overstatement to say that Herbert Hoover's efforts help to save the lives of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians. His efforts did not go unnoticed. Upon America's entrance into the war, Hoover was quickly selected by President Woodrow Wilson to oversee the U.S. Food Administration. The organization oversaw the process of feeding our troops overseas, while still meeting he needs of families at home. After the war, Hoover made sure that desperate Europeans, including America's former enemies, received food. In this role, Hoover, yet again, excelled.
During both the Harding and Coolidge administrations, Hoover served as Secretary of Commerce; far from the most prestigious cabinet post. However, Hoover, reluctant to enter public service, approached the job with the same Quaker work ethic that had served him so well in business. As Commerce Secretary Hoover was known for his administrative skills and efficiency. A true big business conservative, Herbert Hoover seemed an obvious choice for the GOP nomination in 1928. Hoover was not a dynamic speaker. He was a man lacking charisma with none of the polish of a professional politician. After all, he'd never been elected to any office before in his life. However, he did have a reputation for hard work, integrity, and administrative skill. These qualities, coupled with a booming economy, the appearance of peace in the world, and a hopelessly divided Democratic Party, Herbert Hoover was easily elected President of the United States.
During the 1928 campaign, Herbert Hoover proclaimed "We in America today are nearer to the final triumph over poverty than ever before in the history of any land." Despite these claims, within months of his inauguration, the stock market crashed and the economy fell into the depths of the Great Depression. As the months passed the economy suffered in ways that few Americans alive today could ever imagine. Banks were closing at a staggering place causing the loss of millions of dollars of savings and freezing the flow of credit. Without access to credit, thousands of businesses failed causing millions to lose their jobs. The staggering unemployment rate (25% at its highest point), and the evaporation of income caused a domino effect that led once healthy small businesses to fail due to a lack of customers. Without any semblance of a social safety net, desperate people turned to any form of assistance that was available. Within months, churches and private charities were overwhelmed. To their credit, I suppose, gangsters like Al Capone offered temporary relief to the desperate masses in the form of soup kitchens. Where was the government? Where was the President? To many Americans, it appeared that Hoover wasn't willing to do anything to help. After all, this was a man who once claimed that government assistance, of any kind, would destroy work ethic, the "rugged individualism" that had made America great. Thousands of Americans simply wandered from town to town looking for any kind of work. None was to be found.
In the meantime, Hoover's name became a pseudonym for economic misery. The unemployed who had lost their homes would often times construct a "Hoover Hotel": a cardboard shack. An entire community of shacks was known as a "Hooverville." Fair or unfair, President Hoover became the symbol of the Great Depression.
Herbert Hoover does not deserve blame for causing the Great Depression. No president could have caused such a catastrophe even if they tried. It is not the Depression itself that lands Hoover so far down on my list, it is his reaction to the crisis. One of Hoover's ideas was a scheme known as "Voluntarism." Hoover asked business owners and leaders of industry to voluntary keep wages high and resist laying off employees. To Hoover it seemed like a logical idea. As a businessman himself, Hoover believed in treating people with respect and valuing employees. Perhaps, if he were still in the private sector, he would have done the sort of voluntary sacrifice he was asking of the business community. However, industry leaders had to deal with the economic realities of the day and were not about to jeopardize their already suffering businesses anymore than was necessary for the sake of the nation's economic health. Voluntarism didn't work.
Hoover did propose some government spending to try to stimulate the economy. In fact, the iconic Hoover Dam which bares his name was an example of such an infrastructure project that paid dividends economically in the years to come. That be said, Hoover, ever the cautious businessman avoided aggressive government action for fear that the budget might be negatively impacted. Government spending under Hoover, no matter how effective, always fell woefully short of what was necessary to have any real impact on the economy.
In 1932, after some debate, the Republicans renominated Hoover for another term as President. Hoover's chances of being reelected in the middle of the Depression were already dismal before he made the greatest mistake of his presidency. An army of unemployed WWI veterans descended on Washington in the summer of 1932. The "Bonus Army" was in Washington to lobby Congress for advance payment of a bonus that was due veterans in 1945. Given the scale of the economic downturn, it is understandable why desperate people would try to get immediate access to cash that was owed them, even if it was 13 years early. After all, when there is a chance to help veterans and their families, the politically wise (not to mention moral) thing to do is listen. Hoover disagreed.
When a bill to help the Bonus Marchers was defeated in Congress. The marchers, who had set up a camp of shacks, a "Hooverville", just outside of town, refused to leave. After police intervention failed to remove the marchers, Hoover ordered Gen. Douglas MacArthur to remove the veterans, the trespassers, with federal troops. MacArthur no doubt exceeded his orders when he had soldiers charge at the veterans with bayonets fixed. The troops threw tear gas into the encampment. As the marchers and their families fled, many were injured, others arrested, and their camp burned to the ground. Hoover's days in office were numbered.
Hoover's failed presidency, on the surface, doesn't seem like it ever should have happened. The biggest challenge of the day was the economy. Who better to solve economic problems than a successful businessman? As it turns out, success in business, is far from a guarantee of success in politics. Leadership is more than head knowledge and the American people are more than numbers on a spreadsheet. Herbert Hoover, for all of his business acumen and work ethic, lacked perhaps the greatest quality needed in a President: the ability to inspire hope.
Herbert Hoover is a great American. A true success story that proves what is possible through hard work, intelligence, and a self-determination. He should be honored for his many successes, service to his country, and indeed the people of Europe. However, his presidency was a victim of the times. The only way to be a truly great President is to be faced with a crisis and successfully lead the nation through. Very few individuals possess such abilities. Sadly, Herbert Hoover did not.
Derek Trent Ashcraft
A place to discuss, among other things, politics, culture, food, faith, and nonsense.