Tuesday, December 15, 2020

And Here’s How It All Happened by Will Rogers November 26, 1932



And Here’s How It All Happened

November 26, 1932

St. Petersburg Times

by Will Rogers

Well all I know is just what I read in the papers or what I see as I prowl hither and thither. With the election over everybody seems to have settled down to steady argument.

The old hidebound Republicans still think the world is just on the verge of coming to an end, and you can kinder see their angle at that for they have been running things all these years.

I got a letter the other day from a very prominent businessman in Los Angeles, Mr. Frank Garbutt, the man that has made running of clubs a science, and not just a business. He owns every club from the great Los Angeles athletic club to beach clubs, golf clubs, to polo clubs. Now Frank is the longest headed man you ever saw. Yet he said there wouldn’t be a bank open in five months after Roosevelt took office. I don’t know what these fellows figure the Democrats are going to do with the country.



Personally I could never see much difference in the two “gangs.” They used to be divided by the tariff. The tariff was originally supposed to aid the man that manufactured things. Well, the Democrats of those days didn’t manufacture anything but arguments, so they were against the tariffs, but the south woke up one day and saw some spinning looms advertised in the Montgomery Ward menu card, so they sent and got some and started spinning their own cotton.


Well they had cheap water power, cheap coal, cheap labor, and the Yankees started moving their shops down from the north. Well the Democrats woke up on another morning with a tariff problem on their hands. The South had gone industrial in a big way. Well they started talking about a tariff in bigger words than the north, so now that the South had got ‘em some smokestacks where they only used to have some mule sheds, why they are just tariffing themselves to death. So that left the principal dividing line between the two parties shot to pieces. You can’t tell one from the other now. Course, the last few years under Mr. Coolidge and Mr. Hoover there had grown the old original idea of the Republican Party, that it was the party of the rich. And I think that was the biggest contributing part in their defeat.

You would think a lot of folks would have their passage booked to some foreign land til the next election when they could get these Democrats back among the unemployed. Why they were in for eight years here not so long ago, from 1912 to 1920. Course I was just a boy and can’t remember back that far, but I have heard my dear old dad say there was some mighty good times, including a war thrown in for good measure.

I think the general run of folks had kinder got wise to that. In the old days, they could get away with it, but of late years, the rich had diminished till their voting power wasn’t enough to keep a minority vote going. This last election was a revulsion of feeling that went back a long way ahead of the hard times. Mr. Hoover reaped the benefit of the arrogance of the party when it was going strong.

Why, after that ’28 election, there was no holding ’em. They really did think they had “hard times” cornered once and for all. Merger on top of merger. Get two nonpaying things merged and then issue more stock to the public. Consolidations and holding companies! Those are the “inventions” that every voter that had bought during the “cuckoo” days was gunning for at this last election.

This sounds so much like the derivatives market that led to the 2007-2008 collapse that it gives me shivers. ~@kegill

Saying that all the big vote was just against hard times is not all so. They were voting against not being advised that all those foreign loans was not too solid. They were voting because they had never been told or warned to the contrary that every big consolidation might not be just the best investment. You know the people kinder look on our government to tell ‘em and kinder advise ‘em. Many an old bird really got sore at Coolidge, but could only take it out on Hoover. Big business sure got big, but it got big by selling its stocks and not by selling its products. No scheme was halted by the government as long as somebody would buy the stock. It could have been a plan to deepen the Atlantic Ocean and it would have had the endorsement of the proper department in Washington, and the stocks would’ve gone on the market.

This sounds so much like mortgage trickery that led to underwater loans that it gives me shivers. ~@kegill

This election was lost four and six years ago, not this year. They didn’t start thinking of the old common fellow till just as they started out on the election tour. The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover was an engineer. He knew that water trickles down. Put it uphill and let it go and it will reach the driest little spot. But he didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellows hands. They saved the big banks, but the little ones went up the flue.

Another echo of the “Great Recession” — saving the financial giants that got us into the mess. ~@kegill


No sir, the little fellow felt that he never had a chance, and he didn’t till Nov. 3, and did he grab it? The whole idea of government relief for the last few years has been to loan somebody more money, so they can go further in debt. It ain’t much relief to just transfer your debts from one party to another, adding a little more in the bargain. No, I believe the “boys” from all they had and hadn’t done had this coming to ’em.


Another source for the essay: WillRogers.com, column number 518, page 183, pdf


Sunday, November 29, 2020

Cognitive Dissonance in the Pandemic

The Role of Cognitive Dissonance in the Pandemic The minute we make any decision—I think COVID-19 is serious; no, I’m sure it is a hoax—we begin to justify the wisdom of our choice and find reasons to dismiss the alternative. JULY 12, 2020 Elliot Aronson and Carol Tavris Social Psychologists Members of Heaven’s Gate, a religious cult, believed that as the Hale-Bopp comet passed by Earth in 1997, a spaceship would be traveling in its wake—ready to take true believers aboard. Several members of the group bought an expensive, high-powered telescope so that they might get a clearer view of the comet. They quickly brought it back and asked for a refund. When the manager asked why, they complained that the telescope was defective, that it didn’t show the spaceship following the comet. A short time later, believing that they would be rescued once they had shed their “earthly containers” (their bodies), all 39 members killed themselves. Heaven’s Gate followers had a tragically misguided conviction, but it is an example, albeit extreme, of cognitive dissonance, the motivational mechanism that underlies the reluctance to admit mistakes or accept scientific findings—even when those findings can save our lives. This dynamic is playing out during the pandemic among the many people who refuse to wear masks or practice social distancing. Human beings are deeply unwilling to change their minds. And when the facts clash with their preexisting convictions, some people would sooner jeopardize their health and everyone else’s than accept new information or admit to being wrong. Cognitive dissonance, coined by Leon Festinger in the 1950s, describes the discomfort people feel when two cognitions, or a cognition and a behavior, contradict each other. I smoke is dissonant with the knowledge that Smoking can kill me. To reduce that dissonance, the smoker must either quit—or justify smoking (“It keeps me thin, and being overweight is a health risk too, you know”). At its core, Festinger’s theory is about how people strive to make sense out of contradictory ideas and lead lives that are, at least in their own minds, consistent and meaningful. One of us (Aronson), who was a protégé of Festinger in the mid-’50s, advanced cognitive-dissonance theory by demonstrating the powerful, yet nonobvious, role it plays when the concept of self is involved. Dissonance is most painful when evidence strikes at the heart of how we see ourselves—when it threatens our belief that we are kind, ethical, competent, or smart. The minute we make any decision—I’ll buy this car; I will vote for this candidate; I think COVID-19 is serious; no, I’m sure it is a hoax—we will begin to justify the wisdom of our choice and find reasons to dismiss the alternative. Before long, any ambivalence we might have felt at the time of the original decision will have morphed into certainty. As people justify each step taken after the original decision, they will find it harder to admit they were wrong at the outset. Especially when the end result proves self-defeating, wrongheaded, or harmful. The theory inspired more than 3,000 experiments that have transformed psychologists’ understanding of how the human mind works. One of Aronson’s most famous experiments showed that people who had to go through an unpleasant, embarrassing process in order to be admitted to a discussion group (designed to consist of boring, pompous participants) later reported liking that group far better than those who were allowed to join after putting in little or no effort. Going through hell and high water to attain something that turns out to be boring, vexatious, or a waste of time creates dissonance: I’m smart, so how did I end up in this stupid group? To reduce that dissonance, participants unconsciously focused on whatever might be good or interesting about the group and blinded themselves to its prominent negatives. The people who did not work hard to get into the group could more easily see the truth—how boring it was. Because they had very little investment in joining, they had very little dissonance to reduce.
The term cognitive dissonance has since escaped the laboratory and is found everywhere—from op-eds and movie reviews to humor columns (as in The New Yorker’s “Cognitive Dissonances I’m Comfortable With”). But few people fully appreciate the mechanism’s enormous motivational power—and the lengths people go to in order to reduce its discomfort. Read: This is not a normal mental-health disaster For example, when people feel a strong connection to a political party, leader, ideology, or belief, they are more likely to let that allegiance do their thinking for them and distort or ignore the evidence that challenges those loyalties. The social psychologist Lee Ross, in laboratory experiments designed to find ways to reduce the bitter conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, took peace proposals created by Israeli negotiators, labeled them as Palestinian proposals, and asked Israeli citizens to judge them. “The Israelis liked the Palestinian proposal attributed to Israel more than they liked the Israeli proposal attributed to the Palestinians,” he told us. “If your own proposal isn’t going to be attractive to you when it comes from the other side, what chance is there that the other side’s proposal is going to be attractive when it actually comes from the other side?” Because of the intense polarization in our country, a great many Americans now see the life-and-death decisions of the coronavirus as political choices rather than medical ones. In the absence of a unifying narrative and competent national leadership, Americans have to choose whom to believe as they make decisions about how to live: the scientists and the public-health experts, whose advice will necessarily change as they learn more about the virus, treatment, and risks? Or President Donald Trump and his acolytes, who suggest that masks and social distancing are unnecessary or “optional”? The cognition I want to go back to work or I want to go to my favorite bar to hang out with my friends is dissonant with any information that suggests these actions might be dangerous—if not to individuals themselves, then to others with whom they interact. How to resolve this dissonance? People could avoid the crowds, parties, and bars and wear a mask. Or they could jump back into their former ways. But to preserve their belief that they are smart and competent and would never do anything foolish to risk their lives, they will need some self-justifications: Claim that masks impair their breathing, deny that the pandemic is serious, or protest that their “freedom” to do what they want is paramount. “You’re removing our freedoms and stomping on our constitutional rights by these Communist-dictatorship orders,” a woman at a Palm Beach County commissioners’ hearing said. “Masks are literally killing people,” said another. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, referring to masks and any other government interventions, said, “More freedom, not more government, is the answer.” Vice President Mike Pence added his own justification for encouraging people to gather in unsafe crowds for a Trump rally: “The right to peacefully assemble is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution.” Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr.: States are using the pandemic to roll back Americans’ rights Today, as we confront the many unknowns of the coronavirus pandemic, all of us are facing desperately difficult decisions. When is it safe to get back to work? When can I reopen my business? When can I see friends and co-workers, start a new love affair, travel? What level of risk am I prepared to tolerate? The way we answer these questions has momentous implications for our health as individuals and for the health of our communities. Even more important, and far less obvious, is that because of the unconscious motivation to reduce dissonance, the way we answer these questions has repercussions for how we behave after making our initial decision. Will we be flexible, or will we keep reducing dissonance by insisting that our earliest decisions were right? Although it’s difficult, changing our minds is not impossible. The challenge is to find a way to live with uncertainty, make the most informed decisions we can, and modify them when the scientific evidence dictates—as our leading researchers are already doing. Admitting we were wrong requires some self-reflection—which involves living with the dissonance for a while rather than jumping immediately to a self-justification. Understanding how dissonance operates reveals a few practical lessons for overcoming it, starting by examining the two dissonant cognitions and keeping them separate. We call this the “Shimon Peres solution.” Peres, Israel’s former prime minister, was angered by his friend Ronald Reagan’s disastrous official visit to a cemetery in Bitburg, Germany, where members of the Waffen SS were buried. When asked how he felt about Reagan’s decision to go there, Peres could have reduced dissonance in one of the two most common ways: thrown out the friendship or minimized the seriousness of the friend’s action. He did neither. “When a friend makes a mistake,” he said, “the friend remains a friend, and the mistake remains a mistake.” Peres’s message conveys the importance of staying with the dissonance, avoiding easy knee-jerk responses, and asking ourselves, Why am I believing this? Why am I behaving this way? Have I thought it through or am I simply taking a short cut, following the party line, or justifying the effort I put in to join the group? Dissonance theory also teaches us why changing your brother-in-law’s political opinions is so hard, if not impossible—especially if he has thrown time, money, effort, and his vote at them. (He can’t change yours either, can he?) But if you want to try, don’t say the equivalent of “What are you thinking by not wearing a mask?” That message implies “How could you be so stupid?” and will immediately create dissonance (I’m smart versus You say I’m doing something stupid), making him almost certainly respond with defensiveness and a hardening of the belief (I was thinking how smart I am, that’s what, and masks are useless anyway). However, your brother-in-law may be more amenable to messages from others who share his party loyalty but who have changed their mind, such as the growing number of prominent Republicans now wearing masks. Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee said, “Unfortunately, this simple, lifesaving practice has become part of a political debate that says: If you’re for Trump, you don’t wear a mask; if you’re against Trump, you do... The stakes are much too high for that.” Read: There’s no going back to ‘normal’ This nasty, mysterious virus will require us all to change our minds as scientists learn more, and we may have to give up some practices and beliefs about it that we now feel sure of. The alternative will be to double down, ignore the error, and wait, as Trump is waiting, for the “miracle” of the virus disappearing. We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Wednesday, November 25, 2020

What Is Thanksgiving? by Thomas A. Ferguson

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/thanksgi.htm What Is Thanksgiving? by Thomas A. Ferguson What do you think of, when asked about Thanksgiving? We learned from the wisdom of our elders to thank the Creator for; Mother Earth... Father Sky... Grandfather Moon... our Uncles the Four Winds... our Cousins the Stars, and... our Brothers and Sisters the animals. The Algonquins believed that humans were not distinct from or superior to nature, but rather part of nature. We also believe that animals could take human form. Moreover, we believed that a long time ago, humans and animals spoke the same language. Then there was a cataclysm that upset the universe and only a few shaman retained the ability to speak with the animals. We thank the Creator for all our relatives, for what is good in the world, and for all our harvest, not just one crop, but all. We give thanks for the strawberry, it is the first berry of the new spring, we give thanks to the tree spirit, for the warmth it provides in our fires and the saps that flow in the fall, we honor the animal spirit, who laid down its life in order for the people to go on. Subsequently we give thanks for each harvest year round. It is said, when the Creator created the Universe, "He placed his hand on the Whole thing... so everything is spiritual." He never told us to separate anything... but to look upon everything that he has made us as holy and sacred and act accordingly with respect.
The Thanksgiving the greater society celebrates, occurs during a beautiful time of the year; thus, Thanksgiving time means, as Joyce Sequichie Hifler so eloquently writes, ... the first hard freeze, the first spitting ice to rattle the dry autumn leaves. Early morning frost crystallizes grasses in rods of light. The last bit of bright color is gone from the woods... thus; a time of great solitude and for giving thanks for all the gifts provided for us by the Creator, especially for our families health and well being. Thanksgiving traditionally denotes a harmonious time in the cycle of seasons; further examination of the times suggest otherwise. For Algonquins, the beheading of King Philip, son of Chief Massasoyt, and the sale of the Wampanoags into slavery has a different connotation then being harmonious. During the time of the Puritans; every Church, every Synagogue, and every Quaker Meeting House was built on money generated from Indian slavery. (Professor Robert Venables) Not many of our young understand the true history behind this most sacred celebration. Traditionally the many indigenous cultures that inhabited North America gave thanks to the Creator, not once a year, but after every harvest, be it agriculture or game. These celebrations would last for several days. One such celebration happened at Patuxet, alias New Plimmoth, now known as Plymouth Rock, in August of 1621. It is this celebration that many of us were taught to picture as the "First Thanksgiving." This view is based on the mythological concept and approach Western minds have when dealing with the various Native Populations . There are interesting events leading up to what is termed "Thanksgiving." What is being celebrated in the USA and Canada is based on a mythological concept that must be addressed. To create an example of this myth, I decided to do some research. I asked middle school, and university students: what comes to your mind, when I ask you about Thanksgiving? Most then gladly answered, in sort of the same fashion: "Some Pilgrims, who arrived at Plymouth, were fed by some Indians," and most of these students had the opinion that the Pilgrims were very religious and both the Native and the Pilgrim lived in harmony. The myth is perpetuated and evolves from the lack of understanding the true history - ninety-nine percent of North America's history is before contact. August 11, 1620, a cold, and windy night, the Mayflower forced to anchor in the Bay of Paomet, alias Cape Cod. The Pilgrims were traveling to Jamestown, Virginia. As their precursor, Columbus, they too were lost. Running low on supplies, they anchored in the Bay of Cape Cod. On August 15, 1620, religious leaders such as William Bradford and Edward Winslow following a guide book published in Europe by Richard Hakluyt titled Virginia Richly Valued, lead these God-fearing Pilgrims to raid graves.(Mourt's Relation 1622) In the midst of this sacrilegious act they were discovered by the Nausets, the local indigenous band of Algonquins who subsequently chased the Pilgrims off the Cape. This is when the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth. The Algonquin band of Wampanoags, openly welcomed the Pilgrims, taught them how to farm thus, providing them with food and saving them from starvation. The first Native American to encounter the Pilgrims was Samoset, who was a sagamore or chief of a distant band of Algonquins - the Morattiggons, he was on an extended fishing trip visiting the Wampanoags, when he boldly walked into the Pilgrims camp saluting them in English, bidding them welcome. The Englishman noted, that on Friday February 16, 1621, that Samoset by himself entered boldly into their camp saying "hello Englishman," and bidding them welcome. They also noted "he was a man of free speech, as far as he could express his mind." Samoset spent that first night with the Pilgrims describing to them the whole Country side, and of every Province, and of every sagamore, and their number of men, and strengths. Samoset stayed the night, leaving the Pilgrims the next morning. Samoset returned, March 22, 1621, with Squanto, who is most popularized by American schools. He was the only surviving native of the Patuxet, known to the Pilgrims as New Plimmoth. Squanto had just returned from London (he was one of the first twenty captives sold by Hunt, a Master of a ship, who then sold them to Master Slanie who took them to Cornehill, England) and found, upon his return, that his people who had inhabited Patuxet had succumbed to an extraordinary plague. (this is the same village the Pilgrims are calling New Plimmoth) It was Squanto who taught the Pilgrims how to plant corn, and to fertilize earthen mounds with fish i.e., herrings or shads. The following fall, after hunting fowl, the Pilgrims harvested 20 acres of corn, six acres of barley and peas all according to the manner of the Algonquin agriculturist, they invited the Sachem Woosamaquin otherwise known as Chief Massasoyt, (the Wampanoags chief who first welcomed the Pilgrims to share the land) to celebrate their harvest. Accepting, Chief Massasoyt brought five deer, and ninety of his men with him to the feast. So now we can sort of figure what was feasted on at the "First Thanksgiving:" a bird, corn, peas, roasted venison, and beer. This feast lasted five days and was celebrated as a treaty, which was supposed to benefit both Algonquins and Pilgrims. Whether Massasoyt would have welcomed, let alone enter into an agreement with these Pilgrims had he known that the past August when the Mayflower crew were lost, hungry, and cold, they had blasphemously raided Indian graves in search for corn - to eat, and the personal artifacts of the dead - to reduce their enormous debt, no one will ever know. But within a generation of that treaty, the children of the Pilgrims who were at the first Thanksgiving, children not even born at the time of the feast, beheaded King Philip, son of Chief Massasoyt. They placed his head on a pole and left it in the fort for 25 years, as in a celebration. These children of the "First Thanksgiving," then sold the Wampanoag's and other Algonquin bands of people, without whom their parents would have almost certainly starved to death, into slavery in the Mediterranean and the West Indies. The events over the years leading up to this betrayal paint a clearer picture of how this turn of events could of happened. Chief Massasoyt had fathered two girls and three boys, and before his death he asked the General Court in Plymouth to give English names to his two sons. The Pilgrims subsequently named the former "Alexander" and the latter "Philip." After Alexander died, probably of poisoning, Philip became chief, and became known as "King Philip." According to Josephy, (The Patriot Chiefs, 1976) King Philip was as racially proud as an Indian ever was. He saw clearly what the colonists were doing to his people, and from the beginning recognized them as enemies who would have to be stopped. Despite the friendship between Massasoyt and the colonial authorities, and although, he was out numbered two to one, King Philip went to war. The interracial friction that resulted in this conflict had actually begun to spread years before his father's death. This was mostly because of trespassing issues, in which the natives had no such laws or understanding of such laws. Anger, mixed with anxiety, lead to an explosive situation. Anxiety with the continuing and regularly numbers of Englishmen who were arriving more and more often and who were providing material attractions that lured natives to them. Anger that Christianity was undermining the authority of the chiefs, and dividing the people. Time and again the Indians patriotic attempts to maintain life and freedom were undermined and defeated by ancient animosities between the various tribes who were forced to deal with new European influence. The whites readily recognized the hostilities that existed among the various tribes they met, and from the beginning were quick to use these native rivalries, jealousies, enmities, and ambitions to their own advantage. They followed the "divide and conquer" policy and played ancient foes against one another for the benefit of themselves. This attitude, stemmed in part from the Aristotelian theory that some persons were by nature meant to be masters and others slaves, it combined with the divide and conquer tactics that worked so well for Columbus in the Caribbean and in Mexico for Cortes. Both of these pitting native against native. It is no wonder these divide and conquer tactics worked so well, with King Philip's War, in the treachery committed by the traitor Alderman. To the God-fearing Puritans of New England, Philip was a satanic agent, "a hellhound, fiend, serpent, caitiff, and dog." Somehow, in their panic and wrath, they conceived of him as a rebel, leading a conspiracy and an uprising against established authority. It was as if invading Indians had landed on the coast of England and had then considered rebels and Englishmen who might have risen to throw them out. On August 12, 1676, the English, guided by Alderman who surrounded King Philip, and Annawon, Philip's war chief, while they slept. In the morning Philip was shot by Alderman, a traitor against his people. We also learn from reading Josephy that when it was discovered that it was indeed Philip who was assassinated, the English broke into a cheer and exultantly decapitated and quartered the sachem's body and carried his head back to Plymouth, where in celebration, it was stuck on a pole and remained on public display for twenty-five years. These are the actions of the people who considered themselves to be "civilized," and the Native American to be "Savages." In the end, my question: (what comes to your mind, when I ask about Thanksgiving?) turns out not to be so simple especially when one takes a closer look at the true history of this holiday which we are celebrating this week. What we should consider is that the Thanksgiving Celebration can actually be divided into three distinct celebrations; (1) traditional celebrations of thanksgiving to the Creator by the indigenous population, (2) the thanksgiving celebrated between Massasoyt, the Algonquin Chief of the Wampanoags, and the thankful pilgrims for the knowledge received by the natives; and, (3) the beheading of King Philip and the selling into slavery the offsprings of the natives of the first thanksgiving.

Wednesday, November 4, 2020

Oatmeal Whoopie Pies



Oatmeal Whoopie Pies😍😋 Don't Lose This

Ingredients:
2 cups brown sugar (light)
3/4 cup butter or shortening
2 eggs
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon
1 teaspoon baking powder
3 Tablespoons boiling water
1 teaspoon soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 1/2 cups flour
2 cups Oatmeal (1 minute)


Directions:
Cream sugar and shortening. Add eggs one at time. Add salt, cinnamon and baking powder. Add soda that’s been dissolved in hot water. Gradually add the flour and oatmeal and mix well.

Drop by rounded teaspoons (I use a large cookie scoop and mound high) onto greased cookie sheets). I always use parchment paper).

Bake at 350 for 8 to 10 minutes. I bake for 12 minutes for the large ones.

Cool and fill with “Whoopie Pie Filling.”


Whoopie Pie Filling:

2 egg whites at room temp (beat until stiff)
4 Tablespoons milk
2 teaspoons vanilla
4 cups sifted confectioner sugar
1 and 1/2 cups shortening (Crisco)

Instructions:

Beat egg whites until stiff.
Mix egg whites (beaten) with milk, vanilla and 2 cups sifted confectioner sugar. Then beat in shortening (Crisco).
Add remaining 2 cups confectioner sugar.
Spread a large dab of filling on one flat side of cooled cookies. Top with another cookie to form a sandwich pie.
Make sure you put plenty of filling in the middle, that’s what a Whoopie Pie is all about, taking a bite and having the filling all over your mouth…kids anyway! Whoopie!!!

Sunday, September 20, 2020

Amish Apple Fritter Bread

Fadma Akir‎Homemade Recipes · Amish Apple Fritter Bread INGREDIENTS 1/3 cup brown sugar 1/2 tsp. Cinnamon 1/2 cup (1 stick) unsalted butter, softened 2/3 cup sugar 2 eggs 2 tsp. Vanilla extract 1 1/2 cups all purpose flour 2 teaspoons baking powder 1/4 teaspoon salt 1/2 cup milk 1 1/2 cups diced apples (about 4 med apples) mixed with a little cinnamon and sugar to coat. Powdered Sugar Glaze 1/2 cup powdered sugar 1/2 Tablespoon butter, softened 2 tablespoons milk 1/4 teaspoon vanilla extract
DIRECTIONS Preheat the oven to 350°. Spray loaf pan with nonstick cooking spray so it slides out easily. Mix the first two ingredients, the brown sugar and cinnamon together in a bowl and set aside. In a large mixing bowl, beat together the sugar and butter until smooth. Beat in the eggs and vanilla until blended. In a medium bowl, stir together the flour, baking powder and salt. Add this mixture to the other and stir until well blended. Pour the milk into the batter and blend until smooth. Pour half the batter into the prepared loaf pan. Then add half of your chopped apple mixture. Pour the rest of the batter on top of the apples. Top with remaining apples and pat them slightly into the batter. Sprinkle with the brown sugar and cinnamon mixture you had set aside. Bake in a preheated oven until a toothpick inserted comes out clean, approximately 60 to 70 minutes. To make the powdered sugar glaze, blend the powdered sugar and butter together until smooth, mix in the milk and vanilla until a nice, smooth glaze consistency. Let the Apple fritter love cool about 30 minutes before pouring the glaze on top. Wrap up to give as gifts or slice into desired slices. Middle apple layer with the apples mixed with Cinnamon & Sugar. More apples patted into batter on top and then topped with the brown sugar mix. Baking up golden brown like a giant apple fritter. Just look at those chunky moist apples in the middle.

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

Blueberry Moon: Waawiiyaatanong Resurgence



 MIINI GIIZIS, Blueberry Moon 2020

 ᓃᐙᒃ ᒦᓇᐙ ᓈᓂᒥᑕᓇ ᐊᔑᓃᔥ

LVNDBVCK@gmail.com | (419) 540 8589



(with minor edits)

BIISKAABIYANG
July 4th is a symbolic colonizer ritual that weaponizes the land into a nation state for settlers to celebrate the triumph of white supremacy. The “freedom” celebrated on this day by millions of people, is a formal representation of genocide and slavery by colonists. The celebration of American independence on July 4th, signifies the ongoing oppression of African Diasporic Peoples and Indigenous Peoples of North America through a continuing legacy of stolen land and stolen labor. This settler society on occupied Turtle Island continues these traditions of violence and oppression to this day.

In other words, we will not lose our way.We will not disgrace the honor of our ancestors. Let us honor our relationships with the sacred land and not colonial infrastructures & holidays rooted in white supremacy.

MIINI GIIZIS
This action of The Waawiiyaatanong Resurgence is taking place during the blueberry moon. During this blueberry moon, the blueberries are at their sweetest. We also receive a beautiful amount of medicine from the thunderbirds moments after the recent summer solstice; as the thunder and lightning of summer storms herald us into the second half of the year with great changes.

In the sacred spirit of the story, it is said that when a young boy becomes a man he gets thunder in his voice after a blueberry becomes stuck in his throat, and this thunder medicine brings great depth and importance to his voice.

The Anishinaabe, sacred beings of the lands, and the diasporic Africans, sacred beings stolen from their land, will join together in solidarity to form spiritual bonds through ceremony to heal the land and exchange ancestral knowledge. Our ceremony today has three intentions:

Our first intention is to acknowledge the land and honor the spirits of the people who have been destroyed by colonialism and its consequences. We seek to uplift forgiveness with the spirits for not honoring our native ways and falling into the traps of assimilation and erasure. We would also bring clarity to a traumatic past, re-establish connection with the land, and ask for guidance for the future.
Secondly, we seek to acknowledge the African diaspora by uplifting and honoring Black life stolen by the colonial institutions. The displacement and enslavement of African people to work this land, is disrespectful to the land and its people. We therefore ask for healing for Black lives as they face their own ongoing battle with the colonizers. We honor Black lives as our relatives, acknowledging and helping to release the trauma the colonial structures have imposed on Black lives. Our struggles are intertwined.

We uplift prayers to our white accomplices and community members who likewise seek to destabilize colonial power and uplift indigenous resurgence.
MISI-ZAAGA’IGANI ANISHINAABEG ZIIBAASKA`IGANAGOODAYAN
The jingle dress was created by the Ojibwe people of The Mille Lacs Band of Anishinaabe during the influenza pandemic of 1918-1919. It came as a dream to a father who’s daughter was ill with the virus. His dream revealed the new dress and dance that had the power to heal. When the dresses were made, they were given to four women to perform the dance. When the little girl heard the tinkling of the jingles, she became stronger. During the big drum ceremony she was dancing again.

The healing aspect of the dance is carried through the sounds that the metal jingles make as the dancer moves. We started making jingle dresses here as soon as we lit the sacred fire, IshKode Meshkikwin, on May 30th, 2020. Our women & 2 spirits dance in these dresses to cleanse the land of energies brought to it by colonial rule and oppression. July 4th is the right moment to perform this cleansing ceremony because of its symbolism to the colonizers. We chose to cleanse the land at Campus Martius, due to its history of use for colonial power and its current ongoing symbol of gentrification, as known as settler colonialism. Our purpose is to cleanse this land to prepare it for the Anishinaabe, relative indigenous communities, and local communities to thrive on it again without being haunted by poisonous colonial legacies.

WAAWIIYAATANONG RESURGENCE

In what is commonly referred to as Detroit, Anishinaabe math & science knowledge unveils the language and the knowledge of the land here, Waawiiyaatanong, where the land bends with the water.

Since May 30, 2020, IshKode & The Aadizookaan have helped build and host the base for The Waawiiyaatanong Resurgence. This is ground zero for the Anishinaabe and other nation relatives to gather in Detroit and have access to a sacred fire to support Native ancestral technology, Black Life, and the ANCIENT FUTURE.

The goal of our resurgence is to create political and social paradigm shifts that will divert power away from the colonial patriarchy, and to an indigenous matriarchy headed by women and two-spirited people. We demand a halt to the continuous step of colonization by reinstituting indigenous names for the land, re-indigenizing traditional knowledge systems, and reestablishing sacred relationships with the land. Colonialism flourished on a diet of stolen land and stolen labor. Reviving the relationship to the land breaks the bonds of colonial power.

Waawiiyaatanong Resurgence is a movement rooted in Anishinaabe Meshkikiwiin; uplifting original native organizing structures and protocols that honor the sacred relationships to the land and creation. Ways to think of this work is Language, Land, & Legend:

The original LANGUAGE of the land, people, and creation of the Anishinaabe has had its existence threatened by the violent history of settler colonialism on Turtle Island. Restoring the language includes renaming and replacing violent colonial words, organizing our understanding of the passage of time around the moon cycle, and sharing knowledge of medicine and the land. If the language dies the people die. Restoring the language and sharing it with everyone supports native lifeways and ways of being, and shares the original connection with how people live their lives. The land speaks to Indigneous peoples differently because our creation stories have to do with the land. Working with the language in all types of ways revitalizes it, and therefore revitalizes the people and the land.

The LAND provides us with food, shelter, medicine, and self defense. Therefore, the land is a member of our community and not something to exploit. The land defends us and allows us to grow and develop and care for traditions. Without the land, we would be dead.

Our relationship with the land is extremely important. Part of our work is shifting our relationship with the land back to Indigenous lifeways. Our goal is to share community education about the land we live on as if it is a part of our community or our family, in order to shift the paradigm of how we relate to the land.

The land, furthermore, is our mother and has been exploited and abused. This exploitation and abuse has therefore leaked out to the women in our community. The patriarchy is a colonial construct. Women, who move with the moon, must lead us in repairing our relationship with the land. Empowering women & 2 spirits in leadership directly defies the patriarchy.


When we speak about “LEGEND” as a tool for the resurgence, we refer to the sacred spirit of the story. Through telling our story, we give voice to our experiences and generational trauma at the hands of the colonizers. The art being created, including poetry, music, food, visual arts, etc, are all legendary pieces of the resurgence. This is how we celebrate. We are living the legend at the moment and we celebrate our growth as we grow.

Celebrating creativity and creation allows us to share with each other in a way that’s uplifting and educational for the community. Legends provide us with political education, documentation, and synthesis of information. People have used legends for thousands of years as tools of education, in order to be passed down to future generations. This is exactly what we’re doing here.

Friday, May 29, 2020

Harlan Co Revolutionary War Plaque:Green descendents



As Told by Danial Boone

Posted 25 Jan 2012 by GaylePhillipsBausmith

Descendants of Lewis J. GREEN Sr.First Generation

1. Lewis J. GREEN Sr. was born about 1724 in , Prince George County, Virginia. He died in Oct 1784 in Blue Spring Rd., Near Glasgow, Kentucky (then Virginia).

He was a Private who served under Captain Robert McKenzie in Tennessee and Kentucky. He was stationed at Fort Nashboro in Nashville,Tennessee. He served in the French and Indian War.

He enlisted in Capt Robert McKenzie's Co from Dinwiddie Co., VA at age 30 at the rank of Private in the French and Indian War and also served in the Rev War in VA.

He was a vestryman in the church at Kilgore Station (Church of England? ) and was very brown in complexion.

Lewis owned 41 acres of land adjacent to Porter's Fort in March of 1774.

A story about Lewis Green, Sr. told by Daniel Boone
Occurred near the Clinch River

Lewis and a brother-in-law, who resided near Blackmore's, on Clinch, about fifteen miles below Captain Gass' place, where Boone was sojourning, went out some considerable distance among the mountains to hunt. They selected a good hunting range, erected a cabin, and laid up in store's some jerked bear meat. One day when Green was alone, his companion being absent on the chase, a large bear made his appearance near camp, upon which Green shot and wounded the animal, which at the moment chanced to be in a sort of sink-hole at the base of a hill. Taking a circuit to get above and head the bear there being a slight snow upon the ground covered with sleet, Green's feet slipped from under him, and in spite of all his efforts to stop, himself, he partly slid and partly rolled down the declivity till he found himself in the sink-hole, where the wounded bear, enraged by his pain, flew at poor Green, tore and mangled his body in a shocking manner, totally destroying one of his eyes. When the bear had sufficiently gratified his revenge by gnawing his unresisting victim as as he wished, he suddenly departed, leaving the unfortunate hunter in a helpless and deplorable condition, all exposed, with his clothing torn in tatters, to the severities of the season.

His comrade at length returning, found and took him to camp. After awhile, thinking it impossible for Green to recover, his companion went out on pretense of hunting for fresh meat, and unfeelingly abandoned poor Green to his fate, reporting in the settlements that he had been killed by a bear. His [Green] little fire soon died away from his inability to provide fuel. Digging, with his knife, a hole or nest beside him in the ground-floor of his cabin, he managed to reach some wild turkey which had been saved, and with them lined the excavation and made himself quite a comfortable bed; and with the knife fastened to the end of a stick, he cut down, from time to time, bits of dried bear meat hanging over head, and upon this he sparingly subsisted. Recovering slowly, he could at length manage to get about. When spring opened, a party, of whom Boone is believed to have been on, went from Blackmore's settlement to bury Green's remains, with the brute of a brother-in-law for a guide; and to their utter astonishment, they met Green plodding his way towards home, and learned the sad story of his sufferings and desertion. The party were so indignant that they could scarcely refrain from laying violent hands on a wretch guilty of so much inhumanity to a helpless companion. Green though greatly disfigured lived many years.

Lewis married Elizabeth LAUDERDALE daughter of William LAUDERDALE about 1750 in , Culpepper County, Virginia. Elizabeth was born about 1730 in , Augusta County, Virginia. She died about 1805.

Lauderdales are descended from James Maitland Lauderdale, the Emigrant, who settled in Pennsylvania around 1714. He is thought to have moved from southwest Scotland, where the Lauderdale name is known in the 18th century, to Northern Ireland and thence to North America. See History of the Lauderdales in America Heritage, 1998, Clint Lauderdale,

We don't know from whom James Lauderdale, the Emigrant was descended, and he made no claims to be descended from the Earls of Lauderdale. Equally, he was firm in his assertion that he was a Maitland by origin, and this is the tradition which he handed down to his children and grandchildren and which was formally recorded by James Shelby Lauderdale in 1880. This refers to a meeting between his uncle Sam, and Dr David Lauderdale who met in 1830, and discovered that they shared a common family tradition. Another Lauderdale from New York was met in 1880 in St Louis with a similar tale.

Lauderdale as a family name, not connected with the title, first appears in the Scottish parish records in Galloway in the early 18th century with the birth of Jean Lauderdale in 1737, the daughter of James Lauderdale at Beith, Ayr.


Maitlands have lived in or been connected with Galloway since 1360, and our understanding of James the Emigrant is that he came from that part of Scotland, so the combination of geography, name and his family tradition makes it almost certain that he was a Maitland by origin, and as such, related by blood to the Earls of Lauderdale, but not descended from them.

Washington Co., VA
Elizabeth, who appears in the records of Washington County in 1797 as “old and infirm” and gave power of attorney to “my son-in-law Moses Foley.” She died about 1803, intestate. Appraisal of here estate was presented to the court by Zachariah Green

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

"The Harlot, Slavery" Senator Charles Sumner May 19th, 1856


Compromise of 1850 and Bleeding Kansas


On May 19th, 1856, Senator Charles Sumner began delivering his infamous speech, "Crimes Against Kansas." It would take him five hours over two days to deliver the entire 112 pages, but the reverberations of the speech would be felt for years across the country, as well as in the Longfellow household.

In this speech, Sumner took up the crusade for abolition in earnest. He charged his fellow senators with allowing the extension of slavery into the territory of Kansas, causing fighting there and undermining the nation's democratic institutions. He also personally attacked Senators Stephen Douglas and Andrew Butler. Sumner used his oratorical wit to call Douglas a "noise-some, squat, and nameless animal," and to mock Butler's sense of chivalry in the speech's most famous quote. He charged Butler with taking: "a mistress . . . who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean, the harlot, Slavery."

Two days later, a member of the House and relative of Butler, Preston Brooks, beat Sumner with a cane for the speech.

Back in Cambridge, Sumner's close friend, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, wrote in his journal: "Was walking in the garden, when Owen arrives, and in a voice broken by sobs tells me that Sumner has been brutally beaten in the Senate house by a Mr. Brooks…. O Southern 'chivalry!'" Sumner would spend part of his convalescence in western Massachusetts, Europe – and at the Longfellow house. It took Sumner three years to return to the Senate, though he never fully recovered from his injuries. This incident was a symptom of the larger debate over the institution of slavery in the United States and did much to further polarize the North and South. Sumner and Brooks became martyrs for their respective political causes. The event helped to push the country down the path to civil war five years later.

- Ranger Anna

[1856 lithograph cartoon depicting Preston Brooks' attack on Charles Sumner in the U.S. Senate chamber by John L. Magee. Courtesy Boston Athenæum]

The Compromise of 1850

The plan was set forth. The giants — Calhoun, Webster, and Clay — had spoken. Still the Congress debated the contentious issues well into the summer. Each time Clay's Compromise was set forth for a vote, it did not receive a majority. Henry Clay himself had to leave in sickness, before the dispute could be resolved. In his place, Stephen Douglas worked tirelessly to end the fight. On July 9, President Zachary Taylor died of food poisoning. His successor, MILLARD FILLMORE, was much more interested in compromise. The environment for a deal was set. By September, Clay's Compromise became law.

The "Great Compromiser," Henry Clay, introduces the
Compromise of 1850 in the Senate.

California was admitted to the Union as the 16th free state. In exchange, the south was guaranteed that no federal restrictions on slavery would be placed on Utah or New Mexico. Texas lost its boundary claims in New Mexico, but the Congress compensated Texas with $10 million. Slavery was maintained in the nation's capital, but the slave trade was prohibited. Finally, and most controversially, a FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW was passed, requiring northerners to return runaway slaves to their owners under penalty of law.


North GetsSouth Gets
California admitted as a free stateNo slavery restrictions in Utah or New Mexico territories
Slave trade prohibited in Washington D.C.Slaveholding permitted in Washington D.C.
Texas loses boundary dispute with New MexicoTexas gets $10 million
 Fugitive Slave Law

Who won and who lost in the deal? Although each side received benefits, the north seemed to gain the most. The balance of the Senate was now with the free states, although California often voted with the south on many issues in the 1850s. The major victory for the south was the Fugitive Slave Law. In the end, the north refused to enforce it. Massachusetts even called for its nullification, stealing an argument from John C. Calhoun. Northerners claimed the law was unfair. The flagrant violation of the Fugitive Slave Law set the scene for the tempest that emerged later in the decade. But for now, Americans hoped against hope that the fragile peace would prevail.


Thursday, March 19, 2020

The Powell Memo: A Call-to-Arms for Corporations



The Powell Memo: A Call-to-Arms for Corporations

In this excerpt from Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer — and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, authors Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson explain the significance of the Powell Memorandum, a call-to-arms for American corporations written by Virginia lawyer (and future U.S. Supreme Court justice) Lewis Powell to a neighbor working with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
'Winner-Take-All Politics' Book jacketIn the fall of 1972, the venerable National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) made a surprising announcement: It planned to move its main offices from New York to Washington, D.C. As its chief, Burt Raynes, observed:

We have been in New York since before the turn of the century, because we regarded this city as the center of business and industry. But the thing that affects business most today is government. The interrelationship of business with business is no longer so important as the interrelationship of business with government. In the last several years, that has become very apparent to us.[1]

To be more precise, what had become very apparent to the business community was that it was getting its clock cleaned. Used to having broad sway, employers faced a series of surprising defeats in the 1960s and early 1970s. As we have seen, these defeats continued unabated when Richard Nixon won the White House. Despite electoral setbacks, the liberalism of the Great Society had surprising political momentum. “From 1969 to 1972,” as the political scientist David Vogel summarizes in one of the best books on the political role of business, “virtually the entire American business community experienced a series of political setbacks without parallel in the postwar period.” In particular, Washington undertook a vast expansion of its regulatory power, introducing tough and extensive restrictions and requirements on business in areas from the environment to occupational safety to consumer protection.[2]
In corporate circles, this pronounced and sustained shift was met with disbelief and then alarm. By 1971, future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell felt compelled to assert, in a memo that was to help galvanize business circles, that the “American economic system is under broad attack.” This attack, Powell maintained, required mobilization for political combat: “Business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination—without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.” Moreover, Powell stressed, the critical ingredient for success would be organization: “Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations.”[3]
U.S. President Richard Nixon holds a commission that he will present to Lewis F. Powell Jr., left, and another will be given to William Rehnquist, right, at a White House ceremony in Washington, D.C., Dec. 22, 1971. The two men were appointed to the Supreme Court by President Nixon. (AP Photo/Charles Tasnadi)

Powell was just one of many who pushed to reinvigorate the political clout of employers. Before the policy winds shifted in the ’60s, business had seen little need to mobilize anything more than a network of trade associations. It relied mostly on personal contacts, and the main role of lobbyists in Washington was to troll for government contracts and tax breaks. The explosion of policy activism, and rise of public interest groups like those affiliated with Ralph Nader, created a fundamental challenge. And as the 1970s progressed, the problems seemed to be getting worse. Powell wrote in 1971, but even after Nixon swept to a landslide reelection the following year, the legislative tide continued to come in. With Watergate leading to Nixon’s humiliating resignation and a spectacular Democratic victory in 1974, the situation grew even more dire. “The danger had suddenly escalated,” Bryce Harlow, senior Washington representative for Procter & Gamble and one of the engineers of the corporate political revival was to say later. “We had to prevent business from being rolled up and put in the trash can by that Congress.”[4]
Powell, Harlow, and others sought to replace the old boys’ club with a more modern, sophisticated, and diversified apparatus — one capable of advancing employers’ interests even under the most difficult political circumstances. They recognized that business had hardly begun to tap its potential for wielding political power. Not only were the financial resources at the disposal of business leaders unrivaled. The hierarchical structures of corporations made it possible for a handful of decision-makers to deploy those resources and combine them with the massive but underutilized capacities of their far-flung organizations. These were the preconditions for an organizational revolution that was to remake Washington in less than a decade — and, in the process, lay the critical groundwork for winner-take-all politics.
Businessmen of the World, Unite!
The organizational counterattack of business in the 1970s was swift and sweeping — a domestic version of Shock and Awe. The number of corporations with public affairs offices in Washington grew from 100 in 1968 to over 500 in 1978. In 1971, only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in Washington, but by 1982, nearly 2,500 did. The number of corporate PACs increased from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 by the middle of 1980.[5] On every dimension of corporate political activity, the numbers reveal a dramatic, rapid mobilization of business resources in the mid-1970s.

What the numbers alone cannot show is something of potentially even greater significance: Employers learned how to work together to achieve shared political goals. As members of coalitions, firms could mobilize more proactively and on a much broader front. Corporate leaders became advocates not just for the narrow interests of their firms but also for the shared interests of business as a whole.
Ironically, this new capacity was in part an unexpected gift of Great Society liberalism. One of the distinctive features of the big expansion of government authority in the ’60s and early ’70s was that it created new forms of regulation that simultaneously affected many industries. Previously, the airlines might have lobbied the Civil Aeronautics Board, the steel companies might have focused on restricting foreign competitors, the energy producers might have gained special tax breaks from a favorite congressman. Now companies across a wide range of sectors faced a common threat: increasingly powerful regulatory agencies overseeing their treatment of the environment, workers, and consumers. Individual firms had little chance of fending off such broad initiatives on their own; to craft an appropriately broad political defense, they needed organization.
Business was galvanized by more than perceived government overreach. It was also responding to the growing economic challenges it faced. Organization-building began even before the economy soured in the early 1970s, but the tumultuous economy of that decade — battered by two major oil shocks, which pushed up inflation and dragged down growth — created panic in corporate sectors as well as growing dissatisfaction among voters. The 1970s was not the economic wasteland that retrospective accounts often suggest. The economy actually grew more quickly overall (after adjusting for inflation) during the 1970s than during the 1980s.[6] But against the backdrop of the roaring 1960s, the economic turbulence was a rude jolt that strengthened the case of business leaders that a new governing approach was needed.

When he penned his influential memo, Lewis Powell was chair of the Education Committee of the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber was one of a number of business groups that responded to the emerging threat by becoming much more organized. The Chamber doubled in membership between 1974 and 1980. Its budget tripled. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) doubled its membership between 1970 and 1979.[7]

Recognizing that lawmaking in Washington had become more open and dynamic, business groups remade themselves to fit the times.
The expansion of the Chamber and the NFIB signaled not only a rise in the collective capacity of business; it brought a harder-edged form of mobilization. Composed disproportionately of smaller firms, these organizations were especially livid about the rise of government regulation. Big companies had an easier time absorbing the administrative costs of complying with new rules, and more opportunities to pass the costs on to consumers. Moreover, business associations based on a multitude of small firms proved especially capable of mobilizing mass outrage, which would turn out to be a very effective political weapon.
Of course, big business fought back as well. In 1972, three business organizations merged to form the Business Roundtable, the first business association whose membership was restricted to top corporate CEOs. In part at the urging of Bryce Harlow, lobbyist for Procter & Gamble, this new organization combined two groups focused on relatively narrow business issues with an informal organization called the March Group. The March Group had grown out of a meeting with top Nixon administration officials and prominent executives and was designed to bring together many of the nation’s most powerful CEOs. Within five years the new mega-organization had enlisted 113 of the top Fortune 200 companies, accounting for nearly half of the economy.[8]
The Business Roundtable quickly developed into a formidable group, designed to mobilize high-level CEOs as a collective force to lobby for the advancement of shared interests. President Ford’s deputy treasury secretary Charls Walker, a leading corporate organizer about whom we’ll say more in a moment, later put it this way: “The Roundtable has made a lot of difference. They know how to get the CEOs into Washington and lobby; they maintain good relationships with the congressional staffs; they’ve just learned a lot about Washington they didn’t know before.”[9]

Keeping Up With the Naders
The role of the business community not only grew but expanded, shifting into new modes of organization that had previously been confined to its critics. Recognizing that lawmaking in Washington had become more open and dynamic, business groups remade themselves to fit the times. The expanding network of business groups would soon be capable of hoisting the public interest groups on their own petards. Using rapidly emerging tools of marketing and communications, they learned how to generate mass campaigns. Building networks of employees, shareholders, local companies, and firms with shared interests (for example, retailers and suppliers), they could soon flood Washington with letters and phone calls. Within a few years, these classically top-down organizations were to thrive at generating “bottom up”–style campaigns that not only matched the efforts of their rivals but surpassed them.

These emerging “outside” strategies were married to “inside” ones. Business organizations developed lists of prominent executives capable of making personal contacts with key legislative figures. In private meetings organized by the Conference Board, CEOs compared notes and discussed how to learn from and outmaneuver organized labor. In the words of one executive, “If you don’t know your senators on a first-name basis, you are not doing an adequate job for your stockholders.”[10]
Business also massively increased its political giving — at precisely the time when the cost of campaigns began to skyrocket (in part because of the ascendance of television). The insatiable need for cash gave politicians good reason to be attentive to those with deep pockets. Business had by far the deepest pockets, and was happy to make contributions to members of both parties. Clifton Garvin, chairman of both Exxon and the Business Roundtable in the early 1980s, summarized the attitude toward partisanship this way: “The Roundtable tries to work with whichever political party is in power. We may each individually have our own political alliances, but as a group the Roundtable works with every administration to the degree they let us.”[11]
The newly mobilized business groups understood that Democrats and Republicans could play distinct but complementary roles. As the party with a seemingly permanent lock on Congress, Democrats needed to be pried away from their traditional alliance with organized labor. Money was key here: From the late 1970s to the late 1980s, corporate PACs increased their expenditures in congressional races nearly fivefold. Labor PAC spending only rose about half as fast. In the early 1970s, business PACs contributed less to congressional races overall than labor PACs did. By the mid-1970s, the two were at rough parity, and by the end of the decade, business PACs were way ahead. By 1980, unions accounted for less than a quarter of all PAC contributions — down from half six years earlier. The shift was largest among Democrats, who were of course the most reliant on labor money: Nearly half of Senate incumbents’ campaign funds came from labor PACs in the mid-1970s. A decade later, the share was below one-fifth.[12]

By this time, however, business PACs were shifting away from their traditional focus on buttering up (mostly Democratic) incumbents toward a strategy that mixed donations to those in power with support for conservative political challengers. Such a pattern was evident in the critical election year of 1978. Through September of the election season, nearly half of corporate campaign contributions flowed into Democrats’ coffers. In the crucial weeks before the 1978 election, however, only 29 percent did. By the end of the 1978 campaign, more than 60 percent of corporate contributions had gone to Republicans, both GOP challengers and Republican incumbents fighting off liberal Democrats.[13] A new era of campaign finance was born: Not only were corporate contributions growing ever bigger, Democrats had to work harder for them. More and more, to receive business largesse, they had to do more than hold power; they had to wield it in ways that business liked.

Read the Powell Memo. (Download the PDF.)
Footnotes
  • 1. National Journal, 1974, 14.
  • 2. David Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America (New York: Basic Books, 1989), 59; R. Shep Melnick, “From Tax-and-Spend to Mandate-and-Sue: Liberalism After the Great Society,” in The Great Society and the High Tide of Liberalism, Sidney Milkis and Jerome Mileur, eds. (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2005).
  • 3. Lewis Powell, “Confidential Memorandum: Attack on the Free Enterprise System,” August 23, 1971, quoted in Kim Phelps-Fein, Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (New York: Norton, 2009), 158, 160.
  • 4. Thomas Byrne Edsall, The New Politics of Inequality (New York: Norton, 1984), 114.
  • 5. Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes, ch. 8.
  • 6. Calculated from http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls.
  • 7. Ibid., 198.
  • 8. Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes, 198; John Judis, The Paradox of American Democracy: Elites, Special Interests, and the Betrayal of Public Trust (Pantheon: New York, 2000), 121.
  • 9. Quoted in Sidney Blumenthal, The Rise of the Counter-Establishment: From Conservative Ideology to Political Power (New York: Times Books, 1986), 80.
  • 10. Quoted in Leonard Silk and David Vogel, Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976), 65.
  • 11. Blumenthal, Rise of the Counter-Establishment, 78.
  • 12. Taylor E. Dark, The Unions and the Democrats: An Enduring Alliance (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999), 149.
  • 13. Vogel, Fluctuating Fortunes, ch. 8

Excerpt from Winner -Take-All Politics by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson
Copyright © 2010 by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson. Reprinted by permission of Simon & Schuster, Inc, NY. For more information please visit www.SimonandSchuster.com.