The Strange Death of Liberal America

The Strange Death of Liberal America

Ralph Brauer

PRAEGER

THE STRANGE DEATH OF LIBERAL AMERICA

THE STRANGE DEATH OF LIBERAL AMERICA Ralph Brauer

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Brauer, Ralph. The strange death of liberal America / Ralph Brauer. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–275–99063–X (alk. paper) 1. United States—Politics and government—1945–1989. 2. United States—Politics and government—20th century. 3. Liberalism—United States—History— 20th century. 4. Political parties—United States—History—20th century. 5. Political culture—United States—History—20th century. I. Title. E839.5.B73 2006 973.9—dc22 2006004346 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright # 2006 by Ralph Brauer All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2006004346 ISBN: 0–275–99063–X First published in 2006 Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.praeger.com Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

To Paul and Sheila and Mary Mac, Marcia Wellstone Markuson, Tom Lapic, Will McLaughlin To my parents To Horace To Donna and Max

I believe that every infant, every child we hold in our hands, no matter what color of skin, no matter boy or girl, no matter rich or poor, no matter rural or urban, and no matter what religion, that every child that we hold in our hands, is one of God’s children. I believe that every child, every infant should have the same chance to reach his or her potential. I tell you, that is the goodness of this country, that is the American dream, that is what makes us a great Nation, and that is the most important goal for our Nation. And whatever makes that possible, I’m for it. And whatever stands in the way of that, I’m against it. Paul Wellstone

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail

Contents

Preface 1

Introduction

Part One: The Counterrevolution

xi 1 11

2

Economic Justice: Strom

13

3

Educational Equity: Devil’s Bargains

29

4

Voting Rights: Bush v. Gore

45

5

Media Fairness: A Magical Mystery Tour

61

Part Two: Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

75

6

Economic Justice: Corked Bats

77

7

Educational Equity: Green with Envy

93

8

Voting Rights: Mrs. Hamer’s Question

109

9

Media Fairness: The Two Faces of Martha Stewart

125

Part Three: The Suburban Uprising

139

10

Economic Justice: Home Depot

141

11

Educational Equity: The Final Battleground

157

x & Contents

12

Voting Rights: Red and Blue Lemmings

173

13

Media Fairness: The SUV on the Monolith

189

14

Conclusion: Shifting Winds

205

Notes

225

Select Bibliography

249

Index

257

Preface

I remember the day this book began: October 25, 2002. That afternoon a news bulletin announced that a plane carrying Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, his wife, daughter and campaign aides had crashed in northern Minnesota, killing all aboard only weeks before election day. In the chaos that followed the Democrats enlisted former Vice-President Walter Mondale to replace Wellstone on the ballot. When Mondale lost the election I wondered how this could happen in a state where an unabashed liberal like Paul Wellstone was ahead in the polls at the time of his death. That defeat spawned a larger question of how Wellstone’s death enabled the Republican Party to gain control of every branch of the federal government for the first time since before most Americans had been born. As a former college teacher and administrator with training as an intellectual historian it seemed that the only way to grasp what had happened was to understand how past events had brought us to this point. Since both parties admit what we face is a clash of values, the story and meaning of that clash became the focus of my research. Any contemporary history enters that peculiar realm C. Vann Woodward referred to as the twilight zone ‘‘between living memory and written history.’’ For Woodward this region provides a prime breeding ground for mythology. Certainly mythology seems everywhere today, particularly in a systematic attempt to rewrite the long-standing relationship between the American people and their government. Yet even as he wrote in another troubled time, Woodward expressed hope that he could turn a ‘‘few beams of light into the twilight zone and if possible light up a few of its corners.’’1

xii & Preface

For me that beam of light comes from my study of systems thinking. When I lead strategic planning sessions, we always start with the question, ‘‘What is the key measure of success?’’ I put this question in the context of Liberal America and over the next eighteen months asked both research sources and anyone I could for an answer. What emerged was this book’s definition of Liberal America: government exists to keep the playing field level. The success of the American experiment depends on how well we maintain this equity. From there I used modeling and a great deal more research to identify the key forces that enhance or detract from maintaining the level playing field. From this emerged the four cornerstones of economic and social justice, educational equity, voting rights, and media fairness. These ideals form the organizational center for this book. It could have followed a more conventional chronological organization, but that would have become not only confusing but also would have diminished the importance of the cornerstones. The cornerstones also inform the organization in another sense. From the beginning, I decided that unlike those of the Raucous Right who specialize in undocumented rumors, this book would empower readers by containing as many sources as possible that can be found on the Internet. This allows readers to make up their own minds. I should also add that as a person with a disability and without a research assistant, I could not have written this book without the Internet. We prefer our history neat and linear, the way chapters in our schoolbooks march from one date and event to the next in chronological order. But as historians know, history can be a tangled skein of events and its connections prove difficult to unravel. For example, Bernard DeVoto wrote a very good book about 1846, which he called the ‘‘year of decision,’’ and yet even his considerable narrative skills barely scratched the surface. To be fair to DeVoto, his main canvas was the American West, but still he omits much about the Indigenous People who lived there. When telling the story of an idea like Liberal America, the task becomes even more complex. The history of an idea—as Woodward knew even as he cloaked Jim Crow in legal clothes—does not follow a straight path. In an essay on DeVoto, Wallace Stegner observed the author of The Year of Decision was what Robert Frost called a ‘‘synecdochist.’’2 To Stegner that meant DeVoto used carefully chosen events to stand for larger trends and themes. A similar method characterizes this book. Because the book follows the path of an idea over more than half a century, it seemed the best way to tell the story is to use emblematic people and events that not only represent key turning points but also could stand for larger changes. Otherwise this book would have been a very thick volume. The other stylistic

Preface & xiii

device is to open each chapter by describing a local setting. This grounds ideas in real places and evokes the theme of diverse local communities that are in danger of slipping away. As it links past with present through symbolic events, this book identifies three reasons for the decline of Liberal America’s value of the level playing field: (1) the assault of a Republican Counterrevolution dedicated to rolling back the values of the New Deal, (2) an inability by both parties to answer questions raised by decades of Civil Rights revolutions, and (3) the turnabout of suburban America from places of opportunity created by government programs to battlegrounds as serious as any since the U.S. Civil War. These reasons form the book’s three parts. Part one follows the development of the Counterrevolutionary Coalition, beginning with the Southern Strategy and ending with a chapter on our politicized media. Part two focuses on questions raised about the cornerstones by people of color and women. It also introduces the theme of the cornerstones’ interrelatedness and the history of the Democratic Party’s failure to answer those questions as illustrated by events like the NaderLaDuke campaign and the 1964 Atlantic City convention. Part three details the impact of suburban America on the cornerstones. Underlying this part is a historical discussion that begins with the New Deal and works its way to the present, ending with a discussion of global warming and the Iraq War. Through these chapters weaves not only a political and intellectual history but also a social and cultural chronicle touching on music, television, movies, and sports. While the title of this book seems mournful, I wanted the content to reflect a hopeful outlook. Above all, Liberal America is based on the hope that on a level playing field everyone is capable of extraordinary feats. I have been fortunate in having a great deal of support from those who believed in this project. I owe much to Lloyd and Anne Svendsbye, friends and spiritual advisors, who read the entire manuscript and when I wondered whether it was worth continuing gave me the courage to finish it. Lloyd, a former college and seminary president as well as officer in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, also provided me with help on many of the religious discussions in this book along with the Big Meadow story. Another close friend, Bill Kell, provided many helpful suggestions as well as his expert advice on how to better focus this book. Conversations with other friends such as the Bordwells, the Jacksons, Rod Brown, and others also greatly influenced the ideas in the book. Tom Lannom, who probably would not agree with much that is in this book, provided me with the much-needed balance of a true Republican and former navy pilot. I also wish to thank my

xiv & Preface

colleagues at Transforming Schools Consortium who have contributed ideas and support over the years, in particular Jack Nelson, Russ Martinson, Jim Orakovich, Lees Stuntz, Bill Crocoll, Jim Boos, Wayne Jennings, and Al Myers. Former university researchers and now consultants Jeff Potash and John Heinbokel taught me System Dynamics, which allowed me to understand the dynamics of Liberal America. University researchers including Kyla Wahlstrom, Mark Davison, Al Jones, and System Dynamics faculty at MIT and elsewhere also had an impact on the ideas of this book. I owe to the late George Dangerfield the title and the thesis from his book, The Strange Death of Liberal England. I learned history from two of the best, the late Joe Wall and David Noble, and how to write about it from the late Mary Turpie. This book would not have appeared without Hilary Claggett. She believed in it when others did not, nurtured it through various approvals and, most of all, provided an unerring touch to the final manuscript. Producing a book is a team effort and Hilary led the team well. Others on the team also did excellent work. Terri Jennings took my sometimes quirky spelling and grammar and formed them into a polished manuscript. She also did an amazing job of tracking the numerous references and assuring that all is as it should be. In the accolades that usually accompany book prefaces, the one member of the team who often gets left out is the person responsible for the final look of the book. Karen Treat did a wonderful job of overseeing the production process, translating what the rest of us had done into a text that looks and reads well. I also wish to thank the anonymous reviewer who knew just which buttons to push to prompt some significant improvements in the manuscript. Gracias. Finally, my wife Donna and son Max should stand as co-authors, not only because they had to live with me through countless revisions, but also because they provided their own ideas and helped to edit the manuscript. None of these people would agree with all the ideas in this book, but their probing questions helped to sharpen my own thinking. None of the opinions expressed here are those of the Transforming Schools Consortium, its members or officers. No TSC funds were used for this manuscript. To the reader I have a final comment: I hope you enjoy reading this book as much as I enjoyed writing it.

1

Introduction

Elemental. That single word captures the North Dakota high plains, its vowels and consonants reflecting the environment’s sometimes harsh realities and the resolve required to overcome them. They called the covered wagons that traversed this region prairie schooners for a reason—as many commentators have remarked, the plains resemble the middle of the ocean where you see nothing but the sky and the inscrutable ways of the wind. These broad vistas seem to stretch beyond time, enforcing a certain humility on anyone who stands alone gazing at the horizon. For those who do not succumb easily, the weather reinforces the point. Here, where the closest geographical equivalent may be the steppes of Asia, temperatures unexpectedly drop to well below zero as shrieking winds make snow sound like sand as it beats against fragile walls. On a hot, humid summer day, the sky will churn into an ominous dark green as it spits out a vortex that lashes snakelike across the fields, ripping up everything in its path by the roots and flinging debris indifferently across the land. It takes solid stock to persevere on some of the last plots homesteaded in the continental United States. A Vermont dairy herder or an Iowa corn grower might shake his or her head at the prospect of trying to make a living from this land. But hopes mixed with cussedness, faith, and a pinch of desperation thrown in provide powerful motivators. Here the American Dream takes on its most elemental form, stripped down to the Jeffersonian principle of a single-family home standing like a monument on stark yet hauntingly beautiful ground. Maybe that is why this place might stand for all of America.

2 & Introduction

In researching his family history in a prairie township with the poetic name of Big Meadow, a close friend found something extraordinary that speaks of these people’s values. Eighty-year-old minutes of the township board contain references to cases in which the board considered payments to local citizens asking for help. A decade before the New Deal, this local government believed it had a responsibility to use taxpayer dollars for what today some derisively call ‘‘welfare.’’ In that elemental place the people of Big Meadow articulated a fundamental principle that represents the heart of what I term Liberal America: The duty of government is to ensure a level playing field. This theme runs not only through the Big Meadow board minutes but through those of other rural towns of the same era. In a fascinating study, Delivering Aid: Implementing Progressive Era Social Welfare in the American West, Thomas Krainz details how several Colorado counties also aided local residents. On October 23, 1912, Mary Yoder appeared before the Lincoln County commissioners. Recently widowed with three children, ‘‘she asked the county commissioners for help. For the next two years and eight months, commissioners provided Yoder and her children with assistance in the form of supplies, coal and medicine.’’ In an impressive series of accompanying tables, Krainz shows that four Colorado counties provided aid ranging from $4.97 to $30.90 per month to almost 2,000 people. Perhaps the most fascinating table shows the number and percentages of people sent away without aid, with Lincoln being the highest at 32.91 percent, while the other counties had numbers in the single digits.1 Townships and counties were not the only government units providing aid. Missouri established the first widow’s pension in 1911, followed by thirty-nine other states. Jeanette Rankin, the first woman to serve in the House of Representatives, introduced the 1921 Sheppard-Towner bill, which provided federal funds to local health departments for maternal and child health. In other words, the idea of government assistance did not begin with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A farmer whose arm disappeared between grinding gears, a widow trying to make a go of it after her husband had succumbed to a fatal ailment, had their lives jerked out from under them through no fault of their own, the way someone clumsily yanks off a table cloth, leaving everything to crash to the floor. No doubt the calculations made by county and township boards sometimes relied on prejudices and local circumstances so that, as Krainz points out, aid amounts and practices varied widely, but that does not diminish the principle behind their actions. That I should define this ideal as the core belief of Liberal America no doubt will raise eyebrows. In the last few years, the word has taken on such a

Introduction & 3

pejorative tone, that for many Republicans it has become the equivalent of a schoolyard bully’s taunt. Their Democratic rivals, who seem to loathe the term almost as deeply, generally respond to the taunts by figuratively running away from them. Goaded by a reporter to state whether he was a liberal, 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry preferred to dodge the question. Among what some refer to as the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, the situation can only be described as confusion. Long-standing disagreements have widened. Single-issue imperatives and nasty infighting have so shredded meanings that Liberal America no longer seems a simple ideal, but instead resembles thousands of slips of paper blowing in hostile winds as people desperately grab at them hoping to find the equivalent of a winning lottery ticket. Some disdain the word liberal, preferring to use such euphemisms as progressive. Even among those who accept the liberal label, it threatens to become a laundry list of thou shalt nots every bit as daunting as those tallied by their opponents. Ideological ayatollahs reign here as surely as they do on the right, enforcing the correct language and the correct tone of voice, while ready to condemn any heresy. In the pronouncements of some of these zealots, there lies a thinly veiled contempt for the average American who does not read the right books, attend the right concerts, and send their children to the right schools. It was not always this way. For a long time, words such as conservative and fundamentalist were ammunition for comedians and newspaper cartoonists. Mixing religion and politics was considered one of the republic’s chief dangers; it weighed heavily in 1960 when commentators and voters alike worried that if John Kennedy even mentioned his faith, voters might think the pope would call the tune at the White House. Four decades later, the reigning president reverently touts his ‘‘conversion,’’ liberally spices his speeches with fundamentalist Christian references, and openly admits his religion influences his policies. If John Kennedy had publicly announced, as George W. Bush has, that someone’s choice of church influenced a nomination to the Supreme Court bench, he would have been severely castigated. So what happened to Liberal America? As all those aid programs affirm, at the heart of liberalism lies the belief that government exists to do good for the people. It serves to level the playing field when those with power and money seek to tilt things in their direction, to assure that the votes are counted fairly, to maintain a free and open ‘‘marketplace of ideas,’’ to stimulate our society to positive ends whether in the arts or research, and to provide an equal education so that every American not only starts from the same point, but also has the same opportunities every step of the way on into

4 & Introduction

college and even professional school and work. Its values lie behind the ringing inaugural addresses of FDR and JFK as well as what is the single greatest American speech of the last century, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ‘‘I Have a Dream’’ masterpiece. The fingerprints of liberalism lie everywhere on this nation, from public buildings built by the Works Progress Administration, to schools, roads, homes, and utilities paid for by government grants, loans, and subsidies. You cannot pass through the core of any city, drive on any road, visit any national park, or enter any school, hospital, or government building without passing over ground built by Liberal America. Liberalism pervades every American household, where someone has benefited from government programs, ranging from college loans to unemployment, from the minimum wage and collective bargaining to regulations assuring the safety of the food we eat, the air we breathe and the water we drink. We do not live in fear of someone arbitrarily knocking down our doors in the middle of the night or of not being able to speak our minds, because the people who fought for those rights believed in the level playing field. Perhaps one of the most unabashed liberals of all, Hubert Humphrey, movingly described what Liberal America meant to him when he wrote about growing up in a small South Dakota town during the Great Depression. Driven from their home, his family was in danger of breaking apart, as so many had during those times when monstrous, choking clouds blacked out all light and hope. ‘‘That period was to teach me,’’ said the future vicepresident: What government can mean to a society, how government can really affect the day-to-day lives of individuals for the better. It taught me what government can mean in terms of improving the human condition and improving the human environment. I witnessed how government programs literally rebuilt the territory and made life again tolerable, filling people with hope.2

A generation later Humphrey’s successor, Paul Wellstone—who may have been the last senator to openly claim the label ‘‘liberal’’—put his own generation’s stamp on Humphrey’s words. His short, stocky wrestler’s body punctuating the rapid, rhythmic phrases that were his trademark as his hands and arms moved to put a headlock on whatever issue he was confronting, Paul Wellstone could recite a long list of what liberalism has given America. One of his greatest speeches, given to the Iowa AFL-CIO in 1998, captures this perfectly. Wellstone starts one of his classic riffs, which uses repetition to carefully build to his conclusion:

Introduction & 5 Because of you, families have more bread on the table. Because of you, workers receive at least a minimum wage. Because of you, labor has the right to organize. Because of you, we have the right to join a union. Because of you, working families have insurance against unemployment. Because of you, workers have protections against unsafe workplaces. . . . Because of you, working families have more economic justice. And because labor is part of a larger justice tradition, because of you, our children have protection against ravaged air and water. Because of you, people have protection against discrimination because of the color of their skin. Because of you, women have protection against discrimination because of their gender. Because of you, people have protection against discrimination because of their disabilities. Because of these victories, even if they do not all yet work perfectly, the United States became a better country, for all Americans.3

Although it may be argued that the birth of liberalism, or at least its direct progenitors, lay in the ideas of Locke and others that spawned the American Revolution, and its adolescence came with the next century, it certainly reached maturity with FDR and the New Deal. The Great Depression and the liberal response marked forever an entire generation of politicians and citizens who knew what it was to have no hope for your next meal, let alone your next dollar, and then have government come to the rescue. Even during years of Republican presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, those values remained strong, with Nixon proposing a guaranteed annual income, something George W. Bush would consider heretical. Throughout the history of Liberal America, through good times and bad, like a prairie house in a blizzard, the principle of a level playing field has rested on four strong cornerstones, large weighty slabs quarried from bedrock principles then wrestled into place with superhuman effort by many anonymous hands and shoulders. To some these cornerstones represent a gift from a power or powers greater than our own. The first is economic justice. From the traditions of the First Nations to the Boston Tea Party through the campaign against the trusts to the reforms of the New Deal, America has insisted that the haves not only shall not exploit the have-nots, but that the fortunate have a moral obligation to help the less fortunate. We may have sometimes puzzled about how to do it or failed to fulfill its imperatives, but most Americans approved of the principle.

6 & Introduction

The second cornerstone is educational equity. Next to the Constitution, perhaps the most unique and important American contribution lies in its public school system, built on the belief that local residents could decide a common curriculum. Fights over what that curriculum should contain have been as common as grasshoppers on the prairie. Despite disagreements everyone agreed that public education should enable all of us to be active citizens in our democracy. The third cornerstone is media fairness. While we commonly salute the idea of a free press, we tend to forget that America has always insisted that with freedom comes responsibility. When this country faced the growth of mass communications at the same time Adolf Hitler commandeered the airwaves to propagandize a nation, we held that they belonged to the public. To this we added the now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which asserted that the victims of media attacks deserved equal time to counteract the vitriol. The final cornerstone is the right of all citizens to be fairly heard in the political process. It has proven especially difficult to make this cornerstone bear its weight. Women have been able to vote for less than a century. In 1957 Utah became the last state to abolish discriminatory voting practices against Native Americans. The Voting Rights Act did not pass until 1965 and then only against determined opposition. Like the foundation of a house, if the cornerstones are not all equally strong, our democracy will stand at crazy angles and begin to show ominous cracks. Voting rights without media fairness can produce poor decisions as voters become deceived about candidates and policies. Media fairness without equal education leaves people without the ability to clearly evaluate what they see and hear. Equal education without equal economic opportunity can leave even the most brilliant mind to whither under the evils of poverty. The particular genius of the generation that fought the American Revolution lay in seeing that government must balance and level these cornerstones. That is why they enacted the Bill of Rights. The experience of the American people since then—and in many ways the key theme of American history—has been that each succeeding generation applied this principle to dealing with the latest attempt by the haves to stomp on the have-nots. That is what the Civil War, the Progressive Era, and New Deal represent. Over the course of this nation’s history the cornerstones have never been the property of one political party or interest group. Republicans, Democrats, Progressives, Federalists, and countless citizens’ groups have all built laudable platforms on the four cornerstones. The cornerstones represent the vision the

Introduction & 7

larger world has of the American experiment. A young girl living in poverty in Bangladesh, a wizened German standing by remains of the Berlin Wall, and a Mexican businesswoman betting on an Internet site to sell village crafts all instantly recognize and celebrate what Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural termed the ‘‘better angels of our nature.’’ What these people share with those long ago communities like Lincoln, Big Meadow, and countless others stems not merely from an intellectual or even emotional attachment to egalitarianism, but something elemental to the very meaning of the human condition: hope. Farmers dripping sweat on red clay, nervous families juggling monthly bill payments, and workers fearing a layoff notice still live under pinched horizons where hope can seem elusive. For them, as for all of us, what we proudly call the American Dream represents not merely a balance sheet of our material accounting, but more importantly a moral tally of the ideal that everyone can achieve the promise of his or her talents and character. While the battle between equality and inequality weaves through human history, its current manifestations should be our generational ‘‘fire bell in the night’’—that ringing phrase Jefferson used to describe the impending Civil War over slavery. In the raging storms of our times, the word liberal has become a lightning rod attracting bolts of random, angry energy. In the flashes of light one sees troubling contemporary developments ranging from diminished voter participation to rising income inequities, and increasing media concentration. Perhaps the most appropriate metaphor for this contentious era comes in the form of road rage. For all of us road rage has erupted into a disquieting social disease, like a minor ailment that becomes something more incomprehensible and disquieting, for which every doctor has a cure and every cure fails because the disease is not really understood. That road rage should occur simultaneously with tax protests and other rumblings of unrest should have inspired someone to connect the dots. Road rage blatantly severs the social compact that binds us all, asserting with upraised finger that the collective ‘‘we’’ no longer has any relevance. All that matters is me, a me entitled to do whatever I like, because ‘‘we’’ no longer matters. Road rage appears as shock jocks on radio, professional athletes preening their egos rather than helping their teams, and, most of all, the take-no-prisoners mentality that rules everything from city council chambers and corporate board rooms to the halls of Congress. Road rage symbolizes the desire openly espoused by many to kill America’s core belief in the power of government to do good for all the people, to be the referee in our quarrels, to balance the scales for the common welfare.

8 & Introduction

As government and this social compact have become objects of disdain, the playing field has not only become less level but also a combat ground. Road rage certainly occupies center stage in Washington, like a rude party crasher who eats with his fingers, belches after every bite, punctuates every sentence with a profanity, tries to grope the hostess, and tells all the other guests where they can go. Hard-ball legislative maneuvering and it’s-myway-or-the-highway tactics fill the bag of tricks of many who occupy seats in Congress just as they fill the bag of tricks of any third-grade bully worth his reputation. Newsweek spoke for many when it characterized retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as a ‘‘creature of the past.’’ ‘‘Moderate centrists are a dying breed in Washington,’’ said the article that came out just before July 4, 2003, ‘‘O’Connor’s genteel approach is almost quaint in the current political climate.’’4 If the early 1800s represented an Era of Good Feelings, our times should go down in history as the Era of Bad Feelings. Today everything points to the increasing erosion of the level playing field and the four cornerstones supporting it. As all of us struggle to keep from sliding backward, anger, resentment, and finger pointing multiply in what systems analysts call a negative reinforcing loop. Statistics gathered by the pulse-takers of America confirm our deep divisions. In the autumn of 2003, pollster Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that the overall gap between supporters of both parties stood at the highest ever recorded. Kohut told Ray Suarez of PBS, ‘‘This is a time of great emotion and problems for the country and we don’t agree.’’5 Venerable Washington columnist David Broder used the Pew findings to pen a Thanksgiving piece that dared to use a term we had not heard for over a century, ‘‘Be thankful this Thanksgiving that no civil war looms, for the divisions are everywhere to be seen. . . . It is clear in retrospect that even the worst terrorist attacks ever on American soil were not enough to unite the nation.’’6 Even the AARP weighed in, with CEO William Novelli writing, ‘‘Partisanship has reached such an uncivil extreme that it is dividing our political system, threatening its ability to function and blocking solutions to the serious problems we face.’’7 These divisions have not gone unnoticed by foreign observers, who are becoming increasingly concerned about America’s political and social road rage. In its November 2003 survey of America, The Economist noted that in our nation: Politics has become warfare. What matters most is the size and bloodthirstiness of your troops, not winning over neutrals. Politicians take full opportunity to reach for weapons of mass destruction, such as Bill Clinton’s

Introduction & 9 impeachment or the recall of Governor Gray Davis of California. It is no longer possible to agree to disagree. Your enemies must be ‘‘Stupid White Men,’’ guilty of ‘‘Treason,’’ who live in a world of ‘‘Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them’’ (to quote the titles of three bestsellers).8

Today it is impossible to turn on the radio, watch television, or pick up a newspaper without finding an example of the culture wars, which increasingly resemble one of those professional wrestling extravaganzas where two elaborately costumed, steroid-laden Neanderthals grope one another in a steel cage or pit full of mud. Any American could readily supply a top-ten list of examples. One on my list occurred on a July day in 2003 when congressional Republicans summoned the police to evict Democrats from a room where they had been caucusing. Juliette Eilperin and Albert B. Crenshaw of The Washington Post commented that the incident ‘‘represented a low point in the history of congressional comity.’’9 This enmity took center stage during the 2004 election. Sometime in the distant future, archeologists probing American landfills, those grave sites of dreams unfulfilled, will come upon a layer as singular as a vein in a rock ledge containing lawn signs, bumper stickers, banners, mail, videos, and other trash from this contentious contest. Much of the true garbage of the election, however, will have vanished into the ether, for the Internet resonated with barely-under-control hate that should leave no doubt we live in the Era of Bad Feelings. In the nether reaches of the Internet, a wilderness punctuated by the tangled trails of emails and listservs where potshots came from the likes of ‘‘random,’’ ‘‘ch2,’’ and ‘‘coz,’’ lay electronic Tombstones and Deadwoods featuring no-holds-barred brawling and a hair-trigger impulse to shoot from the hip at the first perceived insult. Their names said it all: johnkerrysucks.com, Hanoi John Kerry, Kerry Lied, Bush is an idiot (by bushlacksabrain), Dictator Dubya: The Fraud Who Would Be King, Deshrubify Amerikkka. At the frontier of the Era of Bad Feelings, all the political and social animosity came together like the partisans of some modern range war. The title of this book suggests Liberal America is already dead, but in fact it would be more accurate to describe it as being in intensive care. As you can probably tell by now, I write from the perspective of someone who is intimate with the patient, who stands in the waiting room, pacing back and forth, nervously wondering what the next report will bring, wringing my hands at the indignities heaped on the patient by those who do not really have any clue about wants and needs, and frustrated with how those supposedly caring for the patient are making things worse.

10 & Introduction

This book asks whether there is any hope for the future of the level playing field. Paul Wellstone’s answer, of course, would be a resounding ‘‘Yes!’’ for Wellstone was, if anything, an optimist, convinced in his heart and mind that people are by nature good. This optimism personified the anonymous members of those long-ago boards, suggesting that contrary to the cynical view of the American people held by many, when given their head, families and neighbors will do the right thing. As a first-generation American whose father fled political tyranny, I dedicate my work to that belief and the fulfillment of its hope and promise.

PART ONE The Counterrevolution

2

Economic Justice: Strom

A stunning photograph shows a rutted dirt road splitting rows of blooming peach trees like a thick brown knife. Against the neutral sky, the ethereal pink of the peach blossoms seems corrupted by the road, as if someone had spilled something nasty on one of those flowing, pastel-tinted dresses favored by Southern belles in Hollywood’s idealization of a place and time that exist only in the American imagination. Taken on a farm in Edgefield County, South Carolina, the image’s contrasts unwittingly represent those of its region. Google ‘‘Edgefield County images’’ and you find bucolic rural scenes, an antebellum brick courthouse, and men posing around a dangling black corpse. Strom Thurmond came from this place located near the Georgia border, the home of nine other state governors. A resident wearing an old ‘‘Thurmond for President’’ button told a reporter after the senator’s death in December 2003, ‘‘He never forgot his roots, he never forgot the people of Edgefield.’’1 It is symbolic that many surrounding towns have the suffix crossroads—Sullivan Crossroads, Millers Crossroads, Marthas Crossroads—for Thurmond also made himself a crossroad during his century-long life, in the process helping to remake America. His craggy face already seemed chiseled in stone before he died, as if he was becoming a granite monument right before our eyes. When he was born, Mark Twain was writing, the Wright Brothers had yet to fly, and horses still served to get people from here to there. A teenager during World War I, he fought at D-Day during the Second, winning a chest full of medals. Returning from the war, Thurmond ran for governor then went on to serve longer in the Senate

14 & The Counterrevolution

than anyone else, through the terms of eighteen presidents. He participated in more than 15,000 votes or well over 100 for every year he lived. This alone would cast him as a central figure in American politics, but Thurmond represented more than that. As much as any politician, his story tells America’s story over the last half-century, carving an arc like a Halley’s Comet that portends momentous events. The event it foretells is the possible death of Liberal America. Thurmond, of course, was no liberal. At ninety-three, running in his last campaign, he pledged, ‘‘I shall not give up on our mission to right the 40year wrongs of liberalism.’’2 The broad sweep of the senator’s career is wellknown: how he started out as a New Dealer, broke with the Democrats to run on the Dixiecrat ticket, switched to the GOP, and later became an elder statesman. When he first ran for office, U.S. Civil War veterans cast their ballots for him and before he died their great-grandchildren did the same. Some believe Thurmond mellowed as he grew older, but it is arguable how much he changed or how much America changed. He brought his core beliefs of states’ rights, less government, aversion to welfare and unions with him the first day he walked on the Senate floor in 1954 and they remained until the day he died. The real story lies not in the mellowing of Strom Thurmond, but in changes in the rest of the nation, for much of the Thurmond catechism has become the foundation of the Republican Party that currently controls Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, making it—for the moment—the reigning national ideology. Thurmond’s story tells of a tangled marriage of convenience where in the end no one knew who was using whom. Thurmond did not design the Counterrevolution (Newt Gingrich seems anxious to claim this title) nor serve as its intellectual inspiration (an honor many bestow on Barry Goldwater), but he was one of the chief carpenters, helping to lay the foundation and build the main structure. One of Barbara Tuchman’s best books is A Distant Mirror, a history of the waning of the Middle Ages woven around a French nobleman connected with the major events of that time. Had she chosen to write about our own times she could not have found a better figure than Strom Thurmond. Like many old time lawyers Thurmond did not go to law school but did what they termed ‘‘reading at law’’ with his lawyer father. From there he moved on to become a judge, where like many of his contemporaries he might have lived out his life as a pillar of the community. But along with fellow veterans John Kennedy and Richard Nixon he got the politics bug after returning from World War II, becoming governor of South Carolina in 1947. Those who make the case that he was no racist point out, ‘‘[He]

Economic Justice & 15

started out as a New Deal liberal Democrat, even when he was governor,’’ repealing the poll tax and prosecuting those responsible for the state’s last lynching.3 In 1948 Thurmond found himself at a major crossroad where many across the nation made their first acquaintance with him. During the Democratic Presidential Convention, Hubert Humphrey gave a fiery oration that asserted, ‘‘The time has arrived for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.’’4 Humphrey’s speech was not the only manifestation of the growing Civil Rights Movement at the convention. President Truman noted in his diary, ‘‘A Negro alternate from St. Louis makes a minority report suggesting the unseating of the Mississippi delegation.’’5 In the end, the Democrats added a civil rights plank to their platform. Led by Thurmond, Southern delegates walked out. In the strategizing that followed, the South Carolina governor found himself the presidential candidate of a third-party effort. The new States Rights Democratic Party knew they could not win but several alternatives seemed possible: denying Truman the presidency or throwing the election into the House of Representatives for the first time since 1824. Truman pondered what to call them, settling on Dixiecrats, the term we use today. Article four of their platform stated, ‘‘We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race.’’6 Thurmond carried Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina, one of the more impressive showings for a third-party candidate. Elected to the Senate in 1954 as a write-in candidate—the only time this has ever happened—Thurmond established himself as a voice for the die-hard segregationists. One target became the Supreme Court, which he felt had undermined the Constitution. In this era when people believe ideological objections to Court nominees come with the Era of Bad Feelings, we forget Thurmond tried to derail the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, asking over sixty questions, grilling him on the three Reconstruction amendments.7 As head of the Judiciary Committee, he blocked the nomination of Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren (Republicans who claim the Bork nomination began the current nastiness over the Court conveniently forget this). As the current Senate ponders abolishing the filibuster, we should remember Thurmond still holds the record for the longest, a twenty-four-hour, eighteen-minute oration that sought to kill the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Thurmond prepared for the event like a prize fighter, sweating in a steam bath so he wouldn’t need a bathroom break, downing a sirloin steak, and stocking up on throat lozenges and malted milk tablets. Filibuster legends tell of senators reading from phone books, but Thurmond’s actually had

16 & The Counterrevolution

some substance as he recited the voting rights laws of every state, the Declaration of Independence, and the history of Anglo-Saxon juries. ‘‘ ‘If I had the time,’ he told the Senate to a roar of laughter, ‘I’d tell you all the decisions handed down by this Supreme Court.’ ’’8 Those whose image of a filibuster comes from James Stewart speaking until he passes out in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington will be surprised to know that Thurmond actually sat down and even grabbed a sandwich in the cloakroom. The key move and second crossroad in Thurmond’s career came in 1964 when he switched parties to work for the Goldwater campaign. Certainly at some point in those years between his failed attempt at the presidency and the formal switch, Thurmond must have realized where the waters he had helped to muddy were flowing. Opposing attempts to make the Dixiecrats a permanent third party, Thurmond realized that he and the Democratic Party were incompatible. Culture and Senate rules had prevented many Dixiecrats from bolting—being a Democrat was almost something one was born with, plus switching parties carried the possibility that Southerners might lose the committee chairs they had used to preserve segregation. When Thurmond made the break official, he declared, ‘‘The party of our fathers is dead,’’ blasting his former colleagues with his characteristic style. ‘‘If the American people permit the Democratic Party to return to power,’’ he said, ‘‘Freedom as we have known it in this country is doomed, and individuals will be destined to lives of regulation, control, coercion, intimidation and subservience to a power elite who shall rule from Washington.’’9 As CNN’s special on Thurmond’s career perceptively noted, those words became the bedrock of the Republican ascendancy I term the Counterrevolution. Put Thurmond’s statement in the mouths of any Republican president since he uttered them and they would not be out of place. Although Goldwater lost, his version of the Thurmond catechism of ‘‘states’ rights’’ won him South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia, along with his home state of Arizona. As he pondered his comeback while the Johnson administration unraveled in the jungles of Southeast Asia, Richard Nixon could not help but see the gift that Thurmond had boldly handed him. Thus the so-called Southern Strategy was born, as the Republican Party began to court Thurmond and his colleagues, who by now were in full flight from Johnson’s civil rights reforms. It arguably still stands as one of the most brilliant and cynical political moves in American history, perhaps equaled only by the nation’s back-pedaling on Reconstruction during the late nineteenth century. The man given much credit for the Southern Strategy was the one who sat outside the Senate chamber with a pail in case Thurmond needed a quick

Economic Justice & 17

bathroom break during his record-setting filibuster—aide and later Nixon White House Special Counsel to the President Harry Dent. While historians debate how much Richard Nixon personally bought into the Thurmond catechism,10 clearly he could smell the peach blossoms. His elevation of Dent to the White House staff after the election sent a clear signal of his alliance with Thurmond. Leon Panetta, who served as secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Nixon administration noted, ‘‘Strom Thurmond and others thought they had a commitment from Nixon to slow the pace of integration. That was something that was never clear until I spoke with people in the South and they told me they had an agreement with Nixon on civil rights and desegregation.’’11 In 1968 Thurmond helped assure Nixon’s election by steering voters away from third-party candidate George Wallace, who tried to duplicate Thurmond’s 1948 run. The former Dixiecrat campaigning against the upstart from Alabama assured that Nixon captured enough southern votes to beat Hubert Humphrey in an extremely close race. Wallace captured all the old Goldwater states except Thurmond’s South Carolina, but Nixon captured the rest of the South except for LBJ’s Texas. Wallace represented the perfect foil for Thurmond, the sneer and heavy drawl branding him as a unreconstructed redneck against which Thurmond seemed the more reasonable of the two, as if the head of the Chamber of Commerce faced the Klan Grand Dragon. Thurmond did more than hold the South for Nixon. He helped make party switching acceptable for an entire generation of Southern leaders. A hint of his impact lies in Senator Trent Lott’s now-infamous tribute to Thurmond, ‘‘I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. (Applause) And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.’’12 Few would argue that if anyone deserves credit for making the Republican Party the dominant party in the South, that person is Strom Thurmond. His defection provided momentum for the Counterrevolutionary agenda as he stood at the center of one of the greatest shifts in American politics. One milestone became the Supreme Court, whose 1954 decision had so outraged him. As one who insisted justices should only follow ‘‘strict constructionism,’’ he lived to see the Court take a rightward direction. The segregationist who opposed Thurgood Marshall voted for Clarence Thomas. Another monument is the Electoral College. Since John F. Kennedy, no northerner has won the presidency. Nixon and Reagan were from California, which is a world unto itself, and George H. W. Bush was part Texan, part Ivy League. The only winning Democrats have been Southerners.

18 & The Counterrevolution

In 1976, Thurmond temporarily seemed to lose his grip on the South, as another Southern governor, Jimmy Carter, made it into the White House, in part due to the backlash against Watergate. Jimmy Carter may have been one of America’s unluckiest presidents, facing the Iranian hostage crisis and an economic downturn. Carter’s election had people talking about a new South, but Thurmond knew better. The South may have seemed different, but Thurmond, whose devotion to constituent services remains legendary, knew the minds of the voters and how to capitalize on this political opportunity as he had on so many others. In 1980 he threw his support to Ronald Reagan, an alliance marked by the most prominent photograph at the website for Clemson’s Thurmond Institute of Government and Politics. Showing Thurmond standing with a smiling Reagan, the picture has more than sentimental significance, for Reagan’s place in the Republican pantheon is well-deserved. In The Rise of Southern Republicans, Earl and Merle Black make a convincing case, backed by a daunting number of charts and tables, that it was Reagan who truly solidified the South for the GOP.13 Reagan’s genius lay in taking Thurmond’s states’ rights philosophy and dressing it in respectable clothes, turning it into opposition to ‘‘big government.’’ What some saw as unsophisticated prejudice received a makeover worthy of one of those television shows that turns a wallflower into a magazine cover. Employing antigovernment rhetoric that mirrored Thurmond, the GOP reversed the country’s perceptions about government as a force for equity and turned it into the enemy of the people. In his first inaugural Ronald Reagan uttered the nowimmortal phrase, ‘‘In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.’’14 Strom Thurmond no doubt nodded at these words the Republicans symbolically carved into the major buildings of the Capitol. When George W. Bush decided to run, Thurmond played a crucial role in staving off the challenge of rival John McCain, whose war record and innovative policies made him a formidable challenger. McCain seemed on the verge of upsetting Bush when the South Carolina primary made its way to the front pages on the heels of McCain’s New Hampshire victory. As everyone knew, whoever won Thurmond’s endorsement probably would win South Carolina. Without it, Bush might have lost the state, opening a window of vulnerability that could have taken McCain all the way to the White House. Near the end of his career, the press had much fun deriding Thurmond as a man who should have had the good graces to retire. Such attacks failed to understand the basic spirit—what athletes call heart—that motivated

Economic Justice & 19

Strom Thurmond. He could have retired in comfort, but his devotion to the cause would not let him. He resembled an aging ballplayer who can no longer reach the fences or throw a fifty-yard pass, but loves the sport too much to quit. At Appomattox, some of Lee’s generals urged their commander not to surrender, arguing that they could continue fighting as a guerrilla force. Lee, to his credit, disdained the idea, arguing that it would bring destruction to communities that had avoided it (he probably had Sherman’s scorched earth tactics in mind). However, one general ignored Lee. Nathan Bedford Forrest, a former slave trader and brilliant cavalry tactician who presided over one of the more appalling events of the Civil War, the Fort Pillow Massacre, decided to continue fighting in a different fashion, becoming the first head of the Ku Klux Klan. Although Fort Pillow has largely been sanitized in Civil War histories, it is important to remember because it illustrates how the hot coals of prejudice can suddenly flare up. It also testifies to the true depths of the feelings behind the Civil War and the aftermath that continues to haunt us. Eyewitness testimony by a surviving Union soldier shows the extent of Forrest’s cruelty to African American families who sought protection at the fort: The next morning I was lying around there waiting for the boat to come up. The secesh would be prying around there, and would come to a nigger and say, ‘‘You ain’t dead, are you?’’ They would not say anything, and then the secesh would get down off their horses, prick them in their sides, and say, ‘‘Damn you, you ain’t dead; get up.’’ Then they would make them get up on their knees, when they would shoot them down like a hog.15

While Forrest did urge the Klan to disband in 1869 and disavowed any association with it after that, his career and the founding of the Klan were eulogized by die-hard confederate D. W. Griffith as The Birth of a Nation (1915). Today Americans harbor smugness about feuds in other parts of the world, as if the people involved in them lived just one step removed from a cave entrance. Yet the history of the American South should serve as ample reminder that this country, even today, has no immunity from struggles similar to those in Iraq or Afghanistan. Ideological wounds can run deep, sometimes becoming infected and even gangrenous as they ooze hatred and violence. The conventional wisdom holds that if Lee’s directive had not been followed or the North decided to rigorously enforce Reconstruction, the South would have resembled today’s Iraq or Bosnia. But then, for those with black skins the South became a war zone long after Lee signed his surrender.

20 & The Counterrevolution

In a way Griffith had it right. The long, sordid, muddled history of the post-Reconstruction era needs no relating here as the North eventually left the South to Nathan Bedford Forrest and others like him. Life for people whom Lincoln had supposedly set free became a living hell ruthlessly enforced by goons cloaking their terror in white bed sheets. In addition there were the notorious ‘‘Jim Crow’’ laws C. Vann Woodward and others have meticulously documented. For the rest of the country the real guerrilla war was not fought in the swamps, hollows, and pines, but in the staid marble halls of Congress and the Supreme Court. The story of Strom Thurmond is not one of violent military action conducted by a rabid racist, it is a tale of political maneuvering that in effect allowed the values of Griffith’s ‘‘nation’’ to be absorbed into the Republican Party, an irony Abraham Lincoln would find fascinating. To understand this intellectual crossroads where two strands of thought come together to create a major intersection, we need to return to the document that helped create it, the Southern Manifesto, signed in March 1956 by nineteen Southern Senators and eighty-one Representatives. To someone probing the American past like anthropologists probe Olduvai Gorge, the manifesto represents the equivalent of the missing link in the evolution of the Republican Counterrevolution. Like a primitive skull fragment one can see in it the heavy-browed Neanderthalism of John C. Calhoun and those who took this nation into civil war because they believed that one human being could hold another in perpetual bondage. Yet one can also see the manifesto evolving into something new, a more modern creature who has lost the primitive features, learning to use more sophisticated language and tools to reach its ends. While history still associates defense of segregation with the Southern Manifesto, not as well-recognized are its other philosophical underpinnings. Although the manifesto did not go as far as Calhoun’s doctrine of nullification, it stood squarely in the long tradition of Southern opposition to federal intrusion. What had kept the Constitutional Convention wrangling for long hours that steamy Philadelphia summer in 1787 and made the adoption of their work less than a foregone conclusion flowed in the intellectual blood streams of countless sons of Dixie. The manifesto makes its opposition to Brown v. Board clear, stating, ‘‘We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.’’ It affirms the values of Calhoun with ringing language: ‘‘We decry the Supreme Court’s encroachment on the rights reserved to the States and to the people, contrary to established law, and to the

Economic Justice & 21

Constitution.’’16 These words espouse entirely different values than those of Liberal America, defining a separate reality. As the nineteenth century ended, the liberal tradition in the voice of candidates such as William Jennings Bryan, Theodore Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson came to see the federal government playing a central role in maintaining the level playing field. The ideology of states’ rights has always viewed the federal government as a necessary evil whose main functions should be national defense, running the post office (and some question this), and refereeing intramural squabbles. If a state chose to support slavery, that was its prerogative. In her fascinating study of the Dixiecrat rebellion, historian Kari Frederickson persuasively argues that the values preached by Thurmond metamorphosed into the beliefs of the Republican ascendency. ‘‘Thurmond and the Dixiecrats represented a reaction to the modern welfare state,’’ she writes, ‘‘that over time would reach a broader audience frightened by school desegregation decisions, fair housing laws, and race riots and eventually give rise to the backlash led by George Wallace and to the growth of the Republican Party in the South.’’17 While Fredrickson confines her study to the Dixiecrats, the line from them to the present can be traced. There is probably no better example than the following lines from the 2000 Republican Platform, which Thurmond could have written in 1956: Therefore, in our effort to shift power from Washington back to the states, we must acknowledge as a general matter of course that the federal government’s role should be to set high standards and expectations in policies, then get out of the way and let the states implement and operate those policies as they best know how. Washington must respect that one size does not fit all states and must not overburden states with unnecessary strings and red tape attached to its policies.18

Another section has eerie echoes with the Southern Manifesto and its objections to Brown v. Board, Many judges disregard the safety, values, and freedom of law-abiding citizens. At the expense of our children and families, they make up laws, invent new rights, free vicious criminals, and pamper felons in prison. . . . The sound principle of judicial review has turned into an intolerable presumption of judicial supremacy.19

The Republican Party had been dragged kicking and screaming through the reforms of the New Deal, a fact that an astute Harry Truman used to his

22 & The Counterrevolution

advantage when he ran against the Do-Nothing Eightieth Congress. In this sense one of the more interesting questions about the Thurmond alliance becomes, ‘‘How?’’ Knitting together a rag-tag bunch of die-hard Confederates— many wearing the equivalent of tattered and bullet-shredded uniforms—with the starched white shirts and knife-pleated suits of what I term corporate freemarket fundamentalists does not appear to make sense—especially given the long-standing belief the industrial power of the North led to the South’s defeat. However, the intellectual rationale fits as snugly as a well-made dovetail joint. Behind corporate opposition to Liberal America lay decades of support for the prerogatives of the plutocrats who gave the Gilded Age its name. The ruling philosophy of those times carried the name laissez faire, a fancy name for government keeping its hands off business. Dating back to the French Physiocrats and Adam Smith’s immortal ‘‘invisible hand,’’ some philosophers, economists, and business tycoons believed that the best way to keep the engine of capitalism running smoothly was for government to stay as far as possible from trying to regulate it. In its more benign form, laissez faire merely espoused opposition to government programs, but in its more radical extremes it served to justify all sorts of shenanigans such as Jay Gould’s attempt to corner the gold market, as if the invisible hand trumped laws, justice, and morality. What laissez faire defenders fail to note is that, like the steam engines that became symbolic of Smith’s dreams, when left unregulated, things tend to blow up. The most rabid defender of laissez faire was a popular Yale professor— and, like John Kerry and George W. Bush, a Skull and Bones member— William Graham Sumner. In various articles, books, and speeches he outlined his justification of inequality. Sumner believed ‘‘every effort to realize equality necessitates a sacrifice of liberty.’’ He especially reserved his ire for social programs and what his contemporaries termed ‘‘charity.’’ Writing about ‘‘paupers,’’ he noted, ‘‘[He] who does not contribute either by land, labor, or capital to the work of society, is a burden. On no sound political theory ought such a person to share in the political power of the State.’’ As for ‘‘the weak,’’ ‘‘they constantly neutralize and destroy the finest efforts of the wise and industrious, and are a dead-weight on the society in all its struggles to realize any better things.’’20 Many plutocrats found comfort in such words and the words of the British philosopher Herbert Spencer, who coined the term ‘‘survival of the fittest’’ and applied it to human behavior even before Darwin published his works. A famous expression of what historian Richard Hofstader called Social Darwinism came from oil baron John D. Rockefeller, who believed ‘‘The growth of a large business is merely

Economic Justice & 23

a survival of the fittest. The American beauty rose can be produced in the splendour and fragrance which bring cheer to its beholder only by sacrificing the early buds which grow up around it.’’21 During the late nineteenth century, the Supreme Court became an ardent enforcer of this idea. In 1886 the Republican-dominated Court issued Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, which ruled that corporations are people entitled to the legal rights and protections the Constitution affords the rest of us. Ever since, this decision has served as a particularly nasty thorn in the side of those who would use government to level the economic playing field. The Court’s continual application of laissez faire became so outrageous, that in 1905 it prompted one of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ more famous dissents in Lochner v. New York. ‘‘A Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory,’’ he said, ‘‘whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire.’’22 During and after the Gilded Age, laissez faire types opposed the income tax, the eight-hour day, the minimum wage, and environmental regulation as surely as the Dixiecrats fought civil rights. Behind what both saw as unnecessary intrusions by an out-of-control federal government, lay a mutual belief in inequality. The Dixiecrats believed in racial segregation behind which lurked the doctrine of white supremacy. The rabid free-market wing of corporate America has long seen economic inequality as the driving force behind capitalism. While Sumner, Spencer, Rockefeller, and some other so-called Social Darwinists did not consider themselves racists, others used similar reasoning to get to another, more noxious point. Richard Hofstader wrote, ‘‘Although Darwinism was not the primary source of the belligerent ideology and dogmatic racism of the late nineteenth century, it did become a new instrument in the hands of the theorists of race and struggle.’’23 Hofstader pointed out that racism had a long history before the arrival of Social Darwinism, but the two would prove to be compatible. In essence the corporate fundamentalists and the racists of the nineteenth century represented travelers walking the same path. Like two amiable companions who hide disagreeable secrets, neither delved much into the life of the other, so the racist made no more comment about sweatshop brutality than the laissez faire capitalist would bring up plantation brutality. That the two should meet again a half-century later should be no surprise. Seeing them together again, it remains hard not to ask, ‘‘What took you so long?’’ The Southern Manifesto represented an intersection between this longstanding opposition to government meddling in the affairs of business and

24 & The Counterrevolution

the South’s objection to its meddling in the affairs of the states. The stalwarts of business fundamentalism, who have influenced the Republican Party for over a century, acquiesced in the Southern Strategy. In part this may have come because the Civil Rights Movement resurrected old specters that haunted the nightmares of CEOs. If the federal government could tell the South what to do even to the point of marching James Meredith through the front door of the University of Mississippi, could it not do the same at some manufacturing plant? The 1960s let loose diverse voices for freedom. Not only did people of color have equal rights but so, too, did women. ‘‘My God!’’ one can imagine the white men in gray flannel suits fuming, ‘‘some nuts are even saying trees, water, even the air itself have rights?’’ To them, such craziness was as deadly as anarchism or communism. So even as Bob Dylan sang ‘‘The Times They Are A-Changin’,’’ they were, only not in the way Dylan imagined. What built the crossroads between business and segregationist states’ rights lay in the Southern Manifesto’s roots in the South’s social and economic culture. What W. J. Cash called ‘‘the mind of the South’’ has always been an enigma, even to southerners. Wading into historiographical disputes about the South has become akin to venturing into one of those archetypal Dixie swamps where over-hanging trees of evidence make it difficult to see the light, myriad channels of interpretation can quickly get you confused, and snakes and gators of dogma threaten to take a healthy bite if you make a careless move. Yet, the manifesto says a great deal more about values than it does about states’ rights. Speaking of the ‘‘unwarranted exercise of power by the Court,’’ it argues, ‘‘It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.’’ Elsewhere it mentions ‘‘habits, traditions, and way of life.’’24 As most Americans now realize, the South in the nineteenth century was not the peach-blossomed myth that colored the local reality of the South, covering what has been variously described as a ‘‘feudal,’’ ‘‘hierarchical,’’ or ‘‘caste’’ society that made political offices such as those Thurmond held early in his career as much inherited as earned. Frederickson astutely notes the Dixiecrat rebellion ‘‘was also a response to mounting agitation for racial and economic democracy at the local level.’’ She goes on to point out, ‘‘For Black Belt elites, maintenance of the racial hierarchy and their own economic privilege—in particular, access to and control over natural resources and domination of a captive, low-wage labor force—were intimately intertwined.’’25

Economic Justice & 25

While Frederickson focuses on the South of the 1940s and 1950s, the persistence of the values she identifies can still be seen. Anyone opening an almanac in the last quarter-century or familiar with social and educational statistics is well aware of the dismal rankings of the old Confederacy. Southern states typically rank near or at the bottom of surveys on education and health care, whether in measures such as student performance or infant mortality. The South’s poor performance has persisted for over a century, hanging like a millstone around the neck of America. This tilted playing field makes the climb for people of color particularly steep. As it remade America, the Republican Party borrowed this template, cutting back spending on education, health care, and welfare with a zeal that would have pleased the Confederate apologists. A year after Thurmond’s death in 2003, the GOP budgets for social programs in some states seemed to be trying to emulate those of Mississippi and Alabama. In an Upper Midwest that once held the values of government aid, some Republican politicians preach that government needs to get out of the business of leveling the playing field. Less recognized is how all America has become more hierarchical, even feudal. The lower and middle classes have been under siege now for over a decade, with results that resonate suspiciously with Thurmond’s Dixie. Perhaps it is fitting that two of the earliest critics of American inequality should come from the city that gave birth to the Constitution. In 1992, Philadelphia Inquirer reporters Donald Barlett and James Steele wrote America: What Went Wrong whose first chapter is titled, ‘‘The Dismantling of the Middle Class.’’ Over a decade later, the PBS series Now extensively documented the continuing middle-class ‘‘squeeze’’ on its Internet site, which may be why the GOP has aimed its ammunition at public broadcasting. Bill Moyers reported, ‘‘For many Americans, finding houses in the affordable range is becoming a challenge.’’26 Barbara Ehrenreich has written about the increasingly difficult lives of lower- and middle-class workers in a series of books, including Fear of Falling, Nickel and Dimed, and Bait and Switch. In his articles on the declining middle class, The New York Times’ Paul Krugman noted, a ‘‘C.B.O. study found that between 1979 and 1997, the after-tax incomes of the top 1 percent of families rose 157 percent, compared with only a 10 percent gain for families near the middle of the income distribution.’’27 Other statistics show that in 1970 the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers had 0.7 percent of total income— that is, they earned ‘only’ 70 times as much as the average, not enough to buy or maintain a mega-residence. But in 1998 the top 0.01 percent received more

26 & The Counterrevolution than 3 percent of all income. That meant that the 13,000 richest families in America had almost as much income as the 20 million poorest households; those 13,000 families had incomes 300 times that of average families.28

This section of this book is titled ‘‘The Counterrevolution’’ because the accommodation reached between Strom Thurmond and the Republicans represented a campaign to roll back the programs and philosophy of the New Deal that had largely been shaped by Liberal America. In essence whether under the guise of the Southern Manifesto, Reagonomics or the Bush tax cuts, the Counterrevolution believes that a tilted playing field is best for the economy and society. In their ‘‘survival of the fittest’’ view of the world lies a sense that the steeper the tilt, the more those who master this climb by whatever means become stronger, in turn strengthening society. This author has neither the space nor the inclination to go into the economic pros and cons of that argument. Rather what is important is how the argument plays as a moral statement that eschews the tenets of most major religions that the well-off have a duty to help the unfortunate. Even Andrew Carnegie, who has been termed a Social Darwinist, believed this. Behind the worship of the tilted playing field lies an elitist view of human nature that we can trace at least as far back as Edmund Burke’s warnings about the excesses of the French Revolution. Burke looked across the English Channel as the spectacle produced by Madame Guillotine drifted across the water. He believed that if given free reign the people could create as much destruction as any dictator. ‘‘The effects of the incapacity shown by the popular leaders in all the great members of the commonwealth are to be covered with the ‘all-atoning name’ of liberty,’’ he wrote. ‘‘In some people I see great liberty indeed; in many, if not in the most, an oppressive, degrading servitude. But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.’’29 A paragraph from the Southern Manifesto echoes Burke: ‘‘The Founding Fathers . . . framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.’’30 Today Strom Thurmond stands naked before history, stripped bare by the revelation that he sired a daughter in an affair with a black maid. Like the South itself, this man who opposed Martin Luther King Day in part because of questions about King’s moral character, appears more complex than the myth he sought to sustain. So the life of Strom Thurmond becomes

Economic Justice & 27

for many not unlike that Edgefield photograph, a rutted dirt road shaded by peach blossoms. For half a century throwing bricks at Strom Thurmond has served as a particularly popular Yankee pastime. Yet the old saying about glass houses has never held so true. As much as I disagree with it, the manifesto shows Thurmond’s ideas had a certain internal consistency. As states’ rights became antigovernment, as laissez faire and segregation again converged, what some viewed as regional prejudices and peculiarities were revealed as having deeper roots. In my own Minnesota community Confederate flags flew from the pickups of a racist gang calling itself the AllAmerican Boys. Those peach blossoms, then, covered a great deal more than Strom Thurmond or the South. Today, some appear more than ready to scatter peach blossoms on the grave of Liberal America.

3

Educational Equity: Devil’s Bargains

Seen from the air, Dover, Pennsylvania, could be one of hundreds of similar American towns. Stretching in a broad slash across the North, stand the humps of Appalachian foothills whose dense forests are virtually unscarred by roads or houses. Around this small town of 1,800 residents lies an uneven geometric pattern of brown and green fields that recalls the quilts popular in area antique shops. South of the town near Route 30 and Interstate 83 loom the tightly packed houses that mark York, a city of over 300,000 residents and a variety of industries including the famous barbell company of the same name. History buffs may remember that in York the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation and proclaimed the first National Day of Thanksgiving. Yet what landed the area on the front pages in 2004–2005 is not history or weightlifting but religion. The area is a hotbed of denominational diversity. To the east lie Amish communities with quaint names like Bird-in-Hand, where horse-drawn black buggies driven by bearded men in broad-brimmed dark hats commonly share the roads with the cars of tourists. Then there is Ephrata Cloister, an eighteenth-century austere religious community known for its music and calligraphy. Lancaster spawned the Brethren in Christ, an Anabaptist splinter group whose early members shunned bright colors, jewelry, and other frills. Dover itself boasts over twenty churches, an indication not only of the religious spirit of the area but also its variety. This spirit no doubt played a role in giving rise to what the press termed ‘‘the second monkey trial.’’ In 1960, when Stanley Kramer made Inherit the Wind, his movie about the Scopes trial, it portrayed fundamentalist Christians as primitive rubes

30 & The Counterrevolution

who hung out in the backcountry of the American consciousness, a view symbolized by the film’s opening featuring a lone, mournful voice singing ‘‘Give Me That Old Time Religion.’’ Little did Kramer or those watching the film at the time guess that four decades later American education would confront the ghosts of Dayton, Tennessee. Those well-mannered teenagers with their 1950s haircuts that Kramer incongruously transported back to the 1920s would find themselves propelled into a future that Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan would find strangely familiar as we again found ourselves quarrelling over religion in the classroom. Americans thought they had overcome the outbursts of religious revivalism that periodically have raged across the land. In these upheavals whole communities could be driven into spasms of zealotry by sermons that painted vivid pictures of the tortures awaiting unbelievers. Because much of twentieth-century America had been free of these ‘‘awakenings,’’ many presumed they had become extinct. Like some slumbering great beast in a faraway chamber of a deep cavern, the fundamentalists lay forgotten by many Americans, who wrongly assumed that the beast was largely an artifact of the past with no more relevance than a fairytale. Then the Southern Strategy awakened the beast and once again he stalked the land. The Republican Party and America would never again be the same. When the GOP cut its deal with Strom Thurmond, its leaders may not have realized what might come along with it, as often happens in alliances of convenience. One of the most influential consequences of the Southern Strategy came from those who could trace their lineage directly back to Dayton, Tennessee. With Thurmond came what we now call the Religious Right. Its assault on Liberal America would particularly impact the cornerstone of education. The beginnings lie in a long-standing internal struggle within Baptist churches between fundamentalist autocrats and individualistic pluralists. What traditionally united the widely disparate strains of Baptism was the fact that local Baptist congregations enjoyed great autonomy, perhaps because in remote wilderness clearings where churches were built by raw frontier families, any idea of centralized control was not only impractical but cut against the grain of people who regarded taking orders with a skepticism reinforced by a quick trigger finger. In this wilderness state, Baptists regarded faith as a profoundly personal relationship between an individual and God as mediated through Jesus Christ. According to a recent article by the Baptist Heritage Society, ‘‘No church or ecclesiastical organization has control over a Baptist church.’’1 In the 1960s and 1970s, a power struggle intensified in the largest Baptist organization, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), that reshaped not

Educational Equity & 31

only Baptists but also American politics. The battle lines lay between individualists believing in the personal faith tradition and authoritarian fundamentalists who asserted a more hierarchical view that placed matters of faith squarely in the hands of doctrinaire autocrats. In 1978, the fundamentalists succeeded in electing Adrian Rogers to the SBC presidency, then moved to gain control of other key executive offices. At first largely unnoticed by the mainline media, this battle for control of the nation’s largest religious denomination became as nasty as any no-holds-barred frontier wrestling match. Some opponents of Rogers accused him of bussing in supporters to pack the galleries and sway the voting.2 By 1998, the fundamentalists had gained enough control that they could revise the Baptist Faith and Message that served as the central creed of the organization, a move that had occurred only twice before in the century. The 1998 revision attracted attention from the mainline press with some of its more radical provisions. Section XVII on the family contained the following controversial statement: ‘‘A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.’’ Section XV, the Christian and the Social Order, set the denomination’s political agenda: ‘‘All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society. . . . Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly love.’’3 The revision also contained a section on education, which did not attract as much attention as some of the other changes, but would figure mightily in the future of this Liberal American cornerstone. It stated, ‘‘An adequate system of Christian education is necessary to a complete spiritual program for Christ’s people.’’ While the passage did not openly advocate a separate system of Christian schools, ultimately for many it pointed in that direction. By implication it also envisioned either inserting religion into America’s public schools or a dual system featuring government aid for religious schools. The passage on education also noted, ‘‘The freedom of a teacher in a Christian school, college, or seminary is limited by the preeminence of Jesus Christ, by the authoritative nature of the Scriptures, and by the distinct purpose for which the school exists.’’4 When the revisions first became public, the major quarrel within the SBC came over eliminating the basic premise of the faith that identified Jesus Christ as ‘‘the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted.’’ As critics recognized, this change made education the center of the dispute since it centralized interpretation of the faith with the church leadership, giving

32 & The Counterrevolution

them power over what was taught in seminaries and who could teach there as well as over individual congregations and worshipers. By striking out the words, the Southern Baptist Convention had gone from one of the most individualistic churches to one of the most dictatorial with the stroke of a pen. When combined with the section on education, its consequences would result in faculty purges along with a centrally controlled system of religious schools marching to the same drummer. This earned the wrath of former President Jimmy Carter, whose faith had been one of the most public aspects of his presidency. In a formal statement, Carter announced his resignation from the church, ‘‘I have been disappointed and feel excluded by the adoption of policies and an increasingly rigid SBC creed, including some provisions that violate the basic premises of my Christian faith. I have finally decided that, after sixty-five years, I can no longer be associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.’’ Carter pointed particularly to the controversial wording change, ‘‘Most disturbing has been the convention’s recent decision to remove Jesus Christ, through his words, deeds and personal inspiration, as the ultimate interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. This leaves open making the pastors or executives of the SBC the ultimate interpreters.’’5 At the same time Carter left the church, the new leadership voted to admit someone previously scorned by many Baptists, Jerry Falwell. All of this might seem an irrelevant theological quarrel were it not for another event that occurred the same year as the revision of the creed. This event had its roots in a political movement that remarkably paralleled the SBC takeover. In the 1970s new people began appearing at Republican caucuses, not the typical business types, but people concerned with issues like abortion, school prayer, and whether Charles Darwin was descended from a monkey. Some of them even openly carried Bibles and quoted chapter and verse with the zeal of a missionary seeking to convert the heathens. They began to bring others like them and soon the equivalent of a political great awakening was under way. By 1980, Ronald Reagan felt the need to assure a fundamentalist gathering in Dallas that he was one of them. As they flexed their political muscles, fundamentalists created the Moral Majority in 1979 and the Christian Coalition in 1989. While not directly related to the Southern Baptist Convention, these political organizations grew from the same fundamentalist roots and quickly became powerful players in the Republican Party, demonstrating that the agenda of the fundamentalists was not merely to take over churches but also influence politics. Feeling their strength, the leaders of the SBC held a strategy meeting with Republican leaders to discuss an alliance. Richard Land, president since 1988 of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission,

Educational Equity & 33

reportedly told the Republicans, ‘‘No more engagement. We want a wedding ring, we want a ceremony, we want a consummation of the marriage.’’6 This quote has appeared in various sources, but Land denies he used those words. He says, ‘‘I said if the Republican Party wants the support of people who believe in God and who believe in the sanctity of all human life from conception onward and believe in the traditional family and believe that homosexuality is deviant and immoral behavior and shouldn’t be approved and affirmed by the president of the United States, then they need to come and endorse our values and our beliefs and our understanding of the truth.’’7 Like Richard Nixon’s arrangement with Strom Thurmond, the alliance formed around these words became a Devil’s bargain made by the Republican Party to secure power. As we will see, the provisions of the 1998 revision of the Southern Baptist creed in essence became guiding principles of the GOP along with those of Thurmond’s Southern Manifesto. Three of the four partners of the Counterrevolutionary coalition had fallen into place. The first were the corporate fundamentalists who detested any government regulation of business. The second were the former Dixiecrats who fought for states’ rights. The intersection between the Dixiecrats and the corporate fundamentalists sought to pull back the government’s role in leveling the social and economic playing field. The intersection between the Religious Right and other Counterrevolutionary members involved a crusade that has come to be called the ‘‘Social Agenda.’’ Although the fundamentalists’ position on issues such as abortion has received much media and political attention, the linchpin has been education. If Strom Thurmond personifies the first stage of the Counterrevolution, Ralph Reed, former Christian Coalition Executive Director, personifies the second, for like Thurmond he has that Forrest Gump quality of being at critical crossroads. Looking like a frat boy whose too-well-groomed appearance and smirking smile suggest he has played more than his share of pranks, Reed’s early career is characterized by questionable actions. Nina J. Easton, author of Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Crusade notes he was fired from the University of Georgia student paper for plagiarism. He then worked with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist to take over the national college Republicans.8 Later he built Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition into a major force in the Republican Party. In the 2000 election he served as an advisor to George W. Bush. He even managed to get himself hired by Enron. After somehow landing on his feet after that fiasco, Reed became head of the Georgia GOP, running for the lieutenant governorship in 2006. Reed illustrates the abilities—even the necessity—of key Republican

34 & The Counterrevolution

operatives to move seamlessly between the three worlds of politics, religion, and business. In fact these operatives probably do not see the three arenas as distinct, but part of one divine mission. What helped consummate the marriage Land spoke of was one major cornerstone of Liberal America: education. The Religious Right has been dissatisfied with public schools for some time because by law America’s classrooms have been nondenominational. The fundamentalists became especially incensed as courts and legislatures ruled against school prayer and the IRS moved to revoke tax exemptions for religious schools that served as covers for segregation the way bed sheets covered Klansmen. As public schools invested in programs such as diversity, fundamentalist Christians bailed out of the system, forming private religious academies or seeking to remove programs that did not agree with their theology. Finally, Darwin again entered the picture as fundamentalists agitated against the teaching of evolution while advocating what they called ‘‘intelligent design.’’ In Political Agendas for Education: From the Christian Coalition to the Green Party, author Joel Spring zeroes in on a statement in which Ralph Reed acknowledges, ‘‘More than any other single episode, the IRS move against Christian schools sparked the explosion of the movement that would become known as the religious right.’’9 Paul Weyrich, one of the architects of the new GOP coalition, agrees with Reed’s analysis, noting that the Religious Right was born in response to two decisions by the Carter administration: the IRS ruling and the belief that the FCC planned to regulate Christian radio stations (although imaginary, it was widely believed).10 Thus began the second phase of the Counterrevolution, built around a series of Devil’s bargains that made their coalition the equivalent of the New Deal coalition of Franklin Roosevelt. The Counterrevolution’s road to power was paved by two crucial decisions that have played a major role in creating the Era of Bad Feelings. The first came from the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, a 1976 case revolving around reforms initiated after Watergate designed to lessen the impact of money on the electoral process. Those reforms resulted in making the election of 1976 one of the few in which both candidates spent identical amounts. The Buckley decision upheld the Watergate reforms with one notable exception: the Court ruled that individuals and groups not affiliated with the official campaign had no spending limits. The GOP pounced on this loophole. In the 1984 campaign when Ronald Reagan faced Walter Mondale, Republican Political Action Committees (PACs) spent almost four times the amount of their Democratic counterparts: $15.8 million to $4.2 million. In 1988, independent expenditures

Educational Equity & 35

amounted to $13.7 for the Republicans and $2.8 for the Democrats. A Brown University study summed up the effect of the changes: ‘‘Since the GOP historically had a stronger base among big businesses and wealthy individuals, independent expenditures advantaged Republicans more than Democrats.’’11 This came as Sunday morning religious programs became serious business, turning preachers into instant conglomerates with tentacles reaching into every part of the media and, along with this, money for political organizing. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, to give them their due, were doing nothing that had not been done before by the likes of John D. Rockefeller and Jay Gould. Only this time the money lay in churches with an ideology to advance, particularly the remodeling of the American public education system. Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist, no slouch himself when it comes to raising PAC money, detailed the considerable clout of the Religious Right in a 1998 article, toting up the coffers of various religious organizations and then favorably comparing them with such heavyweights as the Chamber of Commerce. He admirably pointed out, ‘‘The Christian Coalition has one million donors, l.5 million activists, and 2000 local chapters that distributed 66 million voter guides in the l996 election cycle. Since 1990 the Christian Coalition has trained 52,300 community activists, 18,000 in 1996 alone. The 1997 budget was $17 million dollars.’’12 Much of this considerable war chest came from the efforts of Ralph Reed. A second decision that became equally important for the Counterrevolution was the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. First enacted in 1949, the FCC ruling looked into the future and decided that because they operated in the public interest, the mass media should present all sides of controversial questions. The Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine in the 1969 Red Lion case, still generally recognized as one of the Court’s landmark decisions. Red Lion not only involves the Religious Right but also foretells exactly what would happen with repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. The case began when the Reverend Billy James Hargis, the Jerry Falwell of his day, accused the author of a book on Barry Goldwater of being a communist. The author sued under the Fairness Doctrine and the Court found in his favor. In its decision the Court said the Fairness Doctrine serves to ‘‘enhance rather than abridge the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First Amendment.’’ It also noted that ‘‘when a personal attack has been made on a figure involved in a public issue’’ the doctrine requires that ‘‘the individual attacked himself be offered an opportunity to respond.’’13

36 & The Counterrevolution

In 1987, an FCC packed with commissioners appointed by Ronald Reagan voted to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. When Congress tried to overrule the decision by passing a law extending the doctrine, Reagan vetoed it. Just as the Buckley decision opened the door to single-issue PACS, the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine opened the media door wide for ideologues like Robertson. On stage stepped a key actor in the next phase of the Republican Counterrevolution, Newt Gingrich. Gingrich helped engineer the GOP takeover of the House of Representatives in 1994 by making great use of Ralph Reed and his allies. At the center of the takeover lay the Contract with America, a Gingrich inspiration laying out his party’s agenda. The preamble makes no bones about what the takeover would bring, stating, this ‘‘historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.’’14 The second sentence spells out the next phase of the Counterrevolution: linking distaste for big government with the agenda of Jerry Falwell and the fundamentalists. Manifestoes have always served as the core of radical movements composed of true believers convinced they have the answer to every problem. Nothing signifies this better than a sentence from the opening of the Contract with America, which puts a religious cast on everything after: ‘‘Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act ‘with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.’ ’’15 In other words, the zealots of the Counterrevolution evoked secular saint Abraham Lincoln, linked him to God and then themselves. History is full of people who believe they are acting in God’s name and their record is hardly one that would inspire confidence in the Contract with America. For most of us deciding what is the best thing to do is a daily and sometimes agonizing task, full of doubts, questions and not a few second thoughts, and the thornier the problem the more difficult it is to decide what is right. That is why some of us go to church each Sunday or seek other counsel, no matter what our faith, when we face an especially difficult issue. The contract’s authors apparently have no such doubts. They know what is right. Fortunately for the Democrats, Gingrich stumbled on the supremely confident zealotry behind the Contract with America. Possessed with an ego that often goes along with thinking in terms of big ideas, Gingrich became so identified with the document that it became difficult to tell the two apart. Some saw a certain presidential gleam in Gingrich’s eye, a gleam that hauntingly resembles that of Henry Clay, whose American System was one of the key concepts of the pre–Civil War era. Like Clay, Gingrich produced a tragedy worthy of Shakespeare. The Democrats ran their next campaign

Educational Equity & 37

against him, demonizing Gingrich so effectively they had America believing that by eliminating him, they just might eliminate the Era of Bad Feelings. Unfortunately, they suddenly faced a terrible dilemma—they had nothing else to run on. Rather than zero in on the Counterrevolutionary attempt to undermine the cornerstones, they aimed at Gingrich’s personality. Gingrich’s contract received ample publicity, but less known is another contract issued shortly thereafter under the auspices of none other than Ralph Reed. The Contract with the American Family affirmed such pet causes as reversing Roe v. Wade and condemning homosexuality, and continued to take issue with public schools. The contract illustrates Reed’s acknowledged genius in repositioning the fundamentalist agenda around what has come to be called ‘‘family values.’’ Much as Ronald Reagan cloaked states’ rights in the mantle of denigrating ‘‘big government,’’ Reed’s repackaging helped the Religious Right to become more respectable. Although abortion has received most of the attention, the most insidious part of Reed’s campaign focused on education. With even more hubris than Gingrich, Reed’s Contract with the American Family took on biblical form, as if its author had found sacred tablets as valuable as the ones Moses brought down from the mountain. The Second of the contract’s Ten Commandments states, ‘‘Eliminate the Department of Education and transfer most of its money to families and local school boards, with the remainder going to deficit reduction.’’ It also called for the repeal of Goals 2000, a federal initiative the Christian Coalition contended ‘‘establishes ‘politically correct’ national education standards.’’ The Third Commandment advocates, ‘‘Pass laws that enhance parental choice of schools, including voucher programs and tuition tax credits that would provide financial assistance to parents for use at the school of their choice.’’16 Republican leaders such as Gingrich and Texas Senator Phil Gramm appeared prominently at the contract’s unveiling. Gingrich and Representative Dick Armey even promised the Christian Coalition that for its support they would modify the First Amendment.17 With a Democrat back in the White House in 1996, the GOP resoundingly sacrificed Gingrich. In the soap opera plot of ‘‘The Rise and Fall of Newt,’’ many ignore suspicions that a major player in the Counterrevolution had about him. While the current Gingrich website (NEWT.ORG—note the caps) pays some obeisance to religion, including an audio titled, ‘‘The Centrality of Our Creator in Defining America,’’18 the allegiance seems forced. Gingrich has tended to treat the third member of the Counterrevolution much the way some Democrats treat organized labor, not as a cause to be embraced, but as another interest group to be mollified. The tip-off

38 & The Counterrevolution

is education policy. Gingrich’s plan for ‘‘winning the future’’ specifically mentions the importance of math and science education, but says nothing about one of the fundamentalists’ key causes, creationism. Certainly some on the Religious Right no doubt were more than happy to hold open the door and give the rotund worldly philosopher a good push.19 After Gingrich came Tom ‘‘The Hammer’’ DeLay, whose tactics must have made the Democrats long for Gingrich. Gingrich has about him the demeanor of a stuck-up teacher’s pet who any minute will start conjugating verbs in Latin just to show how smart he is. Tom DeLay has the demeanor of a tightly wound spring, with each calculated tick impassively rendered on a mask-like face that somehow does not seem all there. There is an incredible amount of force packed away in those coils, force that hints at powerful passions barely under control. A former bug spray salesman, DeLay treats his opponents as he must have treated all those foul insects, gassing them so they lie there squirming in their death throes. Commenting on his nickname, he told The New York Times, ‘‘The hammer is the most important tool a builder has.’’20 The Hammer learned from his extermination business how to deal with vermin. Rushing in with loud threats and high-sounding declarations like Gingrich is akin to trying to catch cockroaches by shouting at them. The Hammer knows better. Number one, you stay off the radar screen and when you are in the spotlight you behave. Up until his 2005 travails, The Hammer carefully guarded his publicity. ‘‘I’m not afraid of getting on television, but at the same time, I don’t see my role as the national spokesman for the party,’’ DeLay told PBS reporter Ray Suarez in 2003. ‘‘I see my role as to get things done, make sure . . . these bills pass and reflect what the American people want us to do.’’21 New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is on to DeLay’s chameleon act. ‘‘Public images are funny things,’’ he wrote, ‘‘Newt Gingrich became a famous symbol of Republican radicalism. By contrast, most people know little about Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader. Yet Mr. DeLay is more radical and more powerful than Mr. Gingrich ever was.’’22 Along with Ralph Reed, DeLay represents the supreme personification of the Counterrevolution. His antigovernment, anti-regulation views stem from his days as a business owner in a field—pesticide use—that has come under a great deal of scrutiny. DeLay is also not above using Dixiecrat tactics to shut out people of color and cement his own base as he did when he redrew the Texas congressional map. Most of all, DeLay has gone out of his way to announce his religious views in key speeches. Tom DeLay has

Educational Equity & 39

cemented these connections through a Byzantine web of PACs and corporate lobbyists that some have styled ‘‘DeLay Inc.’’23 Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute notes, ‘‘Nobody has tried to use the link with lobbyists the way Tom DeLay has. He’s tried to make sure that in every private sector group there is a loyal Republican he can rely on, and he uses them in an aggressive fundraising way.’’24 For fundamentalists DeLay must represent a welcome change over Gingrich. The Christian Coalition’s Randy Tate thinks of DeLay as ‘‘a Domino’s Pizza delivery guy. It’s there in 30 minutes, or it’s free.’’25 One anti-DeLay website notes, ‘‘He is the religious right’s most reliable culture warrior in the House.’’26 Since he first ran for office, he has endeared himself to the Religious Right by vigorously defending the injection of religion into government. Commenting on President Bush’s faith-based initiatives he said they provide a way of, ‘‘standing up and rebuking this notion of separation of church and state that has been imposed upon us over the last 40 or 50 years. You see, I don’t believe there is a separation of church and state.’’27 Perhaps one of the most bizarre applications DeLay makes of religion to politics lies in his support for dispensationalism, a school of prophecy that believes Israel must return to its former self before the Last Days can begin. After a DeLay speech to the Israeli Knesset that ended, ‘‘May the God of Abraham continue to bless the United States, Israel, and each and every one of you,’’28 several writers zeroed in on his injection of religion into foreign policy. Jan Jarboe Russell wrote, DeLay, a fundamentalist Christian who is by definition unreasonable, is not interested in any modern maps of the Mideast. From behind his own peculiar version of the religious veil, DeLay believes that God gave Israel and the West Bank to the Jews, and that not one square inch of it can be relinquished. . . . The alliance between Christian fundamentalists and conservatives in Israel is the ultimate Faustian bargain.29

An August 1, 2003, Los Angeles Times editorial echoes this view: ‘‘DeLay’s . . . Christian Zionist religious belief holds that a Jewish Israel is necessary for the second coming of Jesus Christ. . . . That view abjures negotiation since compromise by Israel would interfere with the fulfillment of the prophecy.’’ The editorial concludes, ‘‘Americans are justly proud of this nation’s long history of tolerance. But that tolerance is stretched hard by lawmakers who pass off their personal views as foreign policy, even if more bloodshed could result.’’30

40 & The Counterrevolution

By the 2000 campaign, the marriage between the GOP and the Religious Right had become solid. The Republican platform incorporated many of the demands made in the Contract with the American Family, particularly in education. Echoing the Second Commandment is the following platform language, ‘‘Since over 90 percent of public school funding is state and local, not federal, it is obvious that state and local governments must assume most of the responsibility to improve the schools, and the role of the federal government must be progressively limited as we return control to parents, teachers, and local school boards.’’31 The platform also supports the Third Commandment’s call for ‘‘school choice,’’ stating, ‘‘We advocate choice in education, not as an abstract theory, but as the surest way for families, especially low-income families, to free their youngsters from failing or dangerous schools and put them onto the road to opportunity and success.’’32 The platform even goes beyond Reed’s contract, calling for the establishment of ‘‘faith-based’’ after-school programs. Winning candidate George W. Bush went out of his way to declare his allegiance, making prominent mention of his religious conversion experience during the campaign. Since then Bush speeches have often included references meant to solidify his relationship with the fundamentalists. In the 2003 State of the Union address Bush dropped a reference to a ‘‘power, wonder— working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people.’’33 The words are familiar to anyone who has sung Baptist hymns. The title of Bush’s autobiography, A Charge to Keep, comes from another Baptist hymn. Bush communicates in a code understood by initiates, but appearing innocent to those who do not know it. In the movie version of All the President’s Men, Deep Throat in the stentorian voice of Hal Holbrook provides the big clue, saying, ‘‘follow the money.’’ In the GOP’s case, more pertinent advice might be, ‘‘follow the scriptures.’’ America, which once wondered if the Vatican would call the tune for John Kennedy, now found George W. Bush publicly expressing support for teaching ‘‘intelligent design.’’ A president essentially supporting what brought John Scopes into court three-quarters of a century ago represents the worst nightmares of Clarence Darrow or Inherit the Wind director Stanley Kramer. The real target of Inherit the Wind was not fundamentalism, but Joseph McCarthy. Little could the authors of the original play have foreseen a sitting president endorsing ‘‘intelligent design’’ or that the play’s theme of intellectual freedom would be turned on its head by those asking for ‘‘equal time’’ for antievolution ideas. As skirmishes between fundamentalists and others have heated up, state and local school boards have battled over the curriculum. A PBS website

Educational Equity & 41

on evolution (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1990 .html) contains an excellent summary, referencing textbook disclaimers and the 1999 decision by the state of Kansas to drop evolution from public school curricula. Perhaps the most eye-opening is Tom DeLay’s statement on the 1999 Columbine High School killings. ‘‘Our school systems teach the children they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud,’’ he said, explaining why fifteen people died in Littleton, Colorado.34 That DeLay’s beliefs should surface in a rural Pennsylvania community demonstrates the power of religious ideology to cover a great deal of ground, encompassing not merely the Bible Belt but the entire country, not merely the Southern Baptist Convention but a variety of churches preaching a similar message. There is a tendency to see the Religious Right as a single, monolithic organization, but interestingly its closest parallel lies in a similar web of fundamentalist Muslim organizations. The story of one church is illustrative. The Lighthouse Baptist Church in Dover, Pennsylvania, is not a member of the SBC, but rather is what is termed an ‘‘independent’’ Baptist congregation. A prominent link on the church’s website takes you to an organization called The Sword of the Lord. A controversial group founded in 1934 by Dallas, Texas, pastor John R. Rice, The Sword of the Lord represents a well-honed multimedia weapon. The masthead of its national publication, The Sword of the Lord, states it is ‘‘an Independent Christian Publication, Standing for the Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, the Deity of Christ, His Blood Atonement, Salvation by Faith, New Testament Soul Winning and the Premillennial Return of Christ; Opposing Modernism, Worldliness and Formalism.’’35 The name of the organization and its publication is revealing, in that the medieval Italian friar Savonarola, who briefly ruled Florence as a ‘‘Christian Republic,’’ was known as the ‘‘Sword of the Lord,’’ for his fiery sermons and beliefs. Savonarola ordered the infamous Bonfire of the Vanities, in which his agents went door to door collecting anything the friar deemed immoral and then burning the offending material in Florence’s main plaza. While the Baptist Sword of the Lord has not advocated anything like Savonarola’s republic, it has played a large and controversial role in the fundamentalist community. It was The Sword of the Lord that published John R. Rice’s belief that John F. Kennedy’s assassination was the result of the ‘‘curse’’ of a liquor-selling father. The Sword of the Lord also helps us to better understand the connection between fundamentalists and the former Dixiecrats whose opposition to Civil Rights resulted in the Southern Strat-

42 & The Counterrevolution

egy. While the full story of The Sword’s role in opposing Civil Rights has yet to be told, it is clear John Rice was not a friend of the movement, once stating that ‘‘false compassion’’ was the cause for the riots that rocked the country in 1968.36 The Sword of the Lord also helped to put Jerry Falwell on the national stage when in 1979 it published his book, America Can Be Saved! Falwell wrote, ‘‘I hope to live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!’’37 The SBC’s Adrian Rogers has stated, ‘‘I believe that some of the basic convictions I have were first born in my heart from reading The Sword of the Lord as a nineteen-year-old college student.’’38 As a supporter of The Sword, the Lighthouse Baptist Church has been one of several in Dover that defended the local school board’s decision to inject ‘‘intelligent design’’ into the curriculum. During one reporter’s visit, the church’s front table featured a plastic bag of buttons saying, ‘‘I support Dover school board.’’39 Intelligent design holds that since some natural phenomena such as human DNA seem too well-designed to have occurred randomly they must represent the efforts of a creator. To most reputable scientists this may seem acceptable theology, but profoundly misrepresents what science is about. To counter the charge that this was merely creationism in new clothes, the Dover board’s tactic was an especially clever one: rather than actually teach intelligent design, the board merely required that before beginning the study of evolution teachers read a short statement to their classes. When some teachers rebelled at this, the superintendent read its words: Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is not evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families.40

In December 2004, eleven parents filed a lawsuit against the district claiming the statement constituted injecting religion into public education. Unlike Scopes, which many mistakenly believed ended the evolution debate,

Educational Equity & 43

Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District represents a skirmish in a larger war that will sooner or later be fought in the marble chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court. Certainly the success of fundamentalists with the Republican Party has created a powerful reinforcing loop as religious zealots emboldened by political success become stronger, in turn forcing politicians to cater to them more overtly. The state that once spawned GOP progressive William Scranton now boasts a senator—Rick Santorum—who supports intelligent design. For Liberal America the creationism debate is not about science but about whether schools should teach a particular religious ideology. Other religions have what they feel are equally valid explanations for natural events, any of which might pass under the label of intelligent design, but they are ignored by the Christian fundamentalists. As Inherit the Wind made clear, when a particular religious doctrine comes to govern our public schools, then they lose the public part of their name and become instead places to conscript young minds as shock troops in a holy war. Dover voters, however, know what they think about injecting religion into public schools. In an election held days after final arguments in the case, they threw the ringleaders of the ‘‘intelligent design’’ movement off the school board. ‘‘I think voters were tired of the trial, they were tired of intelligent design, they were tired of everything that this school board brought about,’’ said Bernadette Reinking, one of the winning candidates.41 In a sense the Dover voters confirmed a venerable American truth: It is one thing to argue over separation of church and state in other arenas, but in education the entry of religious ideology into the curriculum and the cries for the government to fund religious institutions represents an especially serious problem. It would dismantle our local schools and in essence fund the American equivalent of those so-called ‘‘Ayatollah Academies’’ we deplore. In its survey on American exceptionalism, The Economist noted how the embrace of the Religious Right by the Republican Party disturbs and baffles other countries: To Europeans, religion is the strangest and most disturbing feature of American exceptionalism. They worry that fundamentalists are hijacking the country. They find it extraordinary that three times as many Americans believe in the virgin birth as in evolution. They fear that America will go on a ‘‘crusade’’ (a term briefly used by Mr Bush himself) in the Muslim world or cut aid to poor countries lest it be used for birth control. The persistence of religion as a public force is all the more puzzling because it seems to run counter to historical trends.42

44 & The Counterrevolution

For Liberal America the events taking place in a town located between Valley Forge and Gettysburg dramatize the continued insinuation of fundamentalist Christianity into our politics. The larger story has all the marks of the ‘‘Boiled Frog Parable,’’ which says that if you want to boil a frog, you do not just drop him into the bubbling cauldron, because he will immediately jump out. Instead you very gradually turn up the heat so the frog does not know what is happening until it is too late. That story is the story of Liberal America and its belief in the level playing field. Right now it’s in some very hot water that is already bubbling around the edge.

4

Voting Rights: Bush v. Gore

Architect Cass Gilbert had a thing about marble. Maybe it was because he was born one step removed from the frontier a year before Edmund Ruffin lit the cannon that fired on Fort Sumter. They almost ran him out of Minnesota because he insisted on using Georgia marble for the capitol of a state that revered its regiment’s heroic stand at Gettysburg. When it came time to choose the stone for the U.S. Supreme Court building exterior, the architect specified the cream-colored Vermont marble that also would be used for the Jefferson Memorial. That Gilbert made the right choice is obvious to any Washington tourist, for although it was the last of the three major government buildings to be built, it looks like it belongs with the White House and the Capitol dome. Gilbert died a year before they finished his building in 1935, but will always be with it since his likeness is one of six figures over the words ‘‘Equal Justice under Law’’ that crown the main entrance. The state whose marble gave birth to the U.S. Supreme Court building is a place of mountains and valleys where perspective can be fleeting. The horizon can seem claustrophobic in valleys carved by rivers and streams. Something that may be a mere five minutes away cannot be seen or even imagined. Take a few steps on a muddy trail and you could find yourself entangled in an overgrown blackberry thicket that insistently tears at your clothes. Just as quickly, the trail can suddenly put you on the edge of a meadow whose stone fences remind you of the hope that it took to settle this land. Perhaps this landscape is what makes Vermonters an independent lot who can see nothing out of the ordinary in the fact that their representative,

46 & The Counterrevolution

Bernie Sanders, is now the longest-serving independent in the House. Not surprisingly, Vermonters who fought in the American Revolution declared their state an independent republic in 1777, minting their own coins and providing their own postal service. It took some tough negotiating to get Vermont to join the fledgling United States of America in 1791, becoming the fourteenth state to join the union. One can grasp how an irascible farmer named Ethan Allen spawned the legend of the Green Mountain Boys or Ben and Jerry decided to make ice cream not far from where the Von Trapps built their lodge. The history of Vermont makes you wonder if some of the state’s feistiness does not inhabit that Supreme Court marble. It certainly seems to infect the protestors who gather under Gilbert’s visage every court session. As they marshal on the steps, they literally stand on Vermont ground to cheer for their side with all the spirit of football fans rooting for the home team— complete with hand-lettered signs, crazy costumes, and victory chants. Like everything else in the Era of Bad Feelings, the protestors’ actions seem to have been turned up a notch, especially for divisive issues like abortion. Bundled against the December chill in 2000, the protestors enthusiastically turned out for Bush v. Gore, as if their signs and chants could sway the outcome. One Gore supporter held a drawing of George W. Bush and Uncle Sam pulling on Florida. ‘‘But Jeb promised it to me,’’ said the caption. This was countered by a large sign proclaiming, ‘‘T-minus 40 days until the Gore White House delousing.’’ Other signs read, ‘‘Bush needs a brain, Cheney needs a heart’’ and ‘‘Gore needs a job!’’1 The signs echoed other public reactions. The titles of two articles capture the mood, Jamin Raskin’s ‘‘Bandits in Black Robes’’ and Vincent Bugliosi’s ‘‘None Dare Call It Treason.’’2 These titles contain all the partisan, highoctane bitterness that justifies calling our times the Era of Bad Feelings. The tone even entered the marble halls of the Supreme Court, where in his dissent Justice Stevens noted that the majority opinion ‘‘can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.’’3 For the two political parties it will take a long time for the bad feelings to recede. Democrats will continue to believe the decision represents the equivalent of the yet unproven ‘‘Devil’s bargain’’ between Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams that made Adams president. To Democrats, justices who had maintained a Thurmond-like inviolability of states’ rights in case after case, suddenly did an about-face that rivals Henry VIII changing his religion to get a divorce. On the other hand, Republicans will continue to assert that Al Gore should have done what Richard Nixon did in the disputed 1960 election and bow out gracefully.

Voting Rights & 47

The bitter partisan bickering over Bush v. Gore has left enough waste by the side of the road that it will take a long time to clean up the mess. But, as we all know, it needs to be cleaned up. Somewhere under the cardboard fast food containers left by election workers examining ballots, somewhere beneath the garbage that flew back and forth from one side to another, somewhere beneath the opinion columns crumbled by angry readers, somewhere under the cigarette butts smoked by millions of citizens glued to their televisions, we lost something that desperately demanded recovery—the Constitution. One cannot approach the events surrounding the Supreme Court decision without asking, ‘‘Had the electoral process—and with it the cornerstone of voting rights—become compromised?’’ To anyone watching the election returns, the Laurel and Hardy act put on by the news anchors and their pundits became a comedy that made shambles of the questionable process of calling state elections before the official ballot count. Like comedians trying to move a huge piano up the steep stone steps of a hillside house, the networks labored at pushing their heavy pronouncements upward, huffing and puffing with self-importance, and a little bickering thrown in, one laborious step at a time, making sure none of us missed any of it. Then all of a sudden that piano would slide back to where it started, and the networks would pick themselves up, dust off their suits, perhaps mumbling off-mike to their so-called experts, ‘‘Here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into!’’ So Florida changed colors until someone finally had sense enough to put a question mark on it, where it remains today. The networks’ Florida disaster set the stage for everything that followed. Perhaps that is because in America the networks have become de facto president-makers, having replaced the Electoral College as the prime certifier of election results. Regardless of the accuracy of their polling methods (which were questionable in Florida and again in 2004), allowing the networks to crown winners before election officials have tallied all the votes makes them the true election judges. Symbolism is important in supreme national events and there is no more supreme American event than an election. By allowing the press to call elections, rather than the democratic institutions given that charge by the Constitution, we have enshrined the media in probably the most important symbolic role in this nation. We might as well have television anchors swear in the new president rather than the chief justice. That night Florida’s changing colors alerted viewers that something very strange was happening, a feeling that heightened as network interviews hinted that new returns would change the results. Anyone who did not

48 & The Counterrevolution

suspect trickery must have gone to bed early. Al Gore’s infamous retracted concession only enhanced the illusion act. In that shifting position could be seen everything that makes the Democrats resemble the Hokey-Pokey Party (you put your right foot in, you put your right foot out . . . ). Coupled with the networks’ Laurel-and-Hardy act, Gore’s change stirred up controversy long before people started arguing over hanging chads. In the end the country became weary of the wrangling that had soiled the halls of Congress and the marble eminence of the Supreme Court with a political mud wrestling match that reduced black-robed justices to the level of a cheap thrill. We are left with the voluminous commentaries on the case, a tangled mess soaked by the storm over a decision that may go down as the Dred Scott of our times. At no point has the Gore campaign suggested that voter fraud has cost them votes. Were that the case, we would be in wholehearted support of their complaint. —The Editors, Wall Street Journal

In the end, I suppose, we have to concede that there is no way to get a true picture of how Florida voted. —Alan Brinkley, Slate

When partisan election officials know for a fact that a few votes could change the outcome, they can’t help but be tempted to tilt their recounts accordingly. And, even if they resist the temptation, who will believe them? —Jonathan Rauch, New Republic

So four decades of judicial activism, at both the state and federal levels, mostly unchallenged by other branches of government, culminates in this: judges may now select the next president of the United States. —William Kristol, New York Times It’s one thing to play ball when your party controls one or two branches of government; it’s quite another when the other party controls all branches of the government and mistakes the narrowest of victories for the broadest of public mandates. —Nicholas Confessore, American Prospect4

Voting Rights & 49

As for the justices they seemed equally far apart. The main theme unifying the opinions becomes the Era of Bad Feelings itself with its tendency to turn things into a shouting match. The decision by justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas notes the recount ‘‘was done in a search for elusive—perhaps delusive—certainty as to the exact count of 6 million votes.’’ The dissent by justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer states, ‘‘On rare occasions, however, either federal statutes or the Federal Constitution may require federal judicial intervention in state elections. This is not such an occasion.’’ This opinion ends, ‘‘What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit.’’5 Was this yet another Watergate in which one side tries to minimize the damage while the other works equally hard to make it look as bad as possible or was it merely another manifestation of the rancor and confusion of our times? The answer hinges on whether you believe that Bush v. Gore has as much to do with voting rights as with the Supreme Court. In the end, no matter how the justices had voted, the real meat of the case concerned the weakening of one of America’s most hallowed rites, that private confessional where a voter alone with a ballot assesses sins and atones for them. A neglected photograph shows how close we may have come to losing that cornerstone. It shows a crowd of well-dressed people gesturing and yelling. A trio in white shirts dominates the center of the frame, their mouths gaping in a wordless shout. Two point accusing fingers. Another holds up a dramatically clenched fist. Around them stand about a dozen obviously angry people, also with clenched fists. A woman wearing a red vest in the lower right of the image provides the only color to a scene that could have been photographed in black and white. The picture shows the infamous ‘‘Brooks Brothers Riot,’’ an event from the Florida controversy that has all but receded from memory and hardly appears in accounts of that autumn. In the Brookings Institution book and collection of commentaries on Bush v. Gore, there is not a single reference to it. The Washington Post helpfully identified most of the people in the foreground: Tom Pyle, at that time an aide for Tom DeLay; Chuck Royal, who is still legislative assistant to Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.); Duane Gibson, an aide on the House Resources Committee; Garry Malphrus, a former staff director of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on criminal justice; Rory Cooper, who was at the National Republican Congressional Committee; and Matt Schlapp, then a Bush campaign aide. The ‘‘Lady in

50 & The Counterrevolution

Red,’’ is Layna McConkey Peltier, a former congressional aide who was at Steelman Health Strategies at the time of the photograph.6 Like everything else about Bush v. Gore, the Brooks Brothers Riot provokes wide disagreements about its significance. The name comes from the well-heeled and somewhat clone-like look of the participants, as if instead of fatigues and helmets this army was issued business suits for uniforms, suits that identify their users’ ranks as surely as shoulder stripes: mid-level lieutenants and captains that commanded others who were expected to follow orders as easily as they obeyed the demands of their superiors. In the Era of Bad Feelings where language has become a particularly pointed tool, getting to the bottom of an event such as the Brooks Brothers Riot can involve dissecting nouns, verbs, and adjectives as if performing an autopsy. Ignoring for the moment the use of the either volatile or ironic word ‘‘riot,’’ what happened inspired some interesting reactions. As Miami-Dade election officials worked their way through the laborious task of recounting ballots, this group of Republican activists, angry that the recount was not proceeding as they wanted, forced their way into the room and confronted the vote counters, who in response finally ceased their task. In covering the event, Time magazine observed, ‘‘The way the Republicans went after it, by intimidating the three-member board or by providing the excuse it was looking for, gave Americans the first TV view of strong-arm tactics in what was supposed to be a showcase of democracy in action.’’7 The Democrats.com website asked, ‘‘Did the Bush campaign engage in mob action that resulted in Miami-Dade County stopping their recount? Was it akin to intimidating a jury, which is a felony?’’8 In a McLaughlin Group end-of-the-year ‘‘awards’’ discussion commentator Michael Barone picked the Brooks Brothers Riot as ‘‘Best Photo Op,’’ commenting, ‘‘Oh, I’d pick those Miami-Dade protestors, those Republicans that were supposedly a mob who were protesting when the Board of Canvassers proposed to take the count outside of public view, in violation of Florida law.’’9 So what did happen? For starters, the riot has links to the Republican Party. Accessing the IRS documents of the Bush Cheney Recount Fund provides fascinating evenings of reading, opening the door just a bit into the inner workings of an organization aimed at keeping Florida a red state. Initially, to someone bleary-eyed from perusing the documents associated with Bush v. Gore, the prospect of slogging through over a thousand pages of additional evidence does not sound promising, but the effort does pay off. Pages of mundane expenses detail payments to Einstein’s Bagels, Best Buy, Cort Furniture Rental, and AT&T. Airline expenses provide some idea of the magnitude of the effort, ranging from $101,000 to Delta and $64,000 to

Voting Rights & 51

American to several thousand for Northwest and U.S. Air. The name of Enron appears several times in the list of expenditures, a link the Bush camp would probably just as soon not have in the reports. They made corporate jets available to transport staffers.10 There are also payments to Garrett Sound and Lighting, Beach Sound Inc., and the House of Masquerades that allegedly paid for a party for the rioters.11 Then as you slowly work your way down the columns names jump out: Schlapp for $2,070, Pyle for $456, and Malphrus for $180.12 Although this links some ‘‘rioters’’ to the Bush campaign, it does not necessarily indict the campaign for paying for the riot. The IRS forms do not list what the expenses went for. A stronger link comes from several reports of the riot itself. Perhaps the best descriptions come from Salon.com writer John Lantigua in his article, ‘‘Miami’s Rent-a-Riot,’’ and Wall Street Journal editorial writer Paul Gigot’s piece, ‘‘Miami Heat.’’13 Both confirm that the crowd was under the direction of Republican activists including Elizabeth Ross, a staff member for Senator Trent Lott, and the already-mentioned Thomas Pyle. According to Gigot, when the canvassers retreated to ‘‘semi-isolation,’’ forcing people to watch through the windows, ‘‘Street-smart New York Rep. John Sweeney, a visiting GOP monitor, told an aide to ‘Shut it down,’ and semispontaneous combustion took over.’’14 The crowd itself had been recruited from operatives reportedly flown to Miami specifically for the event. One observer noted, ‘‘This crowd looked tweedy. They were from out of town.’’15 On hearing Sweeney’s order, the troops began chanting ‘‘Three Blind Mice’’ and ‘‘Fraud, Fraud, Fraud.’’16 Republican leaders also mentioned the Cuban American protestors who had helped to turn the Elian Gonzalez deportation ugly, warning, in Gigot’s words, ‘‘That 1,000 local Cuban-American Republicans were on the way—not a happy prospect for Anglo judges who must run for re-election.’’17 There is also evidence of involvement by the highest levels of the Bush campaign. Tom Rhodes of the London Sunday Times said he heard one Republican on a cell phone bragging, ‘‘I just told Rove.’’18 Once in the canvassing area, the rioters made a beeline for Democratic County Chairman Joe Geller. A Republican woman egged them on, shouting that Geller was trying to steal a ballot. Geller said, ‘‘Suddenly I was surrounded by a screaming shouting insane crowd . . . people grabbing at me and my clothes and there was almost no security. I couldn’t believe those people weren’t arrested.’’19 Although Gigot omits this incident from his account he does disingenuously admit the riot was not exactly a garden party, referring to it as a ‘‘bourgeois riot,’’ where ‘‘true, it wasn’t exactly Chicago 1968, but these are Republicans.’’20

52 & The Counterrevolution

Such remarks do beg the question about ‘‘putting the shoe on the other foot.’’ Imagine if the Democrats had organized this? If the Republicans spent millions of dollars and several years trying to convict Hillary Clinton of something, imagine what investigations a Democratic Brooks Brothers Riot would have precipitated? Instead, no one has brought any of the rioters to account. There has never even been a call for an investigation. If anything shows the spineless and misdirected energy of the Democrats surely their failure to follow up on this deserves to be near the top of the list. How important the event rated with the GOP is suggested by the fact that not long after the riot the perpetrators celebrated at a Thanksgiving Day party (the date seems appropriate), taking thank-you calls from Bush and Cheney.21 In January 2005, the Washington Post reported, ‘‘the ‘rioters’ proudly note their participation on re´sume´s and in interviews.’’ Some of the troops received promotions, with Schlapp becoming White House political director and Malphrus rising to deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.22 One wonders how much the incident played on the minds of the justices. Although there is a little question he would have voted for Bush, Justice Antonin Scalia’s remarks have a certain resonance in light of the Miami riot: ‘‘The counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to the petitioner, and to the country by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election.’’23 In essence the rented riot and the Justice of the Supreme Court were saying the same thing: Bush believed he had won and anyone who thought otherwise was threatening ‘‘irreparable harm’’ to him and the country. Gigot, who actually witnessed the event, claims the action was justified because of the blatantly political counting methods of the Miami-Dade ballot counters. As he puts it, ‘‘These folks were ready to blow.’’24 Gigot’s quote should be enshrined on whatever monument they build for the Era of Bad Feelings, for this has truly been a time when a lot of people have been ‘‘ready to blow.’’ Luckily, most of us have kept our heads and not resorted to extra-legal violence. Gigot and other Bush partisans may feel the riot was a minor event because no one was gassed or hauled off in an ambulance, but in an era where meaning has become especially important, the symbolism of the event makes a powerful statement. Like an act of road rage, the riot was in-your-face intimidation. As a first-generation American whose politician grandfather endured sometimes violent Nazi intimidation, I learned symbolic acts can hold unpleasant messages about future intents. Gigot’s language becomes a dead giveaway. From the threat to bring in ‘‘1,000 Cuban-Americans’’ to

Voting Rights & 53

‘‘ready to blow,’’ the rioters wanted to make a forceful statement that things had better go their way—or else. That adults in suits can behave like schoolyard bullies sends an unambiguous message about the values of the Counterrevolution. By rewarding the rioters with parties and promotions the GOP underlined this message. GOP officials deliberately interfering with a court-ordered vote count represents yet another example of moral hypocrisy from a crowd that preaches ‘‘moral values.’’ Coming from the party that has wrapped itself in the mantle of law and order since the days of Richard Nixon and whose raucous radio commentators constantly decry the latest Democratic impropriety, it may represent one of the largest ironies of Bush v. Gore. What is one to make of the credibility of Schlapp and Malphrus the next time they defend an administration determined to enforce ‘‘accountability’’ on school teachers, welfare recipients, and bankruptcy filers? It was a very scary day for America, a day we should be thankful did not ‘‘blow.’’ Still it revealed how far the Counterrevolution is willing to go to get its way. This raises a more serious question: When will that business-suited army again be trotted out to, as Time put it, ‘‘strong-arm’’ someone into submission? One of the most quoted references to the rise of Nazi Germany begins, ‘‘first they came for,’’ and goes on to detail a chilling list of the arrests that culminated with Auschwitz and Dachau. The message is quite clear; if they can do it to someone else, eventually they may do it to you. If the Counterrevolution could organize a group of Brooks Brothers–suited operatives to disrupt a lawful election count, what else might they do? Geller called the rioters, ‘‘Hitler youth,’’25 and they got their way because two hours after the riot the Miami-Dade board voted to cease counting ballots. One has to ask, ‘‘Who were the voters most threatened by the riot?’’ The answer should be no surprise to anyone familiar with American history: African Americans, the poor, the elderly. Voting rights have been a cornerstone of the level playing field for a long time, but the Republicans have doggedly dragged their feet about any measure that either extends the franchise or makes it easier for people to vote. The WomenMatter website perfectly captured this tradition and what has happened since the days of the Dixiecrats: Republicans focused on guidelines for the states rather than detailed rules, wishing to leave to the states the choice of specific kinds of machines and training. Those states where race history makes for competitive voting patterns between whites and blacks have been dominated by the Republican Party since Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1965.26

54 & The Counterrevolution

Confirmation that voting irregularities took place in Florida—some of them deliberate attempts to make it difficult for people of color and the elderly to vote—came from the Civil Rights Commission, which heard over twenty hours of testimony from more than a hundred witnesses in its investigation of the 2000 Florida presidential vote. It concluded: Restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors and inadequate and unequal resources in the election process denied countless Floridians the right to vote. The disenfranchisement of Florida’s voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based upon county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly ten times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in Florida.27

While the commission said it did not find any conclusive evidence of a deliberate plot by Florida officials to influence the voting process, it did issue pointed criticisms of Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris and Governor Jeb Bush. [Their] lack of leadership in the important area of protecting voting rights encouraged the broad array of problems that occurred during the November 2000 presidential election. These officials simply permitted the unequal distribution of quality voting equipment and other needed resources statewide without the public being aware that an electoral disaster might be approaching. . . . The State’s highest officials responsible for assuring effective uniformity, coordination and application of the election were grossly derelict in fulfilling their responsibilities and unwilling to accept accountability. . . . [The Secretary of State’s] claims of no responsibility in the operations of the elections are in sharp contrast to her actions in the aftermath of Election Day. While she described her role in the policies and decisions affecting the actual voting operations as limited, she asserted ultimate authority in determining the outcome of the vote count.28

The failings outlined included placing a disproportional number of antiquated voting machines in African American precincts. This led to nine out of ten counties with the highest percentage of African American voters having above average percentages of ballot spoilage. The Commission also noted that African American voters were disproportionably purged from Florida voter rolls even before the election began. Extensively citing the Voting Rights Act and what is required to prove a violation, the Commission left it to the Department of Justice to decide whether to prosecute

Voting Rights & 55

Harris or Bush, which given the winner of the election, became a moot point. Greg Palast investigated how the GOP conducted the purge of Florida voters, finding widespread abuse. Before the 2000 election the state moved to eliminate all convicted felons from the state voter lists. On the surface the task would seem simple, obtain prison records, match them to voter lists and eliminate the guilty parties. What actually happened was anything but systematic. Palast noted that ‘‘Most of the voters (such as ‘David Butler,’ a name that appears 77 times in Florida phone books) were selected because their name, gender, birthdate, and race matched—or nearly matched—one of the tens of millions of ex-felons in the United States. Neither DBT [the vendor hired to conduct the purge] nor the state conducted any further research to verify the matches.’’29 So African Americans who happened to share names with a convict disappeared from the voting booths as surely as if someone had waved a magic wand to make them invisible. Ralph Ellison’s ‘‘invisible man’’ became the stuff of reality, not fiction. In Florida the entire American voting process itself became suspect, for if Florida’s methods could be that partisan and inaccurate what did that say for other elections? Maybe America needed Jimmy Carter to monitor elections as he had monitored contests in the rest of the world. Much of the world no doubt must have been smiling and appalled by the spectacle— smiling because the GOP’s self-righteous attitude about foreign governments perhaps hid an election process that was not far removed from some tin-horn dictatorship; appalled because if the American idea was tarnished were not millions of dreams? Writing in the Washington Post, E. J. Dionne observed, ‘‘We Americans regularly advise emerging democracies to be as open and transparent as possible in the way they reach an election result. Are we to be the only democracy in the world that refuses to follow our own advice?’’30 The rented riot and the purging of African Americans from the voter rolls represent two assaults on Liberal America’s cornerstone of voting rights. Another serious threat also emerged: the machines doing the counting. Even the Supreme Court could not fail to recognize this in their review of the case: The closeness of this election, and the multitude of legal challenges which have followed in its wake, have brought into sharp focus a common, if heretofore unnoticed, phenomenon. Nationwide statistics reveal that an estimated 2% of ballots cast do not register a vote for President for whatever reason, including deliberately choosing no candidate at all or some voter error, such as voting for two candidates or insufficiently marking a ballot.31

56 & The Counterrevolution

These problems echo a persistent theme in the Era of Bad Feelings—nothing is what it seems. We have magazines manipulating the images of celebrities living and dead, using Photoshop to alter features that a skilled plastic surgeon would find difficult to achieve. Now there is evidence that our voting machines—the very technology designed to make the process unbiased—are not what they seem.32 It would take another chapter twice this long to explain how electronic voting machines work, but such details are probably only of interest to computer geeks and gear heads, the kind who take apart laptops and car engines just for the fun of it, glorying in all those parts lying in disarray on the floor. What all of us came to understand after watching Florida officials peer at ballots through magnifying glasses is that voting machines are fallible. What they spew out requires as much interpretation as if voters had filled out their ballots by hand. Bush v. Gore demonstrated that we may not have come as far as we think from the days when polling places and bars were not all that far apart, both literally and figuratively. The huge doubts the Florida election planted in every voter about the objectivity of the electoral process, represent a much more fundamental issue than whether Supreme Court justices are biased. That fear was reinforced by voting challenges in two critical elections that followed Florida, the California governor’s race and the 2004 presidential race. It seems to be a characteristic of the Era of Bad Feelings that we argue vehemently about the little things, but rarely confront the big problems. The issue of voting irregularities is a classic case and a missed opportunity that will come back to haunt us, but we prefer to chase our tails. While there were calls to fix the ‘‘system’’ after Florida and various states went through the motions of doing so, the monster will not go away, for nothing short of a concerted national effort will solve the problem. Recently many states have been switching to touch-screen voting machines, but as a number of experts and investigators point out these may have even more problems than the old methods, the chief one being that there is no way to audit them. Like any computer, they are also prone to problems. Stanford computer scientist David Dill posted a petition on the Internet that was signed by 100 colleagues, in part stating: ‘‘Computerized voting equipment is inherently subject to programming error, equipment malfunction, and malicious tampering. It is therefore crucial that voting equipment provide a voter-verifiable audit trail, by which we mean a permanent record of each vote that can be checked for accuracy by the voter before the vote is submitted, and is difficult or impossible to alter after it has been checked.’’33 This allegation received major corroboration when Bev

Voting Rights & 57

Harris told how she was able to access a Diebold Company website storing 40,000 files that ‘‘amounted to a virtual handbook for vote-tampering: They contained diagrams of remote communications setups, passwords, encryption keys, source code, user manuals, testing protocols, and simulators, as well as files loaded with votes and voting machine software.’’34 The perils of electronic voting received further attention when a week after the 2004 election, Scientific American bestowed a prestigious Technology 50 leadership award on R. Michael Alvarez and Ted Selker for seeking to reform American voting. Scientific American noted that in July 2004, ‘‘Alvarez and Selker recommended four major steps the Election Assistance Commission should take to minimize lost votes in the November 2004 elections. These included better voter registration processes, fixing certain ballot problems, requiring the reporting of more balloting statistics, and developing better voter complaint procedures.’’35 A website devoted to improving our voting process paints the scenario we all dread, ‘‘Those slick new touch screen voting machines promise to get rid of hanging chads forever. But how do you know your vote was recorded as you intended? You might as well be handing it to a stranger who promises to deliver it to the polling place unchanged.’’36 Even more troubling is an investigative report posted on the infernalpress.com site that links the executives in some of these electronic voting machine companies to the Reactionary Right. In July 2003 Sandeep S. Atwal wrote, ‘‘If [the] charges are true, and there is little evidence to contradict their claims, George W. Bush has already won the 2004 election.’’37 So we are left to ponder all the twists and turns that brought us to this unexpected place. Far from being a case about judges who may have abused their power, Bush v. Gore is at its core a case about the fundamental issues of our democracy. We have a major party trying to influence a presidential recount by ‘‘strong arm’’ tactics. We have the Civil Rights Commission’s documentation of systematic voting irregularities. We also have the problem of voting technology that threatens to increase rather than decrease the possibility of fraud. Shadowy companies with questionable security hold the fate of our nation in their hands. Even a novelist could not have constructed a more fantastic plot. The main actors may have worn Brooks Brothers suits and lacked the colorful names of fictional characters, but the crime was as serious as any imaginary plot, for a fair voting process is obviously a linchpin of democracy. Without it, the train pulls out of the station with those in front taking control while leaving the rest of us behind. Regardless of how one interprets the Supreme Court decision its implications inject a new element into every future presidential election: the

58 & The Counterrevolution

Supreme Court now decides the winner. Pamela S. Karlan of the New York Times gets to the heart of the matter, ‘‘Who wins the presidential election often alters the Supreme Court, both by determining who appoints new justices and by subtly influencing the court’s decisions. But when should the Supreme Court alter who wins an election?’’38 Bush v. Gore demonstrated that the real loser is Liberal America. Nowhere is this made clearer than in an instructive piece by attorney and crime novel author Scott Turow. In a Washington Post article Turow explains the principle of Legal Realism that, although controversial, has guided much of recent court history. As Turow explains it, disciples of Legal Realism recognize ‘‘when judges are free to choose, they will fashion rules that mirror their own ideologies.’’ What makes Legal Realism work, says Turow, is that realists ‘‘tried to erect a tradition that minimized occasions when justices could do that.’’ Turow rightly concludes, ‘‘the events in Florida proved how fragile the understanding about the limited role of judges could be.’’ The result was that ‘‘the Legal Realist Compact had been shattered.’’39 Turow calls for a restoration of the boundaries that had been established by Legal Realism, but he does not sound too optimistic that it will happen. In many ways, Legal Realism expresses the values of Liberal America. Recognizing that partisanship is inevitable, Legal Realism seeks to channel and curb its excesses to provide a level playing field where the common good can prevail. Here we reach yet another difference between the Counterrevolution and Liberal America. Through the last decades of the previous century and well into this one, the GOP has endlessly repeated the mantra of ‘‘strict constructionism.’’ Perhaps it should be no surprise that the party that has embraced religious fundamentalists should also embrace this philosophy, which, like literal interpretation of the Bible, seems to be something whose meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Today the Brooks Brothers Riot, the systematic purging and exclusion of voters as reported by the Civil Rights Commission, and the perils of electronic voting cast a shadow over the entire process. If the Supreme Court’s estimate of the percentage of excluded ballots is even close to correct—and there is no reason to doubt it—then this country’s elections take on an entirely different cast. Cass Gilbert had a thing for marble perhaps because of all the stones he might have chosen this one holds a transcendental quality that has been evoked by poets, both good and bad. Sheathing a government building in marble, as Gilbert did for the Supreme Court—especially marble with almost translucent white purity—makes an optimistic statement about the character of that government. That this particular marble came

Voting Rights & 59

from a state that has long valued independence adds another layer of meaning. The transitive nature of those who erect marble monuments has been a cliche´d subject for poets and epitaph writers. The questions Bush v. Gore poses for America are a bit more complex than the ‘‘Ozymandias’’-like theme of ‘‘Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’’ evoked in so many comments on the case. New groups of protestors now occupy the marble steps under Gilbert’s fixed gaze, their attention focused on the issue of the day. Meanwhile three critical artifacts from Bush v. Gore—the ‘‘Brooks Brothers Riot,’’ the systematic exclusion of voters, and the perils of electronic voting still have not received adequate attention. They remain as open-ended questions with no satisfactory answers in sight. The still unfinished agenda of Bush v. Gore asks: Will the country still firmly support the long-standing, almost marble-like principle that free elections shall not be compromised by intimidation and manipulation? Will the independent, contrary spirit of the place the marble came from allow us to adequately meet the challenges of electronic voting and the still-unfulfilled promise made to those who are still systematically disenfranchised?

5

Media Fairness: A Magical Mystery Tour

Minot, North Dakota, is nicknamed the ‘‘Magic City,’’ because it seemed to literally grow out of the ground—which explains why its high school teams proudly bear the name, ‘‘Magicians.’’ Anyone in the Midwest would recognize Minot as one of those towns created by the railroads as they laid track across the prairie. The area has a rugged beauty, with craggy buttes thrusting up like vertebrae from the flat plains around it. One of those buttes houses a Cold War relic, a huge strategic air command base that still serves as one of the major homes of the storied B-52, whose run as the main bomber of the United States has reached half a century. Like the B-52, people in Minot are survivors and, as one might expect in a military town, quite patriotic. Dakotans never forget where they came from, even those as famous as professional basketball coach Phil Jackson, who has brought his teams back for exhibition games. For most of America’s media, Minot, like many similar towns, lies well off the radar screen. Most of us would not be able to tell you its home state or even an approximation of where it lies on a map. But that changed when a railroad accident suddenly thrust Minot into the middle of one of the most contentious and important disputes in the Era of Bad Feelings. Like many an American tale this is a twisted one with some unexpected turns. It starts in London, with an off-the-cuff remark by one of the Dixie Chicks. By now you may have forgotten the story of these three updated, up tempo Southern belles, who found themselves banned from the radio because their lead singer had the audacity to criticize the president. The

62 & The Counterrevolution

public reaction to her remarks suggested the Dixie Chicks had done something unspeakable like appear in a pornographic movie, but the only thing they bared was their feelings. ‘‘Just so you know,’’ Texas native Natalie Maines said on stage, ‘‘We’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.’’1 Immediately after the remarks hit this side of the pond, a firestorm broke out, with people calling for a boycott of the Dixie Chicks and smashing CDs in demonstrations designed to attract as many cameras as possible. In one of the most controversial reactions, radio stations stopped playing the band’s recordings. ‘‘Out of respect for our troops, our city and our listeners, [we] have taken the Dixie Chicks off our play lists,’’2 said Gail Austin, Clear Channel’s director of programming for two Jacksonville, Florida, stations. Jacksonville University professor Dennis Stouse did not accept this explanation, ‘‘It doesn’t have anything to do with our troops or our city. . . . We should accept the fact that there are viewpoints we don’t agree with.’’3 Florida Today writer Breuse Hickman commented, ‘‘Such corporate—and public—McCarthyism does further expose the limits now placed on certain American freedoms, in this case, freedom of speech.’’4 In the wake of questions about corporate control, Clear Channel, which owns more than a thousand stations, denied that there was any national policy to ban the Dixie Chicks, saying, ‘‘Clear Channel Radio does not issue mandates with regard to individual artists or songs.’’5 So what do entertainers do when they get into trouble with the media? They line up an interview with Diane Sawyer. ‘‘It was an off-the-cuff statement,’’ said Maines, ‘‘And I think the way I said it was disrespectful. The wording I used, the way I said it, that was disrespectful.’’ When Sawyer asked her whether the apology was genuine, Maines replied, ‘‘It’s not because it’s not genuine. It’s because I’m on guard now.’’6 Maines’s contrition prompted a parody website, Chiks.com, to post a picture of the band with a gag over Maines’s mouth. The site said, ‘‘I realize it’s wrong to have a liberal opinion if you are a country music artist. . . . I heard people on the radio and tv like Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich badmouthing the President [Clinton] . . . so I guess I just assumed it was acceptable behavior.’’7 The Dixie Chicks incident was not the first time Clear Channel’s thought control has sprung into action. After 9/11 it created a list of banned songs among which were ‘‘Walk Like an Egyptian,’’ and ‘‘Bridge over Troubled Water.’’8 Clear Channel is also the host for Rush Limbaugh. Clearly, Clear Channel is a conglomerate whose political leanings have inspired others to dig further. Wayne Barrett of The Village Voice fingered Clear Channel as a

Media Fairness & 63

major sponsor of ‘‘at least 13 [prowar] ‘Rally for America’ events, including one in Atlanta that drew 25,000 people.’’9 When activist-singer Ani DiFranco appeared at a Clear Channel–sponsored concert in Newark, New Jersey, the conglomerate took steps to insure that no antiwar sentiments crept into the event. Amy Goodman, the prizewinning WBAI reporter who introduced DiFranco, told the Voice ‘‘the security guards took antiwar leaflets out of my bag,’’ confiscated them from others, and that the operators ‘‘were constantly threatening to cut off the mic.’’10 What makes Clear Channel’s censorship even more interesting is that it has sponsored infamous ‘‘shock jocks’’ such as Bubba the Love Sponge and Howard Stern, whose radio gross outs earned Clear Channel the dubious distinction of paying $1.75 million in fines to the FCC to settle indecency charges. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps pointed out that the Commission ‘‘had complaints concerning at least 200 broadcasts pending against Clear Channel’’ and that ‘‘over two-thirds of the indecency fines proposed by the Commission since 2000 have been against Clear Channel.’’11 One cannot help but wonder whether Clear Channel viewed their flag waving as a way of offsetting risque´ programming. Even after the initial controversy had settled down, the Dixie Chicks incident kept coming back, sometimes from unexpected places such as a Senate hearing room debating the merits of the FCC ruling on media ownership and from no less than Republican and former war hero, John McCain. While he assured his audience he did not agree with the Dixie Chicks, McCain made certain no one missed the point, ‘‘If a local station made a decision not to play a particular band, then that is what localism is all about,’’ McCain said. ‘‘But when a corporate decision is made that (a company’s radio stations) will not play a group because of a political statement, then that comes back to what we’re talking about with media consolidation.’’12 McCain said nothing about talk show zealots who fanned the flames, turning the Chicks into latter-day Joan of Arcs. The Chicks, the talk show hosts, and Senator McCain’s comments together form yet another nail in the coffin of Liberal America. Label that nail media fairness. The Counterrevolution is building this coffin using their alliance of the old Dixiecrats, big business, and religious fundamentalists and linking it with the power of the new media. The most visible figure in the strategy is Sir Rupert Murdoch, who has put his vast media holdings in the service of his majesty’s government. Imperial England might be dead or comatose, but Imperial America is alive and well and Murdoch has been more than happy to blow the trumpets, set off the fireworks, and arrange for other suitable entertainment.

64 & The Counterrevolution

An Aussie native who took over the newspaper chain started by his father, Murdoch moved the business from its Australian base to create a global media conglomerate, buying newspapers in Britain and the United States, and then creating a fourth TV network through his purchase of Twentieth Century Fox. Along the way he followed the Fleet Street model, running catchy headlines like the one in the New York Post trumpeting, ‘‘Headless Body in Topless Bar.’’13 As James Fallows points out in an Atlantic profile, Murdoch’s true genius has been to bring vertical integration to the mass media. According to Fallows, ‘‘Murdoch’s companies now constitute a production system unmatched in its integration.’’14 Murdoch’s concept of vertical integration represents a troubling development that becomes even more disturbing when coupled with his other singular achievement—the creation of the first overtly politically biased television news division in American history. With this the Counterrevolutionary Alliance added its fourth member, call it the new political media, forging a powerful coalition that stretch from the marble halls of Congress into our living rooms. While Fallows portrays Murdoch as someone who cares more about the bottom line than the ballot box, his news programs have taken a decidedly rightward tilt under the direction of conservative commentator William Kristol and former GOP strategist Roger Ailes (he created the infamous ‘‘Revolving Door’’ ad and produced Rush Limbaugh’s short-lived television misadventure). As president of Fox News, Ailes has built a well-known stable of right-wing ideologues including talk-show hosts Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity and newscaster Brit Hume.15 Ailes asserts that since 70 percent of Americans believe the media is too liberal this justifies his right-tilting coverage. ‘‘We can play this down the middle,’’ he says, ‘‘and get that seventy percent, while everybody else fights over the other thing.’’16 In other words, Fox will not air liberal views because Ailes says the media has become too liberal—chutzpah worthy of the man who was brought before the FCC for illegally coordinating ads between George H. W. Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign and independent political action groups. Ailes escaped conviction on a 3–3 vote.17 Fox’s political leanings have inspired a steady stream of studies and opinion pieces that counter Ailes’s assertion. The book and documentary Outfoxed interviewed several former Fox News employees who confirm the network’s rightward tilt.18 Perhaps one of the most sobering studies comes from the Program on International Policy (PIP), which researched viewing and listening habits and compared them with views of the Iraq War. The study focused on three statements that had been exposed as either false or exaggerated: that Saddam Hussein was a major Al Qaeda supporter, that

Media Fairness & 65

Iraq had deployable or had deployed weapons of mass destruction, and that most of the world supported America’s invasion. Only 23 percent of those who relied on National Public Radio (NPR) or Public Broadcasting System (PBS) for information about public affairs believed one or more of the propositions as compared with 80 percent of those who watched Fox News. Even more interesting is that 54 percent of Republican Fox viewers held misperceptions versus 32 percent of Republicans who mainly received news from PBS or NPR. In essence, Fox plays a role in reinforcing the Republican Party line.19 The PIP study is bolstered by an even more unsettling media polarization reflecting the Era of Bad Feelings. A Pew Research Center study observed that in the last few years, ‘‘Political polarization is increasingly reflected in the public’s news viewing habits.’’ The Pew study pointed out that a beneficiary of this polarization has been Fox News, which, not surprisingly, has been attracting an increasing number of those who describe themselves as Republicans and conservatives. According to Pew, ‘‘Fox ranks as the most trusted news source among Republicans but is among the least trusted by Democrats.’’20 Although it does not openly broach the idea, the Pew study raises the obvious question of whether we have returned to the nineteenthcentury days of ‘‘Republican’’ and ‘‘Democratic’’ broadsides? Something more insidious is also at work, reflecting the Era of Bad Feelings. Pew found that conservative and Republican viewers and listeners have a low tolerance for alternative opinions. The study points out, ‘‘Republicans have become more distrustful of virtually all major media outlets over the past four years.’’21 Apparently the hard-line attitudes of the Counterrevolution that produced events like the Brooks Brothers Riot are shared by their followers. The Counterrevolutionaries have little tolerance not only for opposing views but also views regarded as neutral by the rest of the country. They have all the traits of spoiled children who believe anyone who does not share their opinions is a threat. So far Murdoch has let Ailes and Kristol do most of the talking about the politics of his holdings. His only comment came in response to a question from North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan who asked him to explain how there could be 300 hours per week of nationally syndicated conservative talk shows and only five hours of liberal commentary (apparently Dorgan did not have the benefit of Ailes’s wisdom when he asked this). ‘‘Yes,’’ answered Murdoch, ‘‘Apparently conservative talk is more popular.’’22 Like a contemporary Charles Foster Kane (who supposedly was modeled after William Randolph Hearst—who helped fuel the Spanish American War), Murdoch seems to have an insatiable thirst to acquire more. This precipitated the

66 & The Counterrevolution

following surreal exchange between Murdoch and California Senator Barbara Boxer: BOXER: What if you owned everything? MURDOCH: If I owned everything? BOXER: Do you think there ought to be limits put on you? MURDOCH: No, of course not.23

Interestingly Murdoch is not the first media mogul to become enamored with vertical integration. The Hollywood studio bosses tried to achieve a similar dominance when they ruled the media world. However, they were prevented from simultaneously owning theaters and producing movies in 1948 when the Supreme Court issued what has come to be called the ‘‘Divorce Decree,’’ ruling that theater ownership by movie studios constituted an illegal monopoly.24 Yet Murdoch’s business plan has followed a similar path and no one has issued any ‘‘Divorce Decree.’’ Murdoch’s ambitions recall the empires of John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie. Yet while Rockefeller controlled the oil business from well head to gas pump and Carnegie controlled steel from mine to mill, the idea of a single corporation owning media content, production, and distribution while controlling a significant market percentage sounds Orwellian, allowing for a unified message to be broadcast into everyone’s homes. The thought that such a system lies at the disposal of the man who used Willie Horton—Roger Ailes—should have us wondering where the Era of Bad Feelings will take us. Justice William O. Douglas’ opinion in the ‘‘Divorce Decree’’ (United States v. Paramount) is instructive. ‘‘As we pointed out in United States v. Griffith,’’ he wrote, ‘‘Size is itself an earmark of monopoly power. For size carries with it an opportunity for abuse.’’25 The Dixie Chicks could probably say, ‘‘Amen,’’ to that opinion. What Douglas did not cite, but could have, were some examples from American history. If media concentration had prevailed over the life of this country it is a good bet neither Elvis Presley nor Louis Armstrong would have ever become some of America’s most influential artists, since early in their careers both were ignored by the major media outlets of their time. Armstrong and many other early African American jazz artists recorded for what were then called ‘‘race records.’’ As for Presley, his story is an American legend of how a poor truck driver with a high school education scraped up enough cash to record a demo record with a visionary named Sam Phillips, who realized that he had a diamond in the rough when he heard the slickhaired teenager sing. Curiously the two artists have not escaped criticism

Media Fairness & 67

even today. In the wake of 9/11, Clear Channel banned Armstrong’s ‘‘What a Wonderful World’’ and Presley’s ‘‘(You’re the) Devil in Disguise.’’26 Perhaps Clear Channel took a page from Michigan Republican Representative Ruth Thompson, who in 1954 introduced a bill to ban mailing ‘‘obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy’’ rock and roll phonograph records.27 The increasing questions about Clear Channel and growing American media concentration came together to spawn a Magical Mystery Tour, the name given coast-to-coast hearings held by two FCC commissioners bent on raising a ruckus about the FCC’s proposal to change media ownership rules. Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, who served as aide to former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, has the face of an insurance salesman, with receding hairline, glasses and all. One could picture him at a Kiwanis luncheon, introducing his guest for the day or serving as an officer in the local Lion’s Club. His colleague, Michael Copps, is cut from the same cloth. Neither looks like the type who would go on any kind of mystery tour, let alone a magical one, although one of Adelstein’s press photos shows him in dark glasses jamming like one of the Blues Brothers. In the manner of the quiet shopkeeper who finally cannot take it any more and straps on his gun to take on the bad guys, what it took to get two regular-looking guys to crisscross the country stirring up people was something that pushed them and a lot of other Americans over the edge. FCC Chairman Michael Powell had leaked the fact that the Commission would be examining some new rules about media ownership, rules that he hinted the Republican majority intended to liberalize. According to the Online NewsHour, ‘‘The biggest beneficiaries of the FCC’s relaxation of ownership limits would be large media conglomerates such as Viacom Inc., which owns the CBS and UPN networks; and News Corp., owner of Fox . . . [since they] already exceed the 35 percent limit.’’28 In other words, a change in media ownership rules would tighten the noose of concentration around the rest of America. Powell irked the two commissioners because he refused to reveal the specifics of what the Republicans would do until the actual hearing took place. Contrary to most FCC rules changes, this would allow no time for anyone to review the rules or for the Commission to take public comment. If you remember the scenario about those Democratic Congressmen who almost got arrested, the script should sound familiar. Hence the Magical Mystery Tour: magical because it proposed to get around Powell’s refusal and mystery because it remained a mystery as to what the exact changes would be. It was like shadow boxing. If the FCC would not hold public hearings, the two commissioners would, inviting the public to voice their opinions. In effect

68 & The Counterrevolution

they placed some empty chairs onstage for their missing colleagues and held a hearing anyway. They hoped to attract media attention, but they knew the media as well as anyone and probably viewed that as a long shot. In early 2003 the two enlisted local sponsors to host the Magical Mystery Tour, including the Annenberg School of Communications and Stanford University. They heard cries of opposition to increasing media concentration from the NRA to Tom Petty, from Barry Diller to Pearl Jam, from Norman Lear to Ted Turner. People complained about canned national news and deplored the absence of local reporters at many stations. And they heard horror stories about media concentration, one of which came from Minot, North Dakota. Not long before the FCC hearings a train carrying liquid ammonia derailed as it passed through Minot, releasing potentially deadly gas. The local police needed a quick way to inform people of the accident and keep them away from the area. One of the local radio stations appeared the most logical choice, but all six were owned by that friend of the Dixie Chicks, Clear Channel Communications. When the police tried to call each station they could not get anyone to answer the phone. Why? Because Clear Channel programming came from somewhere else on tape. The result: 300 people ended up in the hospital, making it one of the biggest disasters in the history of the town and causing other towns to wonder if it could happen to them.29 Commissioner Adelstein and others used the Minot incident to make two essential points about the possible FCC plan. The first reminds us that control of local markets by national conglomerates gives local citizens little information about their own community. In a way, many towns have become ‘‘magic cities’’ like Minot, except the magic act is to make them disappear, as if they are ghost towns with only tumbleweeds howling through them, their vibrant downtown areas boarded up. Along with the loss of local voices comes the loss of venerable institutions like the broadcasts of the local sports teams, local personalities dishing out tips on canning this year’s tomato crop, and that lifeblood of many rural communities, the recitation of the current commodity prices. In a sense, conglomerates such as Clear Channel not only make people anonymous, they also make their communities anonymous. The second point about Minot is that when one company owns all the radio stations in a town, there are no alternatives. The lack of alternatives put 300 in the hospital and means that the people of Minot and other such towns must listen to whatever Clear Channel wants them to hear. Commissioner Adelstein referred to this as the ‘‘McDonaldization’’ of the American media.30 In Clear Channel’s case they serve the Rush Limbaugh perspective.

Media Fairness & 69

This raises fear of an America where whole towns can be figuratively wiped out at the stroke of a pen and the exchange of a check. William O. Douglas and the principles of the Paramount decision can be buried along with anything resembling diversity and originality. And if anybody wants to complain nobody will be there to answer the phone. Commissioner Adelstein put it well: Unlike french fries or ketchup, the mass media has viewpoints attached to it. Control of the media affects the vibrancy of what the Supreme Court in the Red Lion decision called the ‘‘uninhibited marketplace of ideas.’’ It affects the very health of our democracy. In Red Lion the Court went on to say, ‘‘It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.’’31 We may be on the verge of creating a modern Citizen Kane, or maybe a handful of them.32 Sobering statistics revealed during the hearings supported this. Ben Bagdikian, author of The Media Monopoly and one of the country’s most important critics of media concentration, testified that the 2000 edition of his book found that just six conglomerates supplied most of America’s mediabased information.33 Commissioner Copps outlined the impact of the changes broadcasting had experienced after a 1996 law allowing for companies to increase local ownership: The largest company owned less than 75 stations before deregulation. Today one company, Clear Channel, owns more than 1,200 stations. . . . The number of radio station owners has decreased by an incredible 34 percent since 1996. The number of minority owners has dropped by a shocking, and nationally embarrassing, 14 percent. . . . In our hearings around the country, Commissioner Adelstein and I have talked to many capable young musicians and creative artists who are simply unable to secure air time in the new consolidated radio environment. Real news radio is dying outside the largest cities, and viewpoint diversity has given way to a constant drumbeat of one-sided talk shows.34

Such fears echoed the theme that runs through all the stops on the Magical Mystery Tour—excess, the excesses of companies such as Clear Channel, which result in events like the Minot disaster, but also the excesses of programming that has become increasingly outrageous. While academics quarrel over whether violence or explicit sex is up or down according to this or that methodology, what does seem very clear is that the voices of the Raucous Right have become more strident. It is as if they are trying to outdo

70 & The Counterrevolution

Rush Limbaugh, making him appear downright respectable next to the likes of Ann Coulter. A similar development can be found in so-called reality TV, which seems caught in an arms race to see what outrageous thing people will do for fifteen minutes of fame. In the past these orgies played themselves out like a wild party that has gone on well past dawn until all the participants lie passed out in the yard or have gone home. But this period of excess seems to have no end in sight, which may be why people showed up at those FCC hearings. Although thousands turned out, predictably the tour attracted little public attention— only a few notes on the news, a few stories buried in the back of the paper. Adelstein and Copps must have felt a bit like they were in the Magic City. When the time came for the actual hearing, it ended all too quickly. The GOP majority announced they would favor a relaxation of the media ownership rules. Chairman Powell put the reasons succinctly, ‘‘Given the court’s requirement that we consider the current competitive market, keeping all of the rules in their current form simply could not be justified as ‘necessary in the public interest.’ ’’35 Powell went on to say that what he called the ‘‘Modern Media Marketplace’’ had broadened the options for the American people, especially through the Internet. ‘‘Google news service brings information from 4,500 news sources to one’s finger tips from around the world, all with the click of a mouse,’’ said Powell.36 In keeping with Republican ideology, the majority stated, ‘‘In general, we find that program diversity is best achieved by reliance on competition among delivery systems rather than by government regulation.’’ As for local diversity, the FCC noted, ‘‘We seek to promote localism to the greatest extent possible through market structures that take advantage of media companies’ incentives to serve local communities.’’37 The GOP majority did go on to say that it would measure whether programming responded to local interests and whether the companies offered sufficient local news. Nowhere did the decision mention the Red Lion case or the point Justice Douglas made about media concentration in United States v. Paramount. Key aspects of the FCC’s decision included increasing the 35 percent limit for TV ownership to 45 percent, meaning a single company could control almost half of all broadcasting stations and, more important, just two companies could control 90 percent. It also raised the caps on how many local stations could be controlled by a single company and widened the ability of companies to engage in cross-media ownership within a single market, in effect giving the green light to Sir Rupert’s business model. To regulate vertically integrated markets, the FCC developed the ‘‘Diversity Index.’’ Reading it is akin to deciphering a complex menu, with references to

Media Fairness & 71

column ‘‘A’’ and column ‘‘B,’’ printed in cramped ten-point type that promises a headache. In response, Commissioner Copps stated the essential case for those who objected: At issue is whether a few corporations will be ceded enhanced gatekeeper control over the civil dialogue of our country; more content control over our music, entertainment and information; and veto power over the majority of what our families watch, hear and read. . . . Why does any company need to control three television stations in any city? [emphasis added] . . . Where are the blessings of localism, diversity and competition here? I see centralization, not localism; I see uniformity, not diversity; I see monopoly and oligopoly, not competition.38

Commissioner Adelstein followed: A dark storm cloud is now looming over the future of the American media. The majority has sealed into federal regulations the most sweeping and destructive rollback of consumer protection rules in the history of American broadcasting. The public stands little to gain and everything to lose by slashing the protections that have served them for decades. . . . Today’s action will likely diminish the diversity of voices heard over the public airwaves, which can only dilute the quality of our society’s intellectual, cultural and political life. It will also likely diminish local control of our media, the core concept at the foundation of the American system of broadcasting, as media giants buy more local stations and homogenize the programs and stories they broadcast. It violates every tenet of a free democratic society to let a handful of powerful companies control our media. . . . Without a diverse, independent media, citizen access to information crumbles, along with political and social participation. For the sake of our democracy, we should encourage the widest possible dissemination of free expression through the public airwaves.39

At the conclusion of the testimony the commissioners filed out of the room. It had been a performance worthy of the Magic City debacle. There was no testimony and little discussion. The people had been shut out of one of most far-reaching decisions ever made by the FCC as if they were the people of Minot trying to get Clear Channel on the phone. The decision had about it the atmosphere of zealots trying to force something through as if they knew that if they really allowed the people to speak it might prove embarrassing.

72 & The Counterrevolution

At the time they took place, the hearings had all the drama of someone asking to be heard on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. But New York was well aware of what was going on. Enter the New York Times, a venerable American institution that faced two dangers, one from Republicans who had always seen it as a liberal paper even before The Pentagon Papers, the other from the likes of Sir Rupert Murdoch who were bent on buying up as many news sources as they could. Times columnist William Safire blasted away all the underbrush with well-directed rhetoric. ‘‘The effect of the media’s march to amalgamation on American’s freedom of voice is too worrisome to be left to three unelected commissioners,’’ he wrote. Calling the event Floodgate, Safire went on to say, ‘‘A single media giant, up to now allowed to own television stations reaching slightly more than a third of the nation’s viewers, will soon—thanks to Floodgate—be able to reach nearly half, a giants step toward 100% ‘penetration.’ ’’40 Having lost at the FCC, the fight now turned to Congress, where at first things looked like a slam dunk for the Counterrevolution. Given their control of both houses and the not inconsiderable pressure of the White House, everyone assumed that Congress would vote to uphold the FCC decision. The first skirmish took place in the House Appropriations Committee, where Wisconsin’s David Obey sponsored a provision that would override the FCC decision and restore the old rules governing media ownership. ‘‘Information is to the democratic system what blood is to the human body,’’ Obey said in a press release, ‘‘I think we’re in danger of shutting off the blood supply of the democracy.’’41 Obey’s bill passed by a vote of 40–25. By including the provision in an appropriations bill, the House created an especially difficult situation for the White House, since a veto would eliminate the appropriated funds. By the time the bill moved to the House floor the movement to repeal the FCC ruling had gathered momentum. The final vote of 400–21 stunned everyone with its strong bipartisan support. In other words, not even everyone who voted against the provision in the Appropriations Committee voted against it on the floor. Massachusetts Representative Edward J. Markey said, ‘‘Never before have I seen an FCC chairman’s decision repudiated by the House of Representatives so quickly and so emphatically.’’42 Meanwhile the Senate swung into action as John McCain held hearings about the FCC decision, the same hearings that precipitated his remarks about the Dixie Chicks. Thirty-five senators signed a ‘‘Resolution of Disapproval’’ that expedited bringing the repeal of the decision to the floor. Sponsored by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, the resolution was notable in that one of its cosigners was none other than Trent Lott. Dorgan

Media Fairness & 73

explained, ‘‘We are moving to roll back one of the most complete cave-ins to corporate interests I’ve ever seen by what is supposed to be a federal regulatory agency.’’43 In the summer of 2004, in the midst of a contentious presidential election, a Philadelphia court ruled that the FCC had overstepped its bounds. Of course neither presidential candidate mentioned this, nor did anyone asking questions in the debates, even though it remains one of the most significant decisions of this new millennium. With the election over, the Counterrevolution continues its campaign to turn this country into a Clear Channel nation where a few media conglomerates control what we see and hear and local voices become as extinct as the cry of the passenger pigeon. So we have followed the trail back to Minot. The scent is hot, but it is not a pleasant one. The air from that train wreck has about it the odor of death, decay, and processes we would just as soon not acknowledge. Some of it emanates from those two lined canyons of flesh that run vertically down Sir Rupert Murdoch’s face, framing his mouth like two walls guarding every carefully calculated smile and every well-scripted word. That smell wafts through the tribulations of the Dixie Chicks, the machinations of Roger Ailes, the dictatorial bearing of the FCC, and the Magical Mystery Tour of two principled commissioners. Americans have a finely honed nose for rotten deals, one as sensitive to the nuances of scandal as that of a gourmet wine taster to the subtleties of fine burgundy. They have endured over a quarter-century of this and that ‘‘gate,’’ so that the office of special prosecutor became one of the most powerful posts in the land. We have become so jaded by frequent scandals, charges and countercharges that we ignore them with the same contempt the wine taster would bestow on a bottle of cheap Chablis. Some believe that the American people have become numb to scandal, that we have been holding our noses for so long that the latest controversy is dismissed with a contemptuous wave of the hand. But the storm over the FCC decision shows how badly mistaken that view has become. When the National Rifle Association, the National Organization for Women and the Eagle Forum all take the same position then you know something is up. When thousands of people pack the Mystery Tour hearings and deluge Congress with letters, then it is clear that average Americans share their views about this scandal. At a time when Liberal America seemed to be on life support, the American people themselves had come to the rescue. The myth of our country is that great leaders emerge at times of great crisis, but what this myth forgets is that those leaders would get nowhere without the American people right

74 & The Counterrevolution

there beside them. The FCC decision and its aftermath represents one of those events that is at once both very frightening and very affirming. The frightening part is plainly there for everyone to see, as it is with most gutwrenching stories: would Murdoch in fact own ‘‘everything,’’ as Barbara Boxer had asked rhetorically and would all our news and opinion come from Roger Ailes or someone like him? Although they may not have been thinking of the Dixie Chicks directly, what surely must have been going through the minds of all those disparate voices raised in opposition to the FCC decision was something like that scenario. What loomed in the back of their minds must have been the thought that like Maines and like those during the McCarthy period, they might find themselves blacked out or black listed. A media manager for a Midwestern university gave the right sound bite, ‘‘They say we have the freedom of choice in this country but actually we have the freedom to choose, somebody else provides the choices.’’44 The amazing part about the FCC protests was that there was no great leader, sword in hand, leading them in the charge. This was a spontaneous uprising, a popular revolution whose roots go back to those anonymous ‘‘embattled farmers’’ who stood at Lexington and Concord. For those who feared for the future of the American people or the demise of Liberal America this was a sign that neither had need for last rites. The FCC protest represents a significant statement that the American people still will fight for fundamental values even when they involve complex, arcane language in an arena few had ever paid any attention to. Somewhere Armstrong, Presley and, yes, the Dixie Chicks must have been having a few laughs. What the redcoats learned in 1776 is a good lesson for today as well: When the people find their voice, those with the title ‘‘Sir,’’ had better be on their guard. Also, do not underestimate your foes or you may end up stacking your arms while the band plays ‘‘The World Turned Upside Down.’’

PART TWO Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

6

Economic Justice: Corked Bats

When I was young, it was not unusual for us to gather at any open space we could find and play baseball. We played in vacant lots, cul-de-sacs, and if we could, we climbed the fence at the nearby school field. When my brothers and I moved to the Midwest, we cast covetous eyes on a nearby green-painted, deserted ballpark, complete with stands, outfield fence, and real bases. However, this almost mythic place where Babe Ruth had played on a barnstorming tour was kept locked tight. One long ago July evening when the setting sun sent long, slanting shadows of the deserted stands slicing across the field, we broke in, struggling to climb over the locked gates. No wind moved the humid air, magnifying sounds so they took on an eerie transcendence. Someone had painted and cleaned the place, mowing the grass and even laying down bases as if for a game, giving the place a spooky feeling as we stood on home plate. Long before anyone had heard of Moonlight Graham and the Field of Dreams, a mysterious groundskeeper had preserved this museum. I drifted back to that moment on a June day in 2003 when the cameras caught Sammy Sosa using an illegal corked bat. The pictures stabbed a vital spot, showing Sosa standing there with a quizzical look holding a jagged piece of wood that looked as if he had broken it over his knee in a fit of frustration. The scene played out over and over on television, an endless loop circling back on itself, time after time, prompting a mixture of disbelief, anger, and even sadness that yet another icon had been tarnished in the Era of Bad Feelings. When former Red Sox pitcher Pedro Martinez said Sammy Sosa should have used Spanish to answer reporters, it should have raised a few eyebrows.

78 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

Martinez said, ‘‘They should have had someone to translate and have Sammy talk from his heart, how he feels. We are in America, I understand, we don’t speak the language but we are doing the best we can to express ourselves.’’1 In those words lies a tale that asks pointed questions about Liberal America’s cornerstone of economic and social justice. A week later the Baseball Players Association sent a memo that supported Martinez, urging Latin American ballplayers to speak only in their native language to the Associated Press (AP). The reason behind this action had nothing to do with Sosa using an illegal bat and everything to do with justice. An AP quote of Sosa’s answer to why he had landed in such a predicament used broken English that may well have been what he said verbatim, but in print it sounded like the dialect used by sombrero-wearing Mexican banditos in cheap Hollywood Westerns. ‘‘You got to stood up and be there for it,’’ Sosa was quoted as saying.2 In an even more telling story, World Series– winning manager Ozzie Guillen, who at the time was a coach for the Florida Marlins, pointed out that Latin American players do not receive the same interpreter services as Japanese and Korean players. ‘‘You bring a guy in from Japan, and you’ll have a translator in the clubhouse,’’ Guillen said. ‘‘That’s not fair.’’3 We nicknamed it ‘‘the national pastime,’’ this venerable institution, a little gray around the edges, whose values go back more than a century, perhaps even to the father of our country, who is said to have played a primitive version with the troops at Valley Forge. It is, as Roger Kahn has so perceptively observed, our only sport without a time clock, which means a game can go on as long as the forces of physics are held in abeyance. An at-bat can last a blink of an eye or dissolve into a seemingly interminable cat-andmouse game of foul ball after foul ball, one coming so close to the foul pole that for a second it hangs between immortality and failure. Baseball has always served as a weathervane indicating the direction the winds of change are coming from and how strong. We watch the changes the way players pay close attention to how air currents play with that fly ball hanging in the spotlights in straightaway center field. Babe Ruth will always personify the Roaring Twenties, his prodigious appetites and Brobdingnagian feats forever tied to the excesses of the Jazz Age. No sooner had the Democratic Party fought the battle of 1948, with Strom Thurmond stalking into history, when baseball went through a similar crisis with Jackie Robinson finally making it truly a sport for all Americans. Unfortunately the rest of the country did not always get the message, creating tragic scenes where players were not accepted by certain business establishments.

Economic Justice & 79

By the time of Sosa’s corked bat incident, baseball had become something perverted by television, greedy owners, and players into a spectacle some old-timers found hard to recognize. In an effort to recover an audience lost to football and basketball, teams tried a variety of gimmicks. Team schedules became crowded with so many giveaways and special days, that an ordinary game day became extraordinary. In the midst of this slump, Sammy Sosa became part of a magical homerun derby, as he and Mark McGwire chased Maris’ record of sixty-one homers and then set some of their own on their way to immortality. Several years after, baseball reached rock bottom when both Sosa and McGwire received subpoenas to testify before a congressional committee investigating steroid use. That Congress chose not to question football with its offensive lines that can weigh close to a ton or basketball ‘‘power forwards’’ resembling Olympic weightlifters, provided sad comment on baseball’s fall from grace. McGwire’s guarded testimony provided vivid evidence of baseball’s confusion and disarray. Today sports talk shows debate whether those home run records have asterisks. The Steroid Era—a name given recent baseball history4—stands as a symbolic monument to the pumped-up excesses of the Era of Bad Feelings from the hyperkinetic rantings of talk show hosts to the hyperbolic rhetoric of Congress. So much of the Era of Bad Feelings has seemed a conspiracy to deny good feelings, as the press and voices of vitriol feed on fallibility and doubt like metastasizing cancer cells. In this atmosphere where the air always seems filled with the smoke of the latest flare-up, identity has become a supreme issue for our times; our neighborhoods and the places where we work and shop have become interchangeable parts on some ghastly giant assembly line designed to produce androids. Each time we venture out, we carry what identity we have with us, like pioneers and their covered wagons, knowing that at any time some unforeseen disaster may strike. Heroes have proven especially vulnerable, perhaps because they carry more baggage than the rest of us—including carrying some of our own—as one after another falls under the burden. The Hall of Shame appears so full that it will need an addition in anticipation of a bumper crop of inductees, their failings engraved on tell-all bestsellers or a Beyond the Glory expose´. In this world political and ideological allegiances spawn social and mediadriven behaviors where it becomes acceptable, even mandatory to attack people with opposing views. The reality show ‘‘Survivor’’ is right on target with this, choosing cast members to represent certain well-known social stereotypes, then placing them in artificial groups where they are supposed to collaborate. The real game is to stab people in the back. As Sosa’s troubles

80 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

demonstrated, today the bad feelings engendered by this atmosphere lie right on the surface. So baseball, that weather vane of the American character, registers that we live in a decidedly stormy time, with gusts blowing in strongly from the outfield and dark clouds threatening a rain out on the horizon. Baseball has been brushed back, knocked to its knees and many are not sure it will ever get up again. It had already become disdained by television audiences and advertisers because its timelessness seemed foreign in these hyperdriven times. Most tellingly its traditionalists refused to compromise the game with concessions to sponsors that football and basketball had made with twominute ‘‘warnings’’ and television timeouts. Baseball, with its rules, traditions, and lack of violence, also has fallen victim to the largest-growing area of so-called sports entertainment—pseudo sports such as professional wrestling, something called ultimate fighting and various ‘‘extreme’’ challenges such as snowboarding down the Matterhorn. That these ‘‘sports’’ seem deliberately outlandish and violent should not surprise anyone living in the Era of Bad Feelings, for many represent scripted exercises with growling opponents trash talking and throwing garbage at each other. Perhaps this entertainment, which becomes more and more like a Roman circus, provides a welcome diversion from people in Congress doing the same things. Baseball came to reflect America in other ways, ways that raise questions about the cornerstone of economic and social justice. When the New York Yankees signed the free agent who by consensus is the game’s best allaround player, Alex Rodriguez, giving him a contract that came close to the combined salaries of entire teams, it exposed once again America’s dirty little secret. Baseball mirrored America, but few wanted to look at the image staring back at them. You could buy a World Championship just like you bought and sold once-proud corporate names and their employees. You could do this because the rapidly growing gap between baseball’s rich and poor teams reflected America’s own growing income disparities. It was still possible for an immensely talented immigrant such as Sammy Sosa to write a modern Horatio Alger story of striking it rich, but for millions of other Americans that dream was receding steadily. Sosa’s Hispanic brothers and sisters could sense an uncanny similarity with an economic ethos they thought they had left behind in Latin America. In baseball the gap between rich and poor teams has produced an embarrassing competitive disadvantage. Even when a miracle happened with low payroll teams like the Twins or the Marlins, the winners soon found themselves forced to dispose of the very players that had taken them to

Economic Justice & 81

the top. For the average American, a similar logic prevails, as most of us struggle to make car payments or pay medical bills, hoping we will also have a miracle season. ‘‘For Sale’’ signs appear and then disappear as the losers in this lottery game slip away to new lives no one wants to acknowledge. A sudden illness, a layoff, a merger, a divorce, a parent suddenly requiring care, even a random car accident can trigger the downward slide. This is the pull-tab depression in which the next ticket you scratch could put you on easy street or family assistance. Like the millions who sit transfixed by the Power Ball numbers each week, everyone hopes they are holding a winner, even though the odds are not much different than those of landing a professional baseball contract. The middle-class squeeze has received media attention, but less well known is how the Counterrevolution’s economic and social policies have jolted people of color. For many Americans social and economic justice is synonymous with the Civil Rights Movement, which for them began on a day Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus. While much of the spotlight focused on African Americans during the 1960s and early 1970s, women and other people of color also struggled for social and economic justice. Today American schoolchildren and college students study how Dr. King’s cry of ‘‘Free at last, Free at last!’’ echoed on Indian reservations, urban barrios, Asian American neighborhoods, and in women’s minds. They learn the names of organizations such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the National Organization for Women, the American Indian Movement, and the United Farmworkers. And they read about leaders such as Dennis Banks, Russell Means, Clyde Bellecourt, Cesar Chavez, and Gloria Steinem—participants in actions such as the Wounded Knee takeover, the lettuce boycott and the publication of Ms. They also study a long list of writers and artists who brought their voices to what can justifiably be called a Rainbow Renaissance that paralleled the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s. At times it seemed the best American fiction, like some of the most memorable sports moments, was the work of so-called ‘‘minorities.’’ That questions about the cornerstones came simultaneously with the formation of the Counterrevolution should be no surprise to anyone with a systems perspective. For as people of color and women asked whether the playing field was level, it aroused the ire of those with different values. Thurmond’s Southern Manifesto spoke about preserving a ‘‘way of life,’’ while others used rhetoric like ‘‘supply-side economics’’ to defend their belief that inequality in terms of a modern ‘‘survival-of-the-fittest’’ ideology represents the true American center. As questions and ideology came into

82 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

conflict they reinforced one another in a negative feedback loop that periodically boiled over with hatred and violence. In a sense the policies of the Counterrevolution have amounted to a rollback not unlike the one that occurred after the North agreed to leave the South to Nathan Bedford Forrest. For confirmation start by opening an almanac. There you will find that infant mortality—a key measure of the effectiveness of the health care system—increased under the Bush administration from 6.8 in 2001 to 7.0 in 2002. The rate for African Americans is almost twice that, increasing from 13.5 to 13.9 over the same period. The Centers for Disease Control notes, ‘‘This was the first significant rise in the infant mortality rate since 1958.’’5 For those keeping score, the rate is double that of Sweden and Japan and worse than Portugal, Italy, and most Western European countries including our favorite target, France.6 Economic inequity among people of color continues to grow into an American scandal under the Counterrevolution. The Census Bureau reports median household income for whites in 2002 was $59,955 while for Hispanics it was $39,656 and for African Americans $36,692. In this economy where benefits seem to fall almost randomly, there is nothing random about the numbers of households making over $100,000. Here whites outnumber Hispanics and African Americans by an astounding ratio of almost 20–1!7 Curiously, the Current Population Survey tables contain no data on the household income of Native Americans, perhaps because it is even lower than for the other races. Unemployment for African Americans went from 6.7 percent at the end of the Clinton years to 10.7 percent after just two years under George W. Bush. Hispanic unemployment showed a similar gain, going from 5.7 percent to 9.5 percent during the same period.8 Sosa’s action played into this world and the changes in professional sports that had left sports-bar patrons shaking their heads and waxing nostalgic about the days of Johnny U, Bill Russell, and the Mick. Movie sports agent Jerry McGuire hit the bullseye when he said, ‘‘Show me the money.’’ For the Counterrevolution the barroom arguments and talk radio rants of sports fans hold a disquieting message about income disparity. It is rare to listen to sports talk radio and not hear someone complain about greedy athletes and owners, as ticket prices for games extend beyond the reach of many families even as owners lobby for new stadiums that contain more luxury boxes. Ticket prices for the Super Bowl, World Series, and even ‘‘amateur’’ events like the Final Four can equal the monthly house payment of many middleclass Americans. As professional sports becomes something only for the rich, as difficult for middle-class people to participate in as joining a private country club, people are starting to add up the numbers. As more come to

Economic Justice & 83

see how the disparities of professional sports mirror the disparities in their own lives it will be interesting to see if the political winds change. Right now, those caught in the middle-class squeeze look not at the top but out of the corners of their eyes at the changing American demographic landscape. At the root of the controversy and much of the tension that pervades the Era of Bad Feelings is the fact that America, like the rest of the world, is becoming more diverse. The 2005 Baseball All Star Team featured names like Ortiz, Rodriguez, Pujols, Soriano, Rivera, Santana, Ramirez, Texeira, Guerrero, Alou, Lopez, Cabrera, Gonzalez, Martinez, Cordero, Hernandez, and Abreu. In an article on America’s increasing linguistic diversity, The World Almanac observed that the number of Americans over the age of five speaking a language other than English had grown from 32 million in 1990 to 47 million in 2000. Among those 60 percent spoke Spanish in 2000, up from 54 percent in 1990. In California, 40 percent of the population speaks a language other than English.9 America has become a new homeland for Hmong chased from Laos, Somalis reduced to destitution by a civil war nobody really understands or cares about, Russians driven from a nation with the world’s first mafia-run oligarchy, and others caught in struggles from which the world averts its eyes. School systems under siege from attacks by the Counterrevolution routinely report dozens of native tongues. The Minnesota state reporting system currently contains eighteen pages of codes for students’ primary languages including Gujarati, Kanarese, Kannada, Konkani, Malayam, Marathi, and Telugu (all are from India).10 Russian hockey players, African basketball dunkers, and Dominican shortstops fill the rosters of professional teams. Russian immigrant Anna Kournikova is one of America’s favorite pin-ups with African American Halle Berry not far behind. The commercial featuring former Dallas Mavericks coach Don Nelson speaking French, German, and Canadian to his United Nations roster of players is a harbinger of things to come. Yet we must remember the United States has always been a nation of uneasily merged ethnicities. Each new wave of immigration has in turn produced a counterreaction that has ranged from restrictive immigration laws to darker manifestations of prejudice. The bloody street fights between immigrants and nativists that Martin Scorsese portrayed in Gangs of New York vividly captured this long-running theme. The challenges between the leaders of a gang of Irish immigrants and so-called ‘‘natives’’ before they engage in a pitched battle that will stain the ground red echoes words spoken in other times and places in this country. Native leader Bill ‘‘The Butcher’’ Cutting issues the challenge that is accepted by his Irish rival Priest Vallon:

84 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions Cutting: At my challenge, by the ancient laws of combat, we are met at this chosen ground, to settle for good and all who holds sway over the five points: us natives, born rightwise to this fine land, or the foreign hordes defiling it. Vallon: By the ancient laws of combat, I accept the challenge of the so called ‘‘natives.’’ They plague our people at every turn, but from this day out, they shall plague us no more. For let it be known, that the hand that tries to strike us from this land shall be swiftly cut down.11

Like the Irish in Gangs of New York, today’s immigrants are chasing the same combination of freedom, economic opportunity, and personal dreams that have always fueled this land. Thomas Jefferson once said that a little revolution now and then is good for this country. What he really should have said is that a little new blood, a little immigration, is the well-spring of democracy. Like new additions to the gene pool this keeps us from becoming so inbred we succumb to peculiar versions of madness or are unable to meet new challenges. Every American should journey to Ellis Island, if only on their wonderful website,12 and wander through ruins where walls, concrete floors, and even the dust actually speak. The records, some of them in the immigrants’ own words, tell us their stories, which—like a great piece of music—gives voice to multiple variations on a single powerful theme. That theme, of course, is written on that eighth wonder of the world, the Statue of Liberty, standing at the entrance to the harbor many immigrants risked their lives to reach. The words are vaguely familiar, but like many other patriotic phrases are often only partly remembered. Give me your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, the tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.13

As a first-generation American, the words have special meaning to me, for my father came here fleeing a political tyranny that had gone mad, putting a death sentence on my grandfather’s head. The words attest to the appeal of American freedom, particularly Liberal America’s value of the level playing field, for immigrants come to America believing everyone has an even chance. There seems little doubt that immigration has served as a major driver of the American economy. Immigrants provided the brains and brawn for the Industrial Revolution and every subsequent leap forward into the

Economic Justice & 85

computer age. Einstein chose to come to America as have thousands who have remade this nation. While it has long been gospel to nativists that immigrants cause a drain on the economy, quite the opposite is true according to various studies. An analysis of fifteen European countries during 1991–95 found that for every percent increase in a country’s population through immigration there was an increase in Gross Domestic Product of 1.25 percent to 1.5 percent.14 Kennedy School of Government professor George J. Borjas, recognized as one of the leading experts on the economic impact of immigration, summed up his findings in a 1994 article, ‘‘The Economics of Immigration.’’ ‘‘In short,’’ he said, ‘‘the estimated correlations between native wages and the immigrant share in local labor markets do not support the hypothesis that the employment opportunities of U.S. born workers are strongly and adversely affected by immigration.’’15 A website posting the ‘‘5 Myths of Immigration’’ notes, ‘‘Immigrants are more likely to be self-employed and start new businesses. . . . Immigrants collectively earn $240 billion a year, pay $90 billion in taxes, and receive $5 billion in welfare.’’16 It is clear that immigration will prove especially valuable for competing in a global economy. Given that world trade holds the key to economic survival in this new century, our enormous pool of immigrants provides countless links to their homelands, links invaluable for developing new markets. Instead of picturing foreigners as potential terrorists with bombs in their hands, it may be more realistic to see them clutching dollar bills. We also constantly need reminding that a significant amount of our scientific, technological, cultural, and economic achievements come from first-generation Americans. In spite of this, the Players Association memo advising Latino players not to speak English may yet lead to a predictable and ugly reprise of the ‘‘make them all speak English’’ nativism that has become this era’s version of Strom Thurmond’s segregationism. In various states across the country, especially those with a large Hispanic population, folks who years ago might have worn hoods and burned crosses have taken it upon themselves to circulate initiatives and Constitutional amendments calling for an end to bilingual education. In 1997, Silicon Valley entrepreneur Ron Unz introduced a proposition to abolish bilingual education in the California public schools. The measure had the support of the state Republican Party. ‘‘The object of our initiative is a very simple idea: that little immigrant children should be sent to school and taught English, which I think most people would not think controversial public policy,’’ said Unz.17 Unz also sponsored similar initiatives

86 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

in Arizona, Massachusetts, and Colorado. All but the Colorado initiative passed. One reason may have been that in Colorado, former Bush Education Secretary Rod Paige, an African American, expressed doubts about the idea. This prompted Unz to email that Paige is a ‘‘black former football coach’’ who said he got his job because of President Bush’s ‘‘intense support for ‘Affirmative Access.’ [sic]’’ He also said Mr. Paige’s ‘‘apparent lack of ability to master or comprehend that portfolio meant that he played virtually no role last year in either shaping or articulating Bush’s signature education bill.’’18 Unz’s racist motives became a bit clearer with this remarkable letter. President Bush remained silent about the matter. Many American communities have local versions of Unz. On the surface, the Nativists’ requests seem reasonable enough, for as they contend, ‘‘Didn’t all those folks who came through Ellis Island, their surnames mangled by some grumpy clerk, their lives and bodies put under a microscope, have to do the same thing?’’ The debate over bilingual education focuses on whether it helps or hurts children, winding through an almost impenetrable tangle of studies and counterstudies, historical analogies, and plain old-fashioned nativism of the type that used to post signs that said ‘‘No [fill in immigrant group of your choice] need apply’’ and distribute trash like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is curious that various groups on the Religious Right, who vociferously lobby for choice in such matters as sex education and creationism, apparently do not wish to extend the right of choice to recent immigrants. Like much else in the Era of Bad Feelings, it all comes down to politics. Immigrants, especially those we loosely label Hispanics, have become a huge voting bloc. Pedro Martinez spoke for several million people who, in less time than some people may like, have performed the first reverse colonization in history, taking back those portions of the West and Southwest that once had been parts of Spain and Mexico. It is no accident that Unz succeeded in states where Spanish speakers threaten to become a majority. While many Republicans have supported the ‘‘let them speak English’’ movement, George W. Bush has amassed a more confusing record. As governor of Texas he tempered his support for bilingual education in a state with a large Hispanic vote, saying he favored programs ‘‘that work.’’ When he first ran for president, the 2000 GOP platform opposed all bilingual education, a stance the candidate did not disown. As president, Bush quietly agreed to cut funding for bilingual education programs. Today, Republican opposition to bilingual education remains strong, an indication that the party that cut a deal with the Dixiecrats harbors familiar

Economic Justice & 87

prejudices. Such stalwarts as Phyllis Schlafly have spoken out against bilingualism.19 The National Review has published several pieces by Jim Boulet, Jr., Executive Director of English First, who wrote, ‘‘Given these facts, a formal GOP endorsement of the good intentions underlying such programs is both an educational disaster for millions of immigrant children and a threat to this nation’s linguistic unity.’’20 Substitute culture or race for ‘‘linguistic unity’’ and the intent becomes transparent. Never mind that any nation in this world economy that fosters ‘‘linguistic unity’’ risks becoming a dinosaur. Like many on the Raucous Right, Boulet quotes fictitious sources to make his point. It should come as no surprise that English First placed on their web page a spurious reference to an Oregon health agency advertising for a Klingon interpreter (Klingon is a fake language created for the ‘‘Star Trek’’ series), a story that earned a place on the Urban Legends website.21 Boulet may appear far out, but even more visible GOP leaders have echoed his message. Newt Gingrich told a meeting of the Cobb County, Georgia, Chamber of Commerce, ‘‘The fact is English is the common, commercial language in America,’’ he said. ‘‘When we allow children to stay trapped in a bilingual program, where you do not learn English, we are destroying their economic future.’’22 For a former college professor, Gingrich’s comment seems naı¨ve at best, since any educator knows bilingual education’s purpose is to help students achieve. The dilemma Sammy Sosa presents both Republicans and Democrats resonates with those long ago battles precipitated by the Dixiecrats. For the Republicans, they again face the alternative of going along with the reactionary part of their ‘‘base.’’ At the same time they know that Sammy Sosa represents a serious threat to the infamous Southern Strategy. If Hispanics become the majority in Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona they will control a rather large bloc of electoral votes that are currently in the Republican column, electoral votes that keep increasing because Hispanics are moving there in large numbers. For Democrats the challenge also eerily echoes the civil rights years when they faced a decision of whether to align with the movement or try to stand on some ever-shifting, dubious middle ground. Currently Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the nation’s population, but by the year 2050, a quarter of America’s population may be Hispanic.23 Fertility rates show that in 1998, 20 percent of all babies born in this country were Hispanic. A 2003 study by Arizona State University Professor Loui Olivas showed that by the end of 2005 Hispanics would compose a majority of high school graduates in California, by 2011 in Arizona and by 2012 in Texas.24

88 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

One Republican strategy to cope with these trends revives the old Dixiecrat tactic of gerrymandering immigrants and minorities into voting ghettoes so their impact is reduced. This dovetails with other measures to discourage people of color from voting (see Bush v. Gore). Hispanics lay at the center of the infamous Texas redistricting fiasco, when Republicans led by Tom DeLay created a cubist masterpiece of districts designed to give them a clear majority. The most notorious example of The Hammer’s plan is a district that runs from Austin to the Mexican border in a zigzag pattern that appears drawn by someone with an unsteady hand.25 The plan appeared so ridiculous that even the normally docile Democrats found some spine and hightailed it to Oklahoma with the Texas Rangers in hot pursuit, like something out of a low-budget Western. At this point The Hammer’s minions sought the assistance of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Office (if anything should give you doubts about where the Patriot Act could take us, this provides an example of it being used for partisan, domestic political purposes). The absence of the Democrats prevented the Republicans from establishing a quorum. When the Democrats finally decided to return, the Republican governor called a special session, with the Democrats again escaping to Arizona in the nick of time. All this only served to make the Texas Republicans look ridiculous and the Texas Rangers inept. Once again things spiraled out of control in the Era of Bad Feelings, with the Republicans playing the role as instigators like some overacted villain in a silent film melodrama, posturing broadly and twirling his handle bar mustache. Some Republicans believe the party can woo Hispanics through the use of religious issues. One poll revealed that Hispanics strongly support issues championed by the Religious Right, including school prayer (73 percent) and school vouchers (84 percent).26 Family values might provide another issue, as many Hispanics are deeply family-centered, more than a great many of the family values types themselves. But the Hispanic concept of family is also a deeply rooted cultural value. An Ohio State University website explains, ‘‘Traditionally, the Hispanic family is a close-knit group and the most important social unit. The term familia usually goes beyond the nuclear family. . . . Individuals within a family have a moral responsibility to aid other members of the family experiencing financial problems, unemployment, poor health conditions.’’27 These sentiments hardly sound like what Ralph Reed means by ‘‘family values.’’ This mutual sharing also goes against the individualistic philosophy of the Counterrevolution. The Counterrevolution threatens to become caught in another very difficult trap, the trap of history. Their appeal has always been to the happy

Economic Justice & 89

days of the past (remember the famous morning-in-America commercial for Ronald Reagan) where the gang gathered at the malt shop in towns with white picket fences and the smell of freshly mowed lawns (I do not remember many faces of color in the American morning of Ronald Reagan). As we have learned painfully, you cannot hold back the future. Race certainly played a role in the commentary about Sosa’s cracked bat. Some writers appeared to be boxing a straw man, saying anytime a person of color is accused of something, liberals play the race card. Tom Knott of the Washington Times wrote, The playing of the race card, if only out of habit, has become a fairly standard ploy in America. If it is not the race card, it is the ethnic card or the gender card. It seems everybody wants to be a victim of this or that. . . . Here’s something positive: Sosa earns a zillion dollars to play a game in a foreign land that gives athletes second, third, fourth and fifth chances. He’ll recover from this. So please, cork the whining.28

‘‘I am doubly delighted that he got caught because the PR fraud that has been Sammy Sosa is saturated with political correctness and liberal guilt,’’ said Ira Simmons of ChronWatch.29 In typical fashion the Raucous Right, which always tries to find a way to work one of the Clintons into their diatribes, managed to connect Sosa, Hillary Clinton, and Martha Stewart. Salon.com’s King Kaufman wrote an article with the lead teaser, ‘‘How corking your bat is a lot like a Martha Stewart stock deal, but nothing like throwing a spitball.’’30 ‘‘Sammy Sosa got caught cheating. In the universe of sports this is big. Not quite Hillary, but certainly up there with Howell and Martha,’’ said National Review sports editor Geoffrey Norman, whose article even had the same title as Knott’s, which had been posted online a day earlier.31 At this point, on cue, someone asks, Where are the Democrats? It is a question Sosa and many others want answered. That answer, of course, is muddling around. For the last two decades the party has pursued some version of the McGovern Rules strategy of delegate quotas. The common thread in this strategy is to give ‘‘them’’ whatever the leadership decides will be their quota. Under this strategy, the party became a collage of special interest groups with no coherent center. The party platform resembled a Rube Goldberg contraption where anyone was handed a hammer and nails, allowed to add planks wherever they wanted, without thought to how it related to what someone else was doing or to some overall plan. Planks stuck out at odd angles, some held up by bent nails in such

90 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

precarious positions that most sane candidates refused to venture out onto them. The party also appears to have forgotten the importance of social and economic justice. To see how they squandered this trust you need only read the Kerry-Edwards Plan for America, that ponderous document Kerry referred to in the debates as much as Bush mentioned that being president was ‘‘hard work.’’ As one of the few people to have read it cover to cover, I find a quote opening the section titled, ‘‘Building a Strong Economy’’ a perfect example: ‘‘I believe the measure of a strong economy is a growing middle class, where every American has the opportunity to success.’’32 The tortured grammar (did these people have a proofreader?) says all we need to know about the Democrats’ problems. Diagram that sentence the way those little old ladies who taught me high school English would, standing at the blackboard with chalk in hand. The phrase after the comma would have to modify ‘‘middle class.’’ Like fingernails running down a blackboard, the implications of that comma—those not in the middle class have little opportunity for success—would certainly raise eyebrows. Martin Luther King, Jr., would be outraged. Meanwhile President Bush has found some support among Hispanic voters, making inroads into the traditionally Democratic Hispanic vote, which went from 72 percent for Bill Clinton in 1996 to 57 percent for Al Gore—costing Gore the election.33 In his important book, The Latino Wave, Jorge Ramos points out that the Hispanic vote also elected Bush in 2004. ‘‘The election was not decided in Ohio,’’ he writes, ‘‘It was decided long before that in states with high percentages of Latino voters.’’ Ramos also points out that Latinos made up 8 percent of the total vote, a sizeable bloc when one places it in the states where they are especially strong.34 One huge factor in Bush’s appeal to Hispanic voters has been his use of their native language, including delivering a Cinco de Mayo speech entirely in Spanish (a speech that earned enmity from Jim Boulet, who called it ‘‘a dangerous road’’ that could lead to ‘‘a culture of multilingualism’’).35 While some question Bush’s linguistic skills, HispanicVista.com writer Domenico Maceri admits ‘‘Bush’s Espan˜ol: Not good, but pleases Latino audiences.’’36 Unlike the Republicans, the 2000 Democratic Platform strongly supported bilingual education, stating, ‘‘We oppose language-based discrimination in all its forms, including in the provision of education services, and encourage so-called English-plus initiatives because multilingualism is increasingly valuable in the global economy.’’37 However, the bilingual message has not gotten through to its candidates. A Democratic poll seeking to

Economic Justice & 91

understand Hispanic voter preferences did not even have sense enough to ask the linguistic question. Given Bush’s use of Spanish they could have asked, ‘‘If Candidate A spoke to you in Spanish and Candidate B did not, would you vote for Candidate A even if you did not agree with all their positions?’’ This blind spot carried over into the 2004 campaign. According to Rau´l Izaguirre, president of the National Council de La Raza, ‘‘Kerry had no strategy for winning the Hispanic vote.’’38 That cost him the election as it had Gore. That Kerry obviously had little contact with La Raza, a major Hispanic group, shows the narrowness of the party’s vision. What no one in this debate about language seems to be asking is what a lot of people and thousands of communities across the country are finding out on their own—Why don’t we speak Spanish rather than why don’t they speak English? Driven largely by economic necessity everyone from real estate agents to fast food franchises are learning very quickly that they had better learn to speak Spanish, or get someone who can, or they are going to lose a lot of business. So let me make a bold prediction: the person who wins the 2008 presidential election will speak Spanish, and not just badly, either. If not 2008 then 2012 for sure. Sammy Sosa, for, one, will be very happy about that. The Democrats remind me of what I imagine it was like at Sutter’s Mill just before the big gold discovery: There must have been these bright objects in the river and people either did not see them or thought they were fool’s gold, until someone finally realized they were literally sitting on a gold mine. It is one thing to speak about the importance of bilingual education and put it in your party platform, but it is quite another to ‘‘walk the talk,’’ as they say, and actually put into practice what you believe. The party would be mindful to heed a poll I saw about Spanish-language television. According to author Ceril Shagrin, ‘‘In l992, prime-time share of viewing to Spanish television among Hispanic adults 18–49 was 34 percent. That share has increased incrementally each year and, for the current season to date, primetime share of viewing to Spanish television among the same demographic is 55 percent.’’39 If I were a Democratic presidential candidate, I would be spending some money right now to hire someone to teach me conversational Spanish. Perhaps the best capstone on the Sosa story was by Memphis reporter Don Wade, who compared Pedro Martinez’s remarks to a conversation he had years ago with a black player about racism in sports. ‘‘In his way, and with English as his second language, Martinez is trying to have the conversation Eric Davis had with us at his locker,’’ wrote Wade, ‘‘It was good to listen then; it would be good to listen now.’’40

7

Educational Equity: Green with Envy

There is a place where three environments come together. What maps label the White Earth Reservation lies on the border of several distinct ecological zones. Imagine it as occupying the center of a triangle where on one side stretch the flat prairies, on another side lie the boreal forests of the north woods and at the bottom stand the savannas of the Midwest. Each side also brings unique cultures that flavored the region long before the whites came. Seeing White Earth, it is not surprising that people who revere such a place should find themselves both blessed and cursed, not surprising that what the land teaches should be of paramount importance, or that the people should fight so long and so hard to keep this homeland. Those whose ancestors lived here since before there was a United States will tell you this land has much to teach. To understand what lessons this holds for Liberal America’s cornerstone of educational equity requires opening our minds to worlds far beyond the walls of a conventional classroom. Instead the lesson involves oral traditions, a national election, the history of Native Americans, and the realities of life in this place. Together they lead us to view education and America from a radically different perspective. The journey from a rural Kansas ballpark to a Minnesota reservation may seem a matter of simple geography, but it is also a journey of the mind linked by a single, simple question: When would Liberal America’s cornerstones apply to everyone? The tide of civil rights rose and then fell, as it has before in American history, leaving behind more questions than answers. Pedro Martinez posed one of them in response to a broken bat, thereby opening a window on America for those who would look through it. That window

94 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

revealed how the promise of social and economic justice had faded under the assault of the Counterrevolution and the neglect of Democrats who once saw themselves as keepers of that promise. A woman from White Earth would turn our attention to another crucial cornerstone. Winona LaDuke, who lives on White Earth, is one of the Anishinaabeg people. Whites know the Anishinaabeg as Ojibway or Chippewa. She describes her home: There are forty-seven lakes. There’s maple sugar, there are hardwoods, and there are all the different medicine plants my people use: our reservation is called ‘‘the medicine chest of the Ojibways.’’ There are wild rice, deer, beaver, fish, every food we need; there is plenty of it. On the eastern part of the reservation there are stands of white pine. The land is owned collectively, and we have family-based usufruct rights: each family has traditional areas in which it fishes and hunts. In our language the words which describe the concept of land-ownership translate as ‘‘the land of the people,’’ which doesn’t imply that we own our land but that we belong to it.1

LaDuke became the first Native American to run for national office when the Green Party nominated her for vice-president. Her candidacy earned the enmity of Democrats, who felt the Greens helped elect George W. Bush by drawing votes away from Al Gore. No doubt Winona LaDuke has heard similar charges. All their lives Native Americans have dealt with someone blaming their people for something that often had its roots in the failures of the whites. It has been that way since the first Viking longboat landed in Newfoundland through the colonists that came on masted ships, to George Custer and Wounded Knee. The theme of these narratives has been not unlike the charges in the 2000 campaign: if Native Americans would only realize theirs is a losing cause, everything would go more smoothly. Those of us who are white not only have trouble understanding this history, we also have even more trouble comprehending an entirely different view of history itself. Anishinaabeg poet Gerald Vizenor provides an instructive explanation, ‘‘[Anishinaabeg tales] are not an objective collection and interpretation of facts. Stories are a circle of dreams and oratorical gestures showing the meaning between the present and the past in the life of the people of the woodland.’’2 In this view past and present forever intertwine as part of the same reality, which always shifts and yet also always stays the same. Part of this, no doubt, comes from being a culture with an oral tradition, where words and visions pass carefully from one person to another, like a piece of delicate pottery.

Educational Equity & 95

Whites have always looked down their noses at oral traditions, as if something not written in ink is less real or true. A favorite analogy illustrating the liabilities of the oral tradition is the game called telephone, where a story passed around a group inevitably ends getting garbled into something hilarious. But the game actually represents the deficiencies of listening and in the end it makes a cultural point quite different than that intended, for, as a Native American once told me, whites are not good listeners—at least when Native Americans are doing the talking. Native people find this one of the most frustrating things about whites, their inability to really understand, to know when to shut up and listen and when to ask a question. A true oral tradition values listening skills as much as speaking skills, for someone recognized as a renowned orator or storyteller is someone who listened very hard, paying attention to every sound, nuance, and gesture. That a being such as manabozho—who Vizenor refers to as a ‘‘compassionate trickster’’—should be revered by the Anishinaabeg reveals much, because to be a great trickster you must be a very astute observer and listener—how else are you to know how to master your opponent if you do not intensely study him? For this reason alone, oral traditions ultimately hold great value in Liberal America’s cornerstone of education, but not education as the Counterrevolution would have it with its mixture of rote learning and fundamentalist doctrine and certainly not with ‘‘intelligent design.’’ The importance of listening figures strongly in the relationship between the Democrats and the Green Party. Much of the recent history of the Democratic Party seems to resemble the telephone game, where messages are garbled and lost so their original meaning no longer seems clear. My guess is that if you were to ask Democrats what Liberal America stood for, you would receive a lot of nervous answers and attempts to dodge the question. The problem lies not in garbling the message, but that messenger and listener do not seem to care about it. LaDuke and Nader tried to remind the Democrats to get some spine or risk losing not only their base but along with it the principles of Liberal America. When voices such as LaDuke and Nader desert a party and its cause, they serve, like canaries in a mineshaft, to alert us that something is radically wrong with the atmosphere. This becomes even more critical when seen in the context of the uniqueness White Earth represents. Those sacred lands with their proximity to so many natural and human cultures seem to express the need to hold on to principles or be crushed by surrounding pressures. People will continue to argue about the ‘‘Nader effect’’ into the next century. Democrats still cast the Green Party in a negative light as a left-wing

96 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

version of the Dixiecrats—wild-eyed ideologues needing a strong dose of reality. The website stopnader.com said what was on the minds of many Democrats, ‘‘The difficult truth of the 2000 election was that Ralph Nader did help Bush win the White House.’’3 Certainly we need to dispense with the simplistic idea that if the Green Party did not exist all those Nader supporters would have voted for Gore. More than the unprovable assertion that lies behind this, there also lies a large dose of hubris. Elizabeth Schulte wrote, ‘‘To say that Nader ‘took votes away’ from Al Gore assumes that the 2.7 million ballots cast for Nader were Gore’s to begin with.’’4 This begs an interesting question which few in the media raised: Why didn’t Gore move toward the Greens to enlist their support? The Gore campaign seemed to go through several phases in regard to Nader and LaDuke. First, the Democrats tried to ignore them, pretending they were of no consequence. By ignoring them, Gore signaled that his presidency would not be one that tried to involve all Americans, but, as Nader and LaDuke observed, his presidency would merely be politics as usual. It may have been the ultimate irony of the 2000 campaign that Al Gore lost by becoming exactly what Nader and LaDuke said he was. The second stage of the Gore strategy came after campaign polls began showing Nader would draw double-digit support. At this point, columnist Robert Kuttner noted, Gore underwent ‘‘yet another makeover, now he’s a populist, bashing drug companies, oil barons, and tax cuts for the wealthy, sticking up for the ordinary working American.’’5 In essence, Gore tried on some of Nader’s clothes, but like a country rube sporting a suit for the first time, Gore looked uncomfortable in such clothing because he had no idea how to wear it. It was as if his tie were crooked and his shirt collars too wide. In the final stages of the campaign Gore again changed strategy, telling voters that a vote for Nader might put George Bush in the White House. Gore supporters made sure to lock Nader and LaDuke out of the presidential debates, which served only to anger Nader supporters. The Democrats even trotted out liberal icon Paul Wellstone to bolster their position. In a debate on the PBS NewsHour with Nader supporter Jim Hightower, Wellstone seemed a bit uncomfortable with his role, trying to affirm his support for Nader’s ideas (many of which coincided with his own, while Gore’s did not) while also making the argument that, at least in swing states, Nader supporters needed to vote for Gore. In the battleground states, I hope that Ralph’s supporters will support Al Gore for the reasons I’ve stated. . . . I agree with you on the issues. And I agree with you on the importance of organizing for power. But . . . the stakes are too high,

Educational Equity & 97 and it’s too dear a price to see George W. Bush and his supporters take over the national government.6

By then, so many opportunities had been squandered that Gore’s pleas seemed the appeals of a desperate man. In retrospect, Al Gore now appears as one of Liberal America’s worst nightmares: uncertain and wooden in his campaign appearances, waffling this way and that as if he had no real principles, and even more indecisive in the election aftermath when he at first conceded and then withdrew his concession. Gore, like many Democrats, held to the tenuous assumption that the party had to move right to appeal to a larger number of Americans. So Democrats became like someone trying to get into an exclusive club who takes on all the airs of an upper-class snob, their copycat manners apparent to everyone but themselves. For many Americans this adoption of appearances seemed a cynical move calculated only to win votes, which only fed the mistrust and bad feelings many voters had about politics. In writing about the Green’s exclusion from the 2000 presidential debates, Winona LaDuke observed, ‘‘The reality is that the largest party in America is neither the Democrats nor the Republicans—the largest party is the nonvoters.’’7 She goes on to say how hard it is for people who are outside the folds of the two major parties to participate in the political process. In America’s Forgotten Majority Ruy Teixeira and Joel Rogers note the main thing these nonvoters want from government is material improvement in their lives. Teixeira and Rogers believe the Democrats have forgotten these voters in recent years by focusing on issues that are of marginal concern to most people.8 In other words, by not focusing on the cornerstones. The Counterrevolution sometimes forgets most of us work from paycheck to paycheck, trying to perform an economic balancing act that is worthy of a federal reserve economist as we juggle house or rent payments, car payments, grocery bills, and childcare, all the while hoping no one will get sick, and if they do, that insurance will cover whoever is ill without any large copays. When husband and wife work to pay the bills, it generates tensions that the main beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts can only begin to imagine. Just think about something as simple as who makes supper. If traffic gridlocks or the bus breaks down is someone home to meet the kids after school and make sure they get fed on time? As we have seen, these realities are especially true for people of color. In the last few decades, the Democrats have behaved as if the votes of people of color were the party’s birthright. Like some high-born lord of the manor, they assume that, like the peasants of the estate, these voters are

98 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

theirs forever. An equally condescending attitude assumes that given the aims of the Counterrevolution, people of color have nowhere else to go. To people forcibly evicted from their homes to ‘‘reservations’’ because those in power felt they had ‘‘nowhere else to go,’’ that assumption must seem especially misguided. Based on their belief the votes of people of color were theirs, Democratic strategy over the last decades has focused on moving to the right. What if, in fact, contrary to the Republican myth, the rightward tilt had nothing to do with the Republicans and everything to do with the Democrats abandoning Liberal America’s cornerstones? Polls seem to indicate this theory has some validity, for a majority of Americans consistently have supported measures strengthening Liberal America’s four cornerstones, including increasing funding for education, fewer tax cuts for the wealthy, opposition to media concentration, and increased protection of voting rights. When Winona LaDuke accepted the Green Party vice-presidential nomination, she spoke about her people, sending a message to those who seem to have forgotten why government exists. After introductory remarks of welcome in her native language she described life on the White Earth reservation, where the median family income is just slightly above half the state average, unemployment is at 49 percent and one-third of the people do not have a high school diploma. Now let me tell you about some real people. Native Americans are the poorest people in the country. Four out of 10 of the poorest counties in the nation are on Indian reservations. This is the same as White Earth. My daughter’s entire third grade class with few exceptions is below the poverty level. The only choice those parents have with any hope—with 45 percent unemployment—is to work at the casino at about six bucks an hour. With two parents working and paying child care expenses this makes them ostensibly the working poor. Not much different than being in poverty. So my friends, a family of seven who live in a two bedroom trailer down the road from me—a fifteen year old trailer—on AFDC have few options under the new welfare reform plan. I will not stand by mute as the safety net is taken away from those children and that third grade class.9

That LaDuke painted these pictures not at a Democratic Party presidential convention but at the convention of a third party, should serve as a pointed warning to the Democrats. The statistics she cited and the haunting pictures she drew for a national audience represented the first time most Americans had confronted the realities faced by many Native Americans today. Life on

Educational Equity & 99

the ‘‘rez’’—as some Native Americans call it—has existed outside the consciousness of the average American, even beyond places such as Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan, where the cameras journeyed far more times than they have to places such as White Earth or Pine Ridge. It would be safe to say virtually every American has seen more of Baghdad or Kabul than Ponsford, Minnesota. It is in Ponsford that LaDuke works, directing the White Earth Land Recovery Project (WELRP). LaDuke’s fight for the return of land to the Anishinaabeg is a key to understanding her acceptance speech. At the heart of the White Earth struggle is the relationship between Native Americans and the land. Through even the worst of the treaties forced on them, the mere act of making a treaty recognized the sovereignty of the tribes. At those signings—even those under force or duplicity—the United States recognized them as nations just as surely as Britain or France. Today they are still nations, enjoying a unique status in federal law that allows them to have their own courts, law enforcement, and even issue their own license plates. This unique legal status helps to explain the relationship between tribal peoples and the land, for the land represents not only a geographic and ecological entity, but also a social, political, cultural, educational, and spiritual one. These are tied together such that breaking this circle is akin to blasphemy or treason. In this sense the land itself lives as surely as those who walk upon it on two legs. You don’t just live on the land and if you are a member of what some Native people refer to as the Wannabe tribe you don’t just try to relate to it in some vaguely spiritual way. You are responsible for everything that goes on there and you cannot evade that responsibility. The idea that what is part of your sacred trust has somehow been taken away from you becomes far more than a boundary dispute. It is as if some foreign power had taken over your place of worship and proceeded to erect a fast food counter by the altar, hang billboards from sacred objects, knock down walls and repaint everything. Then after doing this they told you to leave and not to worship there any more. The White Earth cause fits within several centuries of treaty violations by the U.S. government, including George Custer’s invasion of the Black Hills. The 1867 White Earth Treaty created the reservation, which originally was thirty-six townships square—the size of a county. Today, however, the reservation is considerably smaller due to what Winona LaDuke and others consider violations of the original treaty. LaDuke became involved in the White Earth cause after she had received a degree from Harvard and decided to devote her energy to restoring lands promised by the treaty. LaDuke explains WELRP’s purpose and methods:

100 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions Our land is Mino-Aki (good land) whose biodiversity is essential to the health and spiritual well-being of our people. For this reason we seek to reclaim the land of White Earth Reservation which was stolen from us through unethical tax foreclosures, treaty abrogations and property thefts in the 1800s and early 1900s. Consequently, our White Earth ecosystems are being continually degraded by corporate farming and logging.10

Winona LaDuke remains as head of the WELRP, but she has taken the values at the heart of the project to other causes including working with other indigenous peoples and environmental organizations such as Greenpeace. In 1994, Time named her as one of America’s fifty most prominent Americans under the age of forty. In 1998 Ms. named her woman of the year. In a story about the WELRP’s sturgeon recovery project, which aims to restore the once plentiful fish to their original habitat, LaDuke articulated the values that have moved her to such action: ‘‘River connectivity’’ is a phrase that is lived by the lake sturgeon of Central North America. Ancient beings whose presence graced the stories, songs, and memories of countless generations of people, they were banished by greed. . . . Today, with the dreams and hands of fisheries biologists, tribal members and some luck, they are returning to the rivers and lakes of the forest country just west of the Great Lakes, returning in their own glory. Bi azhigiiwewag omaa: ‘‘they are returning here.’’ And as they return, they teach us all a lesson—the lesson of river connectivity, and our own relationships with each other. That lesson—I believe is that we can begin the process of undoing some of what we have done to each other, and that we are all ultimately connected.11

The word ‘‘teach’’ in LaDuke’s explanation resonates in today’s world where education has come under fire from the Counterrevolution. In its mildest form the Counterrevolution advocates a return to ‘‘the basics,’’ while in its more radical clothes it proposes government funding of religious schools. Phyllis Schlafly, who has campaigned for ‘‘back to the basics’’ for over a decade, stated the essential case in a 1993 article that railed against what was then called Outcome-Based Education: Outcome-Based Education is—a process for government telling our children how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and what not to know. What the children say, think and know must conform to the liberal Politically

Educational Equity & 101 Correct ideology, attitudes and behavior. What they do not know will be everything else. And because they won’t know the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic, they won’t be able to find out. OBE is converting the three R’s to the three D’s: Deliberately Dumbed Down.12

In the sturgeon story ‘‘teaching’’ and ‘‘the basics’’ become something entirely different, something that reverberates with Liberal America’s cornerstone of education. To understand we need to remember the history of Indian education in this country and something about its current state. The story of Indian education stands as one of the sorriest chapters in American history, for it remains not as much an educational story as a political and cultural one. As an instructive lesson on the use of education as a political tool, it reverberates strongly with the Counterrevolution’s attempts to bend public education to the ideology of its fundamentalist allies. As was noted in chapter 2, if Jerry Falwell means what he said in his book, all American education will be Christian fundamentalist education. For Native Americans that idea must resonate with meaning. In the nineteenth century government-sponsored boarding schools took young girls and boys away from their families and communities with the professed aim of ‘‘assimilating’’ them into the larger, white society. In fact, underneath ‘‘assimilation’’ lay an all-out attempt to brainwash an entire generation. Nothing symbolizes the world of these schools better than the story a Native American friend told me about his family. After the government had forcibly shipped his grandfather from Oklahoma to Pennsylvania, they lined up the little boys, then randomly assigned them new names using those of American presidents and political leaders. So a frightened, lonely child lost his identity and became Thomas Jefferson or Andrew Jackson. My friend’s grandfather received the name Benjamin Harrison. Elements of this system persisted down to what some term the ‘‘Indian New Deal,’’ named because the level playing field ideology behind FDR’s programs also included Native Americans. The ‘‘Indian New Deal’’ tends to be only a footnote to most histories of the period, but that dilutes the beliefs of Liberal America that served as its foundation. Much of the Indian New Deal was spurred by the abuses in boarding schools outlined in the 1928 publication of the Merriam Report. It asserted: The philosophy underlying the establishment of Indian boarding schools, that the way to ‘‘civilize’’ the Indian is to take Indian children, even very young children, as completely as possible away from their home and family life, is at variance with modern views of education and social work, which regard the

102 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions home and family as essential social institutions from which it is generally undesirable to uproot children.13

The crown jewel of the Indian New Deal was the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, legislation some refer to as the ‘‘Indian Bill of Rights.’’ The act focused on strengthening Native American life and culture, halting the loss of their lands and encouraging strong tribal governments. Additional Indian New Deal legislation such as the Johnson-O’Malley Act of 1934 provided federal financial aid to local districts, reservation day schools, and public schools which had been established on Indian lands.14 While the Indian New Deal represented a positive step, it still followed an older policy of whites making decisions for Native people. Unfortunately, as is often the case in Indian Country, even the Indian New Deal’s commitments did not last. The pivotal moment came for Native Americans at the same time it came for the rest of America—the Reagan administration. As the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) noted on its website, ‘‘Unfortunately, under the Reagan Administration, the duration of this latest period of reform is nearing its demise.’’15 While schools have dealt with budget cuts and unfunded mandates, schools in Indian Country, many of which were not that well-funded, have been hit particularly hard. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding for Indian education by $79 million—so much for leaving no child behind! An article at the National Indian Education Association website starts with an angry lead sentence, ‘‘Members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee slammed Bush administration officials at an oversight hearing on Thursday, questioning their commitment to Indian education.’’ ‘‘Our constituency is becoming ever more alarmed,’’ NIEA president David Beaulieu told the committee, ‘‘about their concerns with the statute and what is happening to Indian education, generally.’’ Committee Chair John McCain also had harsh words for Bush officials, saying little appears to have been accomplished since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.16 Confirmation of McCain’s words comes from school ‘‘report cards’’ published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs that paint a grim picture of student performance in Indian Country. In language arts and reading less than 4 percent are performing at an advanced level, while in math the figure is under 6 percent. Just under half the students score at the lowest, or basic level. Only 60 percent of these students graduate from high school.17 Educational statistics of other people of color remain equally grim a halfcentury after Brown v. Board promised to equalize American education.

Educational Equity & 103

With the Counterrevolution in control of the White House for much of the last half-century, the party that cut the deal with Strom Thurmond and struck an educational alliance with Christian fundamentalists has proven unable to reverse the achievement gap. In fourth-grade reading only 1 percent of African Americans and 2 percent of Hispanics score at the advanced level as compared with 10 percent of whites. In twelfth grade the figures are the same. In fourth-grade math 0 percent of African American and 1 percent of Hispanics score at the advanced level compared with 3 percent of whites. In twelfth grade these figures remain the same, but Hispanics have dropped to 0 percent.18 The situation for Native Americans in public schools remains harsh. Where once American education sought to strip Native Americans of their identity, now the preferred strategy seems to be to ignore them. The National Center for Education Statistics, which is one of the premier sources for education data, does not even include Native Americans in its dropout and other statistics. In a study of Indian dropouts, Donna Deyhle quotes a Native American student: The way I see it seems like the whites don’t want to get involved with the Indians. They think we’re bad. We drink. Our families drink. Dirty. Ugly. And the teachers don’t want to help us. They say, ‘‘Oh, no, there is another Indian asking a question’’ because they don’t understand. So we stop asking questions.19

When she spoke about the children of White Earth in her acceptance speech, Winona LaDuke pointed out ‘‘nearly one-third of all Indians on the reservation have not attained a high school diploma,’’20 a figure similar to that for other Native American communities. In essence, she asked whether this country would uphold Liberal America’s cornerstones. The answer she received from Democrats may explain one reason for the rift between LaDuke and her Green Party and the Gore campaign in 2000: the Democratic Party Platform remained notably silent on the subject of Native American education and was unimaginative on education in general. This key cornerstone of Liberal America and the concerted attack on it by the Counterrevolution inspired tepid rhetoric from the Gore campaign—so tepid that I would bet that most Americans do not remember it. A similar situation prevailed in 2004. Couple this with the slighting of the Hispanic vote noted in the previous chapter and it is a wonder either Gore or Kerry came as close as they did. Winona LaDuke is trying to tell us that educational equity goes beyond dollars and cents into the very realm of the curriculum. In the sturgeon story

104 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

she portrays the world as both classroom and teacher, a place where one can learn from the vibrant living laboratory of the land as well as from the cultures and traditions of the people who inhabit it. Such ideas have aroused the ire of the Counterrevolution. For over a decade the Religious Right has expended a great deal of ammunition decrying curricular changes that it refers to as ‘‘cultural relativism.’’ As anyone whose children have attended public schools recently well knows, a new school curriculum has sought to explain and celebrate America’s diversity. It is often said the victors write the history, which in the case of Native Americans resonates all too loudly. In the 1970s and 1980s, however, schools began to teach students about the contributions of women and people of color and, yes, about the mistakes made in places like White Earth and Wounded Knee. Sand Creek, where the Seventh Cavalry’s slaughter of entire Native American families had something to do with the ferocity of the Little Bighorn, entered into the American consciousness. Long overdue dialogues began and long suppressed questions surfaced about how true public education has been to Liberal America’s cornerstone of educational equity. For millions of Americans the answers lay not merely in the separate and unequal resources of the nation’s schools, but also in what went on inside classrooms. This is what the Counterrevolution seeks to overturn. Its focus on the history of names and dates as opposed to ideas and issues seeks to remove that essential dialogue and discussion. For the Religious Right, this discussion ‘‘pollutes’’ the minds of children. Better to do rote recitation than teach the critical thinking skills our children will need to survive in the complex, diverse world of this new century. LaDuke’s ideas contain a third, and often forgotten and misunderstood, dimension: education is about learning. New or different knowledge and ideas have always made people uncomfortable, as Galileo could testify. As educators are fond of reminding us, we are all lifelong learners who hunger for new knowledge and constantly question and change our ideas. In the recriminations and rhetoric that hang over the Era of Bad Feelings like smoke over a battlefield, we also overlook the fact that this contentious atmosphere almost forces us to understand what we see and wonder about. The Culture Wars represent a conflict between those who think they know all the answers and those who believe we need broader tolerance and understanding. In her speeches about the values of Native Americans, LaDuke continually points out that the larger society has always discounted or misunderstood the deeper meanings held by indigenous people. She believes these values can offer valuable alternatives in a world seemingly bent on swallowing itself whole.

Educational Equity & 105 INDIGENOUS PEOPLES believe that all societies must exist in accordance with natural law in order to be sustainable. Cultural diversity is as essential as biological diversity. Indigenous peoples have lived on Earth for thousands of years, and I suggest that their ways are the only sustainable ways of living. Because of that, there is something to be learned from indigenous cultures.21

In her sturgeon story Winona LaDuke articulates a learning philosophy that can only be described as organic, for it emphasizes the holistic, interconnected nature of reality. Connectivity represents the key theme in the life of the sturgeon. That this idea comes from Native Americans should be no surprise, for indigenous peoples have always stressed the circle of life. Rose von Thater-Braan, cofounder of the Native American Academy—a network of Native and non-Native people engaged in the study of Native science— explains. ‘‘The core of Native science is relationship which reflects itself in our way of being in the world’’; she says, ‘‘We concern ourselves with the interdependencies and relationships that make up the whole.’’22 LaDuke reminds us that interrelationships insist the Liberal America’s cornerstones connect with one another. Interrelationships also provide the key to living in this new century. Systems thinker Donella Meadows, who won a MacArthur Fellowship for her work applying System Dynamics to various global and environmental problems, quotes an ancient Sufi teaching: ‘‘You think because you understand one you must understand two, because one and one makes two. But you must also understand and.’’23 In another article Meadows explained how such a perspective might shed light on the farm problem: Farmers are caught in a vicious cycle. At any given price, for milk or grain or whatever, the most obvious way a farmer can earn more money is to produce more. So some of them do. But, since most of us are already drinking all the milk and eating all the grain we can, a larger supply means a lower price. Now, since the price is lower, every farmer has to produce more just to keep the same income. So every farmer tries to do that and some succeed, increasing production still more, dropping prices still further, forcing every farmer to produce still more.24

Unlike the perspective LaDuke and Meadows advocate, the curriculum advanced by the Counterrevolution maintains a rigid view of education that flows from their fundamentalist beliefs. LaDuke’s view of education uncovers a major struggle across the world between those who would maintain the rigid hierarchies and ideas such as those held by fundamentalists here

106 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

and abroad and those who embrace a more systemic view. For fundamentalists who may be Christian, Muslim, or some other religion, rigid categories and preordained certainties offer not merely emotional comfort in these turbulent times but also rock-of-ages solid intellectual grounding. They strongly resist what they see as outside forces that would threaten what they regard as God’s truths. For others like LaDuke and Meadows, the world is a place where interrelationships represent the key to understanding. Taking a cue from science, which sees genetic and ecological diversity as a key to species and environmental survival, they believe intellectual diversity is a key to cultural survival. Native American Rose von Thater-Braan declares, ‘‘What you see is that diversity is the capacity to live in productive interdependent relationship. Everything else in the natural order does that as part of its nature, yet, human beings struggle with the idea of living in harmony with one another.’’25 LaDuke asks what may be the most relevant question for this new century, ‘‘Will we look to create isolation, or will we look to create relationship?’’26 The full implications of this question demand another book, but suffice it to say this clash of visions lies behind everything from the culture wars to the religious wars of the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and Europe. Whether our children succumb to fundamentalist rigidity or come to understand the interrelationships that intertwine their lives may determine how we cope with everything from environmental problems to globalization. Certainly the Democrats need to understand. What has made the Counterrevolution’s attacks particularly fearful lies in their simultaneous assault on all four cornerstones. This has made countermeasures especially difficult. Weakened voting rights, for example, makes it more difficult for those who are excluded to fight for their economic rights. With diminished economic power, media and educational access become more closed. Lowered educational and media access lead to less informed voting decisions. Systems people would call this a negative reinforcing loop. When Democrats do find the backbone to stand up to this assault, they seem to dart back and forth like a car full of clowns trying to put out a carnival fire. Besides the importance of interconnectedness, LaDuke also reminds us that learning involves learners. The Counterrevolution views education as a one-way flow from teacher to learner, something that has proven particularly disastrous for Native Americans. The educational ideas of the fundamentalists resonate too closely with the boarding schools of the past. The distributors of a ‘‘Christ-Centered Curriculum’’ provide some understanding of the lessons taught in some religious academies. In noting what makes their curriculum stand out, they point to a curriculum that builds all studies

Educational Equity & 107

on foundations of Scripture, teaches skills for development of godly character, and emphasizes how God uses and communicates through the written word and mathematics. The distributors point out, ‘‘Students develop a solid Biblical world-view while learning basic skills.’’27 La Duke’s views have little in common with this indoctrination, asserting that when learners become involved in their own education, making it relevant to them, it holds more meaning. Much like Hispanics advocating bilingual education, many Native Americans believe their children should learn their own language and culture. Regardless of whether one agrees with LaDuke’s perspective—or even understands it, since the Wannabe Tribe has a long history of distorting these ideas—it makes an important point about the level playing field and educational equity. The playing field stays level only if all of us remain willing to open our eyes, ears, and minds to various points of view—even if what they tell us is unpleasant or challenging. Only by triangulating our position through the use of many reference points can we know if the field is truly level. Rose von Thater-Braan notes, ‘‘It has been said that the experience of Native peoples studying in the western educational system is like looking into the mirror and having the mirror look away.’’28 One might turn the analogy around and say that for non-Native people it becomes looking into a very narrow mirror. In the past a major American failing in regard not only to Native people but also others has been to talk and not listen. LaDuke points out that we did not hear, for example, what so many tribes told us about our wanton destruction of the land that has produced a struggle to heal deep, and in some cases irreparable, scars. In a speech she gave during the 2000 campaign, Winona LaDuke expressed an optimism that can only come from being part of a community that endured years of attack and exploitation and yet survived with pride still intact: We are a society with solutions. . . . That’s what’s amazing about this country. There’s no absence of resources. We are a rich country, the richest in the world. We have the resources to do the right thing. What we have is an absence of political will. We lack the will to do the right thing.29

8

Voting Rights: Mrs. Hamer’s Question

The Mississippi backcountry is about time, about clinging to the shade on brutally hot days, waiting for something to cool things down. In heat that seems to slow time itself, everything can feel heavier, the air, whatever you happen to be doing, or even life itself. This engenders a certain economy of motion that is reflected in the rolling cadences of words that slide off the tongue the way molasses slowly oozes from a jar, making the point that you do not move quickly when the air is as thick as syrup. They call this region the home of the blues and if the blues is about anything it is about time, the way it works on you as the burdens of the past weigh down the present, the way a man looking out across a gravel road lets his fingers pluck the strings so they moan with memory. One of the greatest of these blues singers, maybe even the greatest, was Robert Johnson, who left a few recordings and a vague biography of legend and fact that no one will ever sort out. In one recording he sings, ‘‘I’ve got to keep movin’ . . . there’s a hellhound on my trail.’’1 The guitar accompaniment to this song makes one understand why some say Johnson sold his soul at a crossroads between Heaven and Hell. Fannie Lou Hamer knew all about time, unfulfilled promises, hellhounds, crossroads, and knew about the blues. Her story represents a crucial chapter in the history of the level playing field. This large woman, with a commanding presence that comes from holding the moral high ground, was the granddaughter of slaves. One of twenty children, she first went to work in the fields with her sharecropper family when she was six. In an interview with Dr. Neil McMillen of the University of Southern Mississippi she

110 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

remembered, ‘‘Life was very hard; we never hardly had enough to eat; we didn’t have clothes to wear. We had to work real hard.’’2 In the still-feudal regions of Mississippi, children like Hamer received little formal schooling because they were expected to work the fields as soon as they were able. She described her education in a 1968 Milwaukee Sentinel interview. ‘‘There was nothing to do in December, January, February, and March so they let us go to school,’’ she said, ‘‘But I only got to go six years.’’ As it has for others, this oppression only strengthened Hamer’s desire for education. With a description that could have come from a pre–Civil War plantation she described how she satisfied this hunger: ‘‘After I stopped going to school, whenever I was in the [plantation owner’s] house, and I’d have to sit with a sick person or something, I’d stretch out and read.’’3 Hamer and her husband were working as sharecroppers when in 1962, organizers for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and Southern Christian Leadership Conference asked for volunteers to register to vote. Hamer’s recollection provides a sad comment on the ideal of the level playing field: ‘‘I didn’t know that a Negro could register and vote.’’4 Hamer was one of eighteen who stepped forward. Later they took a bus to the Montgomery County courthouse. When someone asked where she found the courage, she later reflected, ‘‘The only thing they could do to me was to kill me, and it seemed like they’d been trying to do that a little bit at a time ever since I could remember.’’5 When they arrived at the courthouse, Hamer and the others walked through an ugly mob with guns to face the literacy law, a segregationist strategy to keep African Americans from voting. When they tried to enter the circuit clerk’s office he told the group they could only enter two at a time. When it was Hamer’s turn she was asked to read and interpret a section of the Mississippi Constitution. Said Hamer, ‘‘That was impossible. I had tried to give it, but I didn’t even know what it meant, much less to interpret it.’’6 This story sheds light on events since, including the Florida election and the infamous ‘‘butterfly ballot.’’ The Civil Rights Commission report on Florida’s systematic disenfranchisement of African Americans in 2000 shows that we have not come all that far since Fannie Lou Hamer tried to register. Testimony given by a Mississippi registrar to a 1965 Congressional Subcommitee sounds strangely familiar after 2000: For a day and a half Shankle sweated on the stand trying to explain . . . why he had closed down one of the two voter registration offices in the county and forced a large part of the Negro residents to trek an additional 25 or 30 miles to register; why he refused to appoint deputy registrars to handle applications,

Voting Rights & 111 with the result that Negroes were prevented from voting the two months when he was acting as the clerk of the circuit court . . . why he had denied a Negro applicant the right to register . . . even though she had answered the 21 questions on the application . . . she had signed the application in only one of the two required places.7

Courthouse employees wearing the equivalent of white hoods could not deter Hamer. As she took on a larger role as a field organizer with SNCC, she came to be known for her evocative singing of spirituals that spoke of freedom. On June 3, 1963, she was riding in a rented bus on her way to a SNCC convention in South Carolina when police in Winona, Mississippi, stopped the bus and jailed those on board. She described what happened next: Three white men came into my room. One was a state highway policeman (he had the marking on his sleeve). . . . They said they were going to make me wish I was dead. They made me lay down on my face and they ordered two Negro prisoners to beat me with a blackjack. That was unbearable. The first prisoner beat me until he was exhausted, then the second Negro began to beat me. I had polio when I was about six years old. I was limp. I was holding my hands behind me to protect my weak side. I began to work my feet. My dress pulled up and I tried to smooth it down. One of the policemen walked over and raised my dress as high as he could. They beat me until my body was hard, ’til I couldn’t bend my fingers or get up when they told me to. That’s how I got this blood clot in my eye—the sight’s nearly gone now. My kidney was injured from the blows they gave me on the back.8

Later she would learn that Medgar Evers was murdered while she was in jail. Although she never fully recovered from it, the beating did not deter Hamer. When asked later what kept her going she uttered the immortal phrase that graces her tombstone, ‘‘I was sick and tired of being sick and tired.’’9 As records of that era come to light, like those of the former Soviet bloc, we can see Hamer and others faced the equivalent of an Eastern European police state. In 1956, in response to the Brown v. Board decision, the Mississippi legislature approved the creation of the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission ‘‘to do and perform any and all acts and things deemed necessary and proper to protect the sovereignty of the State of Mississippi, and her sister states, from encroachment thereon by the federal government or any branch, department or agency thereof.’’10 Commission records lay in a vault of secrecy and protection until a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union opened them for the public. Although

112 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

the records appeared sanitized, what emerged was shocking enough—ghosts whose wails tell a sordid story. The handwritten records from one county show payments to informers ranging from $25 up to almost $100, with $40 not being uncommon. Check marks march down the page, marking African American informers, sometimes several for the same family.11 Like Nazi and gulag administrators, the Sovereignty commission believed nothing was too inconsequential to report. An eerie 1964 memo notes: ‘‘Rita Schwerner [the wife of slain civil rights worker Michael Schwerner] recently purchased a Singer sewing machine in Meridian and had it delivered to 2505 1/2 5th Street in Meridian.’’12 To picture Mississippi at that time you have to be prepared to walk into a fevered nightmare that periodically reasserts itself into our consciousness. Fantastical images and shapes flit in the darkness, and curses and screams come from beyond the edge of safety and sanity. We awake with that uncomfortable feeling of sorting out what is real. One memo captures the atmosphere: ‘‘It was pointed out to Shiboh by the writer,’’ it notes, ‘‘that he was going a bit beyond the tutoring in Leland and he was advised to be very careful he did not go beyond the provisions of the law and create a problem which could bring about serious trouble.’’13 In another entry, an agent recommended pressuring a black college to purge itself of Civil Rights ‘‘agitators’’ by threatening to revoke the teaching licenses of all the faculty and of those who graduated with teaching licenses. A third memo tells of a plant visit by representatives of a racist group that threatened the plant owner if he did not stop hiring African Americans. Reporting on a closed meeting an investigator noted, ‘‘The writer could not gain access to the meeting but is very close to some of those who will attend so I should be able to find out what was discussed.’’14 A letter documents the Sovereignty commission’s role in providing a hidden tape recorder that agent Woodley Carr ‘‘could use in interviewing the sister of Fannie Lou Hamer.’’15 The online archives of the commission record over 250 entries on Fannie Lou Hamer, a digital biography. One refers to the trial of the officers who beat Hamer, noting, ‘‘The charges in this case were misdemeanors and the defendants were found ‘not guilty’ by a jury after information. There was no indictment in this case.’’16 The memo does not mention the contents of the ‘‘information’’ or where it came from. Paging through memos like this becomes unnerving. Looking at a document with Hamer’s name underlined with a dark pen stroke inspires thoughts of enemies lists and death decrees. At some point, though, the records become routine, making you wonder if you, like those who compiled them, have become numb to it all.

Voting Rights & 113

Fannie Lou Hamer was never numb, a theme strongly reinforced by documents referring to her as a ‘‘troublemaker’’ in ways that grudgingly record how much she continually grabbed America by the shoulder to remind it of what it should stand for. A recurrent theme concerns her long feud with Senator James Eastland, a wealthy planter who owned 5,000 acres tilled by tenant farmers not far from where Hamer lived most of her life. A Sovereignty commission file notes Hamer and others successfully raised funds for ‘‘the election of Negro candidates in Sunflower County. . . . This county is especially important because it is the home county of Senator James Eastland.’’17 In the past, Eastland might have ordered her execution with a Shakespearian ‘‘can no one rid me of this woman?’’ Fannie Lou Hamer would have vanished into the night like so many other victims whose last screams were heard only by those destined to enter Hell. But James Eastland had other tools. With Joe McCarthy’s ghost still prowling the cavernous halls of the Capitol, Eastland willingly embraced the Wisconsin senator’s tactics, a move he must have known would attract attention from J. Edgar Hoover, whose opinions on the civil rights movement were noted in a boldfaced quote in the Sovereignty commission files. ‘‘We do know the Communist influence does exist in the Negro Movement,’’ said Hoover, ‘‘and it is an influence that is vitally important.’’18 A revealing Congressional Record clipping in commission files documents an exchange between Eastland and fellow Mississippi senator, John Stennis. Stennis comments, ‘‘I found the same pattern of operations in areas in which I live.’’ Eastland adds, ‘‘I know that members of the groups would go to town after town and try to obtain quarters in a Negro home, and there was not a Negro home in the town that would let the members of the groups remain.’’19 Stennis agrees, then warns darkly, ‘‘In areas in which those people were able to stay, their activities would disrupt the business life, the social and spiritual life of both races and generally disrupt the lives of both people.’’ Then the two take their cue from Hoover. ‘‘After all this has occurred, to learn that the most active participants and some of the most effective of the leaders are either Communists themselves or have a documented Communist connection makes the pill even more bitter to swallow,’’ says Stennis. With all the practice of a seasoned red-baiter, Eastland then draws Hamer into this carefully woven net. ‘‘My colleague knows that they come back with lurid stories such as that of a citizen of my own town named Fannie Lou Hamer.’’ Stennis does not miss a beat, drawing the net closed. ‘‘Do not the facts disclosed by the Senator underscore and bring out the correctness of

114 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

the repeated warnings that have been made by J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, about the repeated efforts of the Communist Party to infiltrate any part or element it can in regard to the racial struggle?’’ Such charges provided ready fuel for others more than willing to light a match to the volatile atmosphere. Hamer recalled, ‘‘They’d call and say they were coming to take me to the river and I would say to be sure they had the right address and I would be waiting for them.’’20 A colleague described the atmosphere of the time and Hamer’s response to it: Fannie Lou Hamer was sick in bed when we got there. Lee Bankhead stated she did not know if she was going to live long because white people had been driving by her house during the night. She stated once she saw a gun sticking out of a car window, and that they had shot a dog once. Lee Bankhead was asking Fannie Lou Hamer if she should buy a gun and keep it. Mrs. Hamer stated that the Bible was her gun, but she indicated two guns that she had in the room. She said you had a right to protect yourself in your own home but cautioned against shooting the wrong person and getting in a lot of trouble.21

Hamer’s leadership role in the fledgling Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) must have especially irked Eastland. A grassroots attempt by African Americans to end run the state’s segregationists, the MFDP was to play a major role in the ‘‘Freedom Summer’’ of 1964. That year the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) linked civil rights groups under the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO) in a masterful campaign that aimed to show the moral bankruptcy of the white power structure ruling the South as if it were a third-world banana republic. The true extent of this system was on full display in the first trial of those accused of killing James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman. Swaggering defendants, whose defense was badly compromised by courageous eyewitness accounts, received sentences appropriate for someone guilty of speeding. Like many totalitarian regimes, Mississippi seemed to purposely show its system was biased, thereby intimidating opposition. The breadth of the task that faced the organizers of Freedom Summer testifies about the grassroots nature of what came to be called ‘‘The Movement.’’ Commission records tell a powerful story; their pages document the names of hundreds of African Americans who stood up in the face of intimidation with energy and commitment. It is important to recognize that African Americans led the MFDP. Even the Sovereignty Commission,

Voting Rights & 115

which would have loved to find Northern white hands pulling the strings, gives the local leadership full credit. During Freedom Summer, when many white Mississippi politicians echoed Strom Thurmond, talking openly of bolting the Democratic Party, the MFDP elected a slate of African American delegates to the Democratic national convention in Atlantic City. An MFDP brief used language no doubt calculated to evoke vice-presidential nominee Hubert Humphrey’s 1948 civil rights speech: ‘‘In the final analysis the issue is one of principle: whether the National Democratic Party, one of the greatest instruments of progress in the history of our nation, shall walk backward with the bigoted power structure of Mississippi or stride ahead with those who would build the state and the Nation in the image of the Democratic Party’s great leaders.’’22 When the MFDP delegates arrived in Atlantic City, you would have thought some disreputable relative had dropped in on a wedding at just the wrong time. One delegate, Mildred C. Cosey, said, ‘‘This is not a pleasure trip for us. All of us knew when we left, we might not live another week after we got back.’’23 The arrival of the MFDP forced the Democrats to choose between seating an all-white group of segregationists or the MFDP. In the ensuing credentials committee fight, Hamer gave an impassioned speech carried on national television. She began by telling of that first bus ride to register in Montgomery. She related that when she got home the plantation owner came to evict her. ‘‘He said, ‘I mean that. If you don’t go down and withdraw your registration, you will have to leave.’ ’’ Then she went on to tell the graphic details of the beating, bringing tears to the eyes many who heard her. This led to her dramatic conclusion: ‘‘All of this is on account of us wanting to register, to become first-class citizens, and if the Freedom Democratic Party is not seated now, I question America, is this America, the land of the free and the home of the brave where we have to sleep with our telephones off of the hooks because our lives be threatened daily because we want to live as decent human beings, in America?’’24 Lyndon Johnson tried to suppress Hamer’s speech by calling an impromptu press conference, but the tactic backfired when the networks ran the entire speech during prime time. Her question reverberated across the country. As the word pictures that Fannie Lou Hamer painted seared themselves into the American soul, it was the first time many Americans heard firsthand testimony about the brutality of Hamer’s home state. Former baseball great Jackie Robinson wrote a column describing what many felt, ‘‘I don’t believe there could have been many indifferent ears or dry eyes

116 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

as the story of her outrage poured across the televison screens. Certainly, it will be a long time before this writer forgets a gripping question which she hurled at the American people.’’25 Instead of seating the MFDP, the Democrats tried to convince them to accept a compromise of two token delegates. Lyndon Johnson used every tactic he could from his considerable bag of tricks to force the compromise on the MFDP and the Credentials Committee. During the lengthy discussions that went on between the MFDP, the national civil rights leadership and members of the Democratic Party, a rift emerged between ‘‘liberal’’ whites, mainline civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., and the grassroots tenant farmers and other poor blacks that formed the heart of the MFDP. This rift would widen over the days of negotiations and persist over the coming years. Essentially it was a matter of policy and leadership styles. Hamer and others believed the time for compromise was over and that all the MFDP delegates should be involved in decision-making, rejecting backroom deals made by leaders who as Hamer put it, ‘‘ain’t been in Mississippi two weeks and don’t know nothing about the problem.’’26 At one point Bayard Rustin asked if Hamer could serve as one of the two delegates, causing vicepresidential nominee Hubert Humphrey to shoot back, ‘‘The president will not allow that illiterate woman to speak from the floor of the convention.’’27 That statement epitomized all that was wrong with the Democratic Party and the compromise. Asked about the compromise, Hamer said, ‘‘I know that don’t mean nothing to me.’’28 At one point in the negotiations Hamer confronted Humphrey, telling him, ‘‘Senator Humphrey, I been praying about you, and I been thinking about you, and you’re a good man, and you know what is right. The trouble is you’re afraid to do what you know is right.’’29 The forces of history may often move at an apparently glacial pace, but in 1964 a huge iceberg cleaved off the face of that glacier that forever altered navigation in the stormy seas of American politics. Some Democrats did recognize the South would never be the same, but they clung to a belief that segregationists such as Eastland occupied some mythical ‘‘middle ground’’ between the Freedom Summer Movement and the hooded Myrmidons of the Ku Klux Klan. If they could hold that ‘‘middle’’ they could keep the South solid. By the time of the 1964 convention any two-bit fortuneteller could have told the party that something had to give. Quite simply they could continue to support regimes whose brutality had been broadcast into America’s living rooms or they could build an alternative. Whether the stars really were aligned for creating a new force in the South in 1964 will continue to inspire what-ifs, but clearly Hamer and others said the time had

Voting Rights & 117

come. The final result of the delegate challenge should have sent a warning signal to the Democrats. The white Mississippians would not tolerate the notion of having even a few black faces sitting among them, so most of them left the convention just as they did in 1948. As the convention wound down, the MFDP delegates left their Spartan quarters in the low-rent Gem Hotel to return to Mississippi and continue challenging the state’s election system. They returned to the reign of terror that had engulfed Mississippi in response to Freedom Summer, as the white power structure that controlled the state like a feudal fiefdom fought to preserve their American apartheid. By the time the heat of Freedom Summer gave way to autumn, the toll in McComb, Mississippi, alone stood at seventeen bombings, thirty-two arrests, nine beatings, and four burned churches.30 Today as we struggle to instill democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Bosnia—sometimes with thinly veiled references to the supposed ‘‘undemocratic nature’’ of these societies—we forget that within memory there existed in this country a system that any henchman of Saddam Hussein would recognize. As television screens etched scenes of Freedom Summer into our souls, especially those surrounding the murders of Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman, it became harder to maintain that Mississippi in 1964 had even a pretense of democracy. Instead the cameras showed images of an oligarchy that lay protected by a gauntlet of intimidation. In the months after the Democratic Convention, Fannie Lou Hamer, Annie Devine, and Victoria Gray decided to test that gauntlet, running for House seats that might as well have been medieval fiefdoms. Aaron Henry also challenged the system, running for senator. To officially qualify, they needed to win the Democratic primary in what had long been a one-party state. The results surprised no one who knew Mississippi, but Hamer showed surprising strength, totaling almost 10,000 votes against the long-entrenched Jamie Whitten. Thwarted in the Democratic primary, the three filed to run as MFDP candidates. The Mississippi Election Commission declined to place them on the ballot, saying their petition lacked the required number of signatures from registered voters, perhaps because the same people who had refused to register black voters also refused to certify petitions, in some cases saying the voters had not paid their poll tax. Shortly thereafter, in what is surely one of the more perverse rulings in American history, a Mississippi judge added to the insult by ruling that the MFDP could not use the word ‘‘democratic’’ in its name. The primary loss set in motion the Freedom Ballot, a tactic used the previous year when Aaron Henry ran for governor, polling 90,000 votes

118 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

among the state’s disenfranchised African Americans. Amidst the papers preserved by the Sovereignty Commission lies a copy of the 1964 Freedom Ballot, names listed in neat rows, their order belying an explosive weapon that was designed to bring down the structure that had stood for so long in the Cotton Belt.31 The Freedom Ballot’s intent was to demonstrate that a significant number of Mississippi’s African Americans were not invisible or slaves to the power structure. To minimize the violent segregationists that would be attracted like moths to a flame, organizers mailed the Freedom Ballot over a four-day period. The courage behind the effort remains difficult to imagine, for everyone involved in printing, distributing, filling out, and counting the ballots literally put their lives on the line, testifying to a communal strength and resolve determined to rid the state of oppression. When the counting ended, over 50,000 African Americans had sent in ballots, a collective shout for freedom that reverberated across Mississippi to the very halls of Congress. The results more than dramatized Mississippi’s apartheid system. Hamer received 33,009 votes to Whitten’s 59, Devine beat Winstead 9,067 to 4, and Gray shut out Colmer 10,133 to zero. While it would later be pointed out that these totals would not have been enough to eclipse the votes their adversaries rolled up in the general election, the point had been made: Given a chance, African Americans could become a formidable voting bloc. Ironically, despite the rebuff at the Democratic convention and lack of support for the Freedom Ballot from the party, Hamer and the MFDP campaigned actively for Johnson and Humphrey. Asked how she could support the man who had engineered the compromise, Fannie Lou Hamer answered in her usual blunt fashion, ‘‘Any Negro who votes for Barry Goldwater is out of his mind.’’32 Still Goldwater won the state, demonstrating that the compromises designed to keep the South in the Democratic column achieved nothing. Four years later the Southern Strategy would put an exclamation point on this. A little more than a year after the convention fiasco, Hamer sat on the floor of the House of Representatives as it debated which Mississippi congressional delegation would represent the state. That debate represented the culmination of a complaint the three women had filed with the House that Mississippi had conducted an illegal and invalid election. In the ensuing battle, which waged through the summer of 1965—at the same time as debate over the Voting Rights Bill— over 600 depositions were taken. These were included in the volumes of supporting evidence presented to the Privileges and Elections Subcommittee of the House Administration Committee. On September 17 the Committee brought the issue to the floor. The list of organizations supporting the challenge ran from B’nai B’rith to the United

Voting Rights & 119

Auto Workers, from the National Council of Churches to the Elks and the National Student Association. If the 1964 delegate fight represented a test for the Democrats, the election challenge represented a test for America. Today this battle usually earns only a footnote in America’s history, barely alluded to even in Black History Month. Yet it deserves to rank as a defining moment on the level of the Montgomery bus boycott and arguably one of the most important congressional debates in our history. As this country wrestles with the issue of elections in other countries, we would do well to recall that debate, when America soundly failed an important test of its own commitment to freedom. The majority party’s attitude paralleled that of the 1964 convention. The subcommittee reviewing the volumes of evidence held its sessions in private, finally issuing a recommendation to seat the white Mississippi delegation. First, they ruled that the three women had not been official candidates and therefore their challenge was out of order. This ruling, of course, accepted the Mississippi Election Commission’s questionable action of taking them off the ballot. In addition the committee held that the five white Mississippians could keep their seats since there had been no direct wrongdoing on their part. The subcommittee also acknowledged that under the recently passed Voting Rights Act, the election would have been invalid, but since the law was not in effect during the election, it had no bearing. The voices of accommodation that had spoken so loudly at the convention also echoed in the chamber of the House, urging representatives to let the Voting Rights Act take its course and all would be well. For its part, the MFDP worried the passage of the act would wound their challenge, sending a memo saying, ‘‘The Voting Bill has given false hope that somehow things will improve in Mississippi.’’33 The hour-long debate recommended by the subcommittee seems almost quaint today in these days of acrimony. Even those who opposed seating the white Mississippians went out of their way to say they respected the incumbents. At the intercession of New York representative William Fitts Ryan and other supporters, Hamer, Devine, and Gray took seats on the floor. However, the usually vocal Hamer received no permission to speak while the white Mississippians received time to present their case, even though the vote records them as ‘‘not present.’’ Supporters of the three women mounted a spirited challenge. Knowing that they might not have the votes to seat the MFDP challengers, supporters opted for a motion to send the case back to committee for a more thorough review of the entire Mississippi voting system. Several supporters voiced disapproval of the rules. Others noted that the subcommittee

120 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

recommendation did not allow for further discussion. Several recited Mississippi’s checkered history. After the state was readmitted to the union in 1870, African Americans voted in large numbers, electing local, state, and national candidates. In 1890 there were actually more registered African American than white voters in Mississippi.34 As the century turned, African American office holders became extinct. As representatives recited this tale, one could hear a thumbnail sketch of the sad history of Reconstruction, which held out such promise, only to snatch it away. Speakers also invoked a higher purpose. Representative James Roosevelt, FDR’s son, stated, ‘‘Once the technical and legal points have been argued and assessed there remains a great overriding issue. It is a moral issue. Can we support continued service in this body today of persons elected by what must be frankly recognized as a perversion and misuse of our elected processes?’’35 New York Republican John Lindsay, one of a now-extinct breed of liberal Republicans, added, ‘‘I for one, cannot accept those arguments [advanced by the subcommittee], for in essence they are really no more than a plea that we should not ‘rock the boat.’ I say this is a boat that has needed rocking for a good many years.’’36 In response, Mississippi’s ‘‘not present’’ representatives resorted to their favorite tactic of blaming outsiders. Jamie Whitten argued, ‘‘As you can readily see, we are up against a well-organized, well-financed national effort by well-known national organizations.’’37 William Colmer sarcastically commented that if the challenge succeeded ‘‘lawyers from New Jersey, New York, and numerous other places—150 in all—would become great heroes in the creation of chaos and confusion.’’38 When the final vote came, the attempt to seat the three women failed 228–143 with ten voting present and fifty-one not voting. In votes that pointed to the future of the Republican Party, future presidential candidates Gerald Ford and Robert Dole voted ‘‘no.’’ In the years following the congressional fight, Sovereignty Commission records document the infighting between civil rights groups in Mississippi, struggles over strategy, objectives and control that became tinted with gender and class issues. In the rest of America, as the Freedom Summer Movement migrated from the almost medieval haunts of the deep South into the North, things began to unravel. When pot-bellied, pick handle wielding good ole boys flying Confederate flags intimidated civil rights marchers it made for riveting drama, but what was one to do when Polish immigrants in Illinois wearing hard hats and waving American flags began shouting epithets and throwing bricks at Martin Luther King, Jr.? Meanwhile Lyndon Johnson and the American media openly wondered if the nation needed a vacation from Civil Rights, as if morality was a

Voting Rights & 121

nine-to-five job with one’s labors punched on a time clock. Thus began a second rollback paralleling Reconstruction, a rollback that would lose sight of African American equality as surely as the first. By 1968, the Vietnam War had America shunting racial justice to a sidetrack, and the Freedom Summer Movement itself had splintered, with many arguing that its strategies were no longer relevant. For the Freedom Summer Movement, time itself seemed to slow down the way it does on those hot days in Mississippi. That rapid collage of images that has become documentary shorthand for those days in the 1960s seemed to switch to slow motion, even as those like Hamer and others sought to preserve the ideals and energy of Freedom Summer. Winona LaDuke likes to ask audiences if they can name ten Native American nations. She says usually only a handful can answer correctly. It is tempting to apply a similar strategy to Fannie Lou Hamer’s battle for voting rights. Pressed to name ten figures or events in this ongoing struggle since Dr. King’s assassination in 1968, most people would have as much difficulty answering this question as they do LaDuke’s. The inability to answer both questions is linked. While voices like those of LaDuke and Hamer serve to highlight particular cornerstones, they also would not have us take our eyes off the entire playing field. The life of Fannie Lou Hamer reinforces Winona LaDuke’s point about the interconnectedness of the cornerstones. Voting rights without educational equity can leave people lacking knowledge of those rights, like Hamer herself before she met the SNCC workers. Education without economic and social justice can reinforce a feudal system like that in 1960s Mississippi. Finally, media fairness can help to cast light into dark corners as it did during Freedom Summer. Curiously this principle plays out in the lives of both women. In 1969 Fannie Lou Hamer became involved in Freedom Farms, a Mississippi equivalent of the White Earth Land Recovery Project. She describes Freedom Farms, ‘‘We just thought if we had land to grow some stuff on, then it would be a help to us. Because living on the farm, on some plantation, they still don’t give you a place to grow stuff.’’ She went on to explain some of the programs designed to make African American Mississippians self-sufficient. ‘‘Then we started this pig bank program,’’ she said, ‘‘and we grow our own pork and we grow our own vegetables, you know, like butter beans, peas, okra, potatoes, peanuts, and then cash crops.’’39 Some of the last entries in the Sovereignty Commission file on Fannie Lou Hamer are hard to read. One reports, ‘‘I made several inquiries in reference to the activities of Fannie Lou Hamer. All those I interviewed report that since she moved into her new house she has seldom been seen.’’40

122 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

In 1971 an informant noted, ‘‘The MFDP is virtually dead and they are trying to reorganize and revitalize it.’’41 At the close of an oral history interview given late in her life, Fannie Lou Hamer talked about the future, ‘‘I talked to some young people in Washington, and they said, ‘You know we’re going to find out one day just how many blacks there are in Mississippi because we’re going to travel that state over.’ ’’42 Many still wait for this moment. Meanwhile Hamer’s questioning of voting rights has become like some relative kept upstairs under lock and key, one that no one wants to talk about. What lies upstairs is in fact an offspring of America, an offspring sired by racism and violence representing nothing less than a perversion of one of Liberal America’s cornerstones. Sooner or later you must confront this offspring even when you do not like what you see or fear what might be revealed. The failures of 1964 and 1965 represent clear moral failures to uphold Liberal America’s ideal of the level playing field. In those years America reached a critical fork in the road, and it is not hard to imagine that fork as a dusty backroads intersection somewhere in rural Mississippi, perhaps the same place where Robert Johnson is reported to have made his pact with Satan. The MFDP challenges became turning points with immense national implications. Had Hamer and her colleagues prevailed they might have helped to straighten out the mess over voting rights and procedures that ended before the Supreme Court in 2000. Instead of bringing Dixie into America, however, those years brought America to Dixie. After their Devil’s bargains, Republicans made the climate most uncomfortable for those like John Lindsay who sought to continue the vision of the party’s first elected president, Abraham Lincoln. A decade later, the Lindsays had become all but extinct, done in by an environment calculated to make it increasingly difficult to breathe the air that had once given life to Lincoln. If the Republican strategy was calculated, the Democrats’ decisions showed a failure of vision, for they lacked the will to adopt the values advocated by Hamer and others. The conventional wisdom holds that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 represented one of the high marks of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, but the challenge of Fannie Lou Hamer, Annie Devine, Victoria Gray, and Aaron Henry also dramatized that the party had no stomach for pressing its advantage. It is surprising that the Democrats acted as if they did not see the MFDP coming. Given the 1946–47 challenge to the Senate election of race-baiter Theodore Bilbo and the 1948 delegate challenge noted in chapter 2, the party had to realize that sooner or later

Voting Rights & 123

events in the South would come to a head. If nothing else Freedom Summer should have prepared them. The Democrats could have moved to overturn the entire voting structure in Mississippi and the rest of the South by using the MFDP challenge to open a full-scale investigation into voting irregularities. By losing sight of the level playing field at a time when it was at the height of its power, the Democratic Party paved the path for Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and the Thurmondization of America. In doing so it began a steady loss of that power, as many associated the party with hypocrisy and weakness, demonstrating that power without principle resides in a hollow, brittle shell. Historian Todd Gitlin, for one, understands the significance of what happened in Atlantic City. ‘‘The national Democratic party’s rejection of the MFDP at the 1964 convention was to the civil right’s movement what the Civil War was to American history: afterward things would never be the same.’’43 The ghosts of 1964 and 1965 came home to roost in 2000 when the specters of the three Mississippi women hung over Florida’s systematic attempts to exclude African Americans. In essence those two years cost Al Gore the White House. Had the MFDP challenge been upheld, Al Gore might have been president and the nation would have been spared the embarrassment of hanging chads and rent-a-riots. The Civil Rights Commission report of the Florida debacle represents a sad commentary on the achievements of the MFDP, SNCC, and others. In one sense the story of Fannie Lou Hamer shows how complacent we have become about civil rights. It is easy to look back to a certain day in Washington year after year, hold an event, pass out some awards, maybe even study a little history, and, of course, play The Speech. It has become, dare I use the phrase, a kind of cultural Christmas, and, in the hands of white folks a white Christmas where the true meaning of the event is lost on most people. We go through the same rituals each year, down to the ads in newspapers by big corporations praising King, and everyone then goes back to doing what they were doing before the day dawned. We have not yet become so debased that we hold MLK Day sales, but it will not be long. Nonetheless, the Freedom Summer Movement stands today as a great achievement of Liberal American ideals, an achievement that the Republicans cynically sought to overturn when they cut a deal with Strom Thurmond. That America stumbled and then fell does not negate the achievements of Fannie Lou Hamer and her colleagues nor alter the importance of what they represented. This woman who was anything but plain and simple stood for the plain and simple truth that this government exists to insure a level playing field for all of us plain and simple Americans. Pursued to the

124 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

end by hellhounds, she died in 1977 at the age of 59 without ever receiving a satisfactory answer to her question. By then she was virtually destitute and plagued by fatigue and illness, including breast cancer. She had put her life on the line, refusing to compromise on fundamental principles because, as she put it, compromise is nothing at all when it comes to doing what is right. That no one thought to associate Fannie Lou Hamer with the 2000 Florida debacle or the voting disputes of 2004, says a great deal about the current state of the level playing field, even though her ghost haunts those elections. Fannie Lou Hamer raised one of the most basic questions a democracy can ask and one that comes from the heart of Liberal America, ‘‘What is electoral fairness?’’ Her true strength lay in rejecting the easy answers and false compromises that, as she pointed out over and over, were not real solutions. That this genius came from a woman who tutored herself, as many others have been forced to do, demonstrates a fundamental liberal principle. The ideal of a level playing field will produce uncommon people, because you never know when someone like Hamer will seize the tattered threads they have been given and weave them into something singular. We should also remember that Hamer was not alone. The names of other courageous African Americans, some forgotten, some remembered, lie in the Sovereignty Commission files of those who made Freedom Summer possible. All of them taught us that with each generation, each community, and, yes, each insignificant-seeming election, Fannie Lou Hamer’s question must be asked again and again and that only one answer is possible. If we forget Hamer and the others, we forget the meaning of their struggle. As Wynton Marsalis puts it, ‘‘Blues never lets tragedy have the last word.’’44

9

Media Fairness: The Two Faces of Martha Stewart

Scattered at the edges of America’s major cities lie scores of lower- and middle-class neighborhoods, some over a century old. On narrow streets stand solid two-story houses with wrought iron railings and bungalows with carved white trim. All evoke a comforting coziness, a feeling enhanced by inviting front porches close to the street, some with tight bunches of flowers peering expectantly from window boxes. Compact yards may sport small vegetable gardens holding tomatoes tied neatly to improvised stakes or perhaps the tantalizing green oval of a melon peeking from under carefully confined vines. Behind them, ethnic aromas waft from open windows. A strong sense of place flavors the atmosphere, as if the people in these neighborhoods have worked hard to build something so anchored that the powerful forces of an uncertain world cannot harm them. You cannot help believing, even when experience would argue against it, that when these people venture out, that order will protect them against whatever might threaten. Of those threatening forces none may be more powerful and insidious than the media, for not only does it define a reality far removed from these streets, but it also threatens to draw away everything that makes it a neighborhood. The cornerstone of media fairness represents something particularly important for the offspring of immigrants who may still carry a bit of the old country. Martha Kostyra spent her childhood in such a place before, like Alice, she stepped through the looking glass that sits in everyone’s living room to become Martha Stewart. In the myth that has become her biography, such a neighborhood forms the foundation for her life. A Food Network

126 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

portrait captures the ethos perfectly, right down to the street name, schoolteacher mother, gardener father, and the careful choice of the word ‘‘orderly’’: Raised in Nutley, N.J., in a family with six children, Martha developed her passion for cooking, gardening and homekeeping in her childhood home on Elm Place. Her mother, a schoolteacher and homemaker, taught her the basics of cooking, baking, canning and sewing, and her father, a pharmaceutical salesman and avid gardener, introduced her to gardening at the age of 3 in the family’s small but orderly backyard garden.1

What began in the neighborhood grew into Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (MSLO), a media empire of television, magazines, books, and domestic ware. When she took her company public in 1999, the woman from Nutley became worth $1.2 billion. In 2002, the former stockbroker earned a seat on the Board of Directors of the New York Stock Exchange. Other women may have made more money and had more power, but Martha Stewart arguably has become the most famous, or notorious, woman in America, with the possible exceptions of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Oprah Winfrey. So if you want to understand the state of Liberal America’s cornerstone of media fairness, you need to understand Martha Stewart. Admittedly a great deal of print has already been expended on her—too much for some people—but there she stands in the headlines like a blonde colossus, making it difficult to ignore her. Titling her a ‘‘Flawed Goddess,’’ Ed Vuillamy captured the contrary feelings Stewart inspires with a sentence in The Observer. ‘‘The Queen of Clean has always faced envy and resentment,’’ he wrote.2 The Economist titled a review of Christopher Byron’s biography of Stewart ‘‘The Two Faces of Martha.’’3 Articles like these and dozens of comedy sketches suggest Stewart represents a modern Janus, staring at us like the chiseled face on a Roman coin who looks both ways at once. For those who have forgotten their mythology, Janus was the god of gates and doors, his peculiar appearance suggesting an appropriate metaphor for a media star. One Janus-like face of Stewart speaks for the millions who have watched her TV shows, bought her books and magazines, and logged onto her Internet site. Call her the Good Martha. The opposite face is the side of Stewart that appears as a dictatorial termagant whose famous projects represent yet another plot by shadowy media forces to again enslave women in domestic drudgery—baking cookies, arranging flowers, and picking out just the right furniture for the living room. Call her the Bad Martha.

Media Fairness & 127

You can find anti-Martha rants at websites such as Free Martha, a clever play on words for a site styling itself ‘‘the Martha Stewart portal from HELL.’’ Among the postings at Free Martha is the following ‘‘letter to Santa,’’ ‘‘Dear Santa, I rarely ask for much. This year is no exception. . . . I only want one little thing, and I want it deeply. I want to slap Martha Stewart.’’4 At the site ‘‘Martha Stewart Disease,’’ Donna Lypchuck ends her long list of symptoms with a ‘‘cure,’’ ‘‘Buy her a one-way ticket to Bosnia, Bangladesh or any Third World country so she can appreciate the real meaning of ‘lifestyle.’ ’’5 A ‘‘Gothic Martha Stewart’’ site imagines the queen of domesticity as one of those black-clad teenagers you see at the mall.6 Behind these sentiments lies an anger with ubiquitous media voices who would tell us that the in color for decorating is teal and the in style furniture is French country, so we will rush out to redecorate our lives. Each night the message of the commercials insinuates itself into our living rooms every quarter hour, reminding us of our inadequacies. We have bad breath, bad hair, bad teeth and need to diet, buy a new wardrobe, or take that magical pill that will keep evil forces at bay, forces that will visit upon us plagues ranging from erectile dysfunction to toenail fungus. Sorting out the meaning of Martha Stewart in this climate becomes daunting. Yet if one reads between the lines, powerful themes emerge that tell us a great deal about the Era of Bad Feelings and the cornerstone of media fairness. For everyone who finds Stewart’s projects a painful throwback to an image that carries as much baggage for women as racism does for people of color, there are those who see in them creativity and release from monotony. Like two powerful rivers originating from the same spring, the two faces of Martha Stewart speak of a need to apply one’s energy and talents to something, something that would crack open the shell and allow the birth of impulses too long denied, demeaned, and discredited. Stewart’s fans have their own theories, as one demonstrates in a birthday greeting to Stewart: ‘‘Your success makes it easier for women all around the world to succeed in business. You inspired me & my business is thriving. Those good ol’ boys are all just so jealous they can’t stand to see a woman succeed. You are very much appreciated out here. Don’t forget that.’’7 Such testimony tells us Martha Stewart’s projects do not make her one of the most dangerous women in America, rather her ideas do. Stewart has become an icon because somehow she appears to erase all the dichotomies of career versus family. Arguing with this wizard seems impossible, for, like Peter Pan, if you do not believe in fairy dust then you are doomed to never fly.

128 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

To look at one face of Martha Stewart is to see a woman who lives in an environment cleansed of all problems. The kitchen counter miraculously cleans itself. The oven does not need scrubbing, nor do the pots and pans. Groceries appear when you need them and in just the right portions—and, of course, fresh from the market. The remains of all those meticulously prepared meals disappear into the ether, for the garbage somehow packs itself and flies off with perfect homing instincts to the garbage can. Stewart does not agonize over her hair or her clothes. They all are somehow ‘‘just right,’’ like that bed Goldilocks settles in to. In this Martha Stewart there is something of those 1930s Hollywood musicals, when men in top hats and tuxedos waltzed with beautiful women in long flowing gowns and sparkling jewels. In her own way, Martha Stewart has become the Busby Berkeley of the Era of Bad Feelings, her productions as meticulously plotted and lavish, and behind them lies the same consuming wish that amidst the strife and turmoil a pretty girl could still be like a melody. In The Equality Trap Mary Ann Mason suggests how this image might resonate with many American women. Mason’s book focuses on two groups who first entered the job market in the 1970s. One encompasses the images we often see in women’s magazines, which as Caitlin Flanagan has noted, found a rebirth in catering to these new job seekers.8 These middle-class women eagerly embraced the working world, seeing it as a place where they could finally let their talents blossom. Mason also identifies another group who were ‘‘forced’’ into work by economic necessity: ‘‘Married women with children were flooding into the labor force because their husbands were no longer earning a ‘family wage.’ The postwar shift away from a manufacturing economy and toward a service economy severely reduced the number of high-paying jobs for steelworkers while producing a vast number of low-paying jobs for file clerks.’’9 Martha Stewart’s appeal for both groups comes from demonstrating that the true meaning of ‘‘having it all’’ stems from fulfilling your dreams. Linking the Stewart personal story with the Stewart message represents the key to understanding this, for if you allow your creativity and individuality to flourish, as Stewart has, you might just wind up with an empire of your own. This dimension of Martha Stewart holds a warning that should keep the likes of Sir Rupert Murdoch and the Counterrevolution awake well into the night, for the Good Martha represents a revolt against the sameness of modern life, with everything we eat, drive, and sleep bereft of any recognizable human touch. Stewart’s standard script shows how the ordinary can become something extraordinary. By customizing the sameness of the modern home the way custom car aficionados take an assembly line model

Media Fairness & 129

and turn it into a unique creation, Stewart becomes a postmodernist who turns the commonplace upside down. By demonstrating how found objects could take on new uses she lets us see how our environments and our lives could take on new meaning. She also performs a similar transformation on her audience. Bottled up in conventions and mass-produced monotony, a great many people have felt adrift, meaningless, and unable to control even the most essential parts of their lives. We live surrounded by items stamped out by infernal machines programmed by unseen figures pulling the levers behind the screen just like the great Oz. By showing people how to make their own meaning she brought something extraordinary to the Era of Bad Feelings—a belief that people could take control of their lives and homes. The appeal of this belief is demonstrated by the continuing multiplication of programs that apply Stewart’s premises to everything from landscaping to remodeling. The irony folds back on itself, since the larger the Martha Stewart empire grew, the more it came to resemble that which it sought to change. Here the face turns on us and becomes its opposite. Some women view her as a ‘‘domestic diva,’’ a dictator in an apron who arbitrarily decides what should be banished to the rummage sale. The ubiquity of her presence only serves to reinforce this perception, since every time you turn around that blond head stares back like an all-knowing presence working on your mind. The power of both faces lies in their intimate relationship to each other, for one could not exist without the other, one could not attain such power if the other did not inflate it. The two faces of Martha Stewart represent all the contradictions and tortured choices facing women today. Like two powerful opposite charges they generate a great deal of energy, sparks flying haphazardly, shocking people into frenzied activity or making their hair stand on end. That energy feeds an image of thousands of flickering pixels moving according to a very clever and, so far, hacker-proof code. Taking over her own manipulation of the code stands as Stewart’s most significant achievement, a Brer Rabbit story in which the intended victim gets the last laugh. To her detractors this manipulation goes against the cause they have devoted their lives to, because it sells women the same bill of goods they have always bought, only this time a woman’s doing the selling. Still, the significance of this change cannot be underestimated. Stewart’s choice of the word ‘‘omnimedia’’ is revealing. Women now can write code, not merely serve as its targets. In a telling interview conducted in 1995 by Micki Moore, Stewart talked about her critics:

130 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions I also think there is a gender offense here. I have taken something that everybody does and have capitalized on it, enhanced it, made money from it. If I was a successful man, everyone would be saying, ‘‘Wow, look at what a great empire he built!’’ And that’s to be expected in our society. I don’t waste one second thinking about it, though. Because I edit all aspects of my life, I edit that out—I can’t spend time worrying about what they will say about me tomorrow. It used to bother me, I am a sensitive person, but now I just say, ‘‘They will get it one of these days.’’10

The key phrase is ‘‘edit all aspects of my life,’’ the way a film director would put together a blockbuster for the multiplex. Previously most women in the media did not talk like that, implying that they have total control of their image. As with everything else with Martha Stewart, there is another face to this, one a bit more disturbing, for it suggests that if life is a movie, as the metaphor implies, one need only snip out the bad parts and insert something better. This manipulation personifies the Bad Martha for many. Manipulation has been a venerable theme in women’s history fed by an ancient prejudice that asserts women do not have minds of their own. To many women, what they see on the TV screen or read in magazines seems little more than pretenses for manipulative devices aimed at them. Women could not have minds of their own, only images programmed by someone else who told them how to look, how to dress, how to act, what to cook, how to give hubby his jollies in the sack. Stewart’s story intimates how in the Era of Bad Feelings the age-old war between the sexes has taken some interesting turns. By now we all know the data: the increase in divorce rates, single-parent families, and domestic violence. Instead of narrowing, the so-called gender gap seems to grow. Instead of bringing women and men closer together our times have driven a steel wedge between them. One has only to visit a video store or multiplex to view that wedge. On one screen flickers a genre men derisively refer to as chick flicks—movies aimed mainly at a female audience. A standard plot consists of a woman with a caring husband, a saintly figure with no nasty habits—why he even does the dishes and cooks—but the woman must leave him for a fling with someone more like Clint Eastwood or Robert Redford. Another traces the tale of a single woman or group of women who must pass through a series of trials, each symbolizing a particularly thorny modern dilemma. On the other side of the multiplex wall, a room full of guys turns into a platoon of Incredible Hulks, bursting out of their polo shirts as they take in one car crash and gun barrage after another. The theme of these macho flicks

Media Fairness & 131

is as telling as those in movies made for their partners. They usually feature one steroid-enhanced hero matched against 6,000 evil-doers the hero proceeds to conquer with an assortment of karate moves and fearful weaponry that would be the envy of Soldier of Fortune readers. Curiously, underlying both chick flicks and macho mayhem movies is a common theme of beleaguered individuals facing overwhelming odds. In these movies, society seems out to get you, making it hard for you to become ‘‘all you can be’’—a sentiment used by advertisements for the military and personal makeovers. Yet as the plot twists and turns while hero and heroine navigate through the darkness, more often than not the climax brings a happy ending whose price depends on how hard Hollywood wants to pluck certain strings. The implications of this for politics rival the shifting of plate tectonics, for the gender gap has become caught up in the bad feelings of our time. The stereotypes of Hollywood have become grist for Internet chat rooms. Wander into a few and it will not be long before you run into Republicans who view the opposition in the same terms some macho males view chick flicks. For them Democrats—and Liberal Americans in particular—are oversensitive bleeding hearts blind to the Darwinian realities of the struggle for survival. The words they use sound like fifth-grade boys taunting each other with epithets impugning the masculinity of their intended targets. At the same time you also find postings by those who refer to Republicans as outof-control Rambos. Their language has the flavor of those who deplore war as the result of too much testosterone. Like the movies, partisans of both sides reflect the mood of besieged individuals who fight back with verbs and nouns. Along with this has come a renewed demonization of women. Anyone who has ever taken a women’s studies course knows the thesis that the medieval persecution of women for witchcraft represented an attempt to silence women who were taking strides toward freedom. Joan of Arc is a famous example (it is sometimes forgotten that Joan died at the stake not for leading the French but for ‘‘hearing voices’’). In his award-winning study The Holocaust in Historical Context, Steven Katz refers to the persecution of female witches as ‘‘genderized mass murder.’’11 The Malleus maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches), an influential and widely used handbook published by the Inquisition in 1485–86, makes the case against women quite directly: What else is woman but a foe to friendship, an unescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, domestic danger, a

132 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions delectable detriment, an evil nature, painted with fair colours. . . . Women are by nature instruments of Satan—they are by nature carnal, a structural defect rooted in the original creation.12

For some the trial of Martha Stewart represented a modern witch hunt. In the summer of 2003, Stewart was indicted for obstructing justice, making false statements, and committing perjury. The indictment alleged that she sold shares of stock she held in the biotechnology firm, ImClone, because of an insider trading tip from her stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. He told her that ImClone CEO and family friend Sam Waksal had unloaded his stock in anticipation of an a upcoming Food and Drug Administration rejection of the experimental cancer drug, Erbitrol, ImClone’s ‘‘lead product candidate.’’13 Waksal’s actions brought him a seven-year prison sentence for insider trading. Stewart’s indictment grew out of investigations of Waksal and ImClone. According to the indictment, ‘‘After learning of the [government] investigations [Stewart and Bacanovic], and others known and unknown, entered into an unlawful conspiracy to obstruct the investigations; to make false statements and provide misleading information regarding Stewart’s sale of the ImClone stock; and to commit perjury.’’ Stewart was also indicted for securities fraud because she ‘‘made . . . false statements with the intent to defraud and deceive purchasers and sellers of MSLO [her company] common stock and maintain the value of her own MSLO common stock by preventing a decline in the market price of MSLO’s stock.’’14 In an atmosphere already polarized by the two faces of Martha Stewart, her plight predictably proved a field day for detractors. Jay Leno worked in a few jokes at the expense of Stewart. David Letterman put together one of his famous top ten lists with humorous advice on how Stewart could ‘‘beat the heat.’’ CBS News enlisted convicted Whitewater defendant Susan McDougal to provide ‘‘Prison Life Advice for Martha.’’ ‘‘I would tell her try not to complain. Try to see the good parts of when she’s there. And work on herself. I don’t think she’s had much time in her life to do that,’’ she said.15 Stewart’s supporters quickly weighed in. SaveMartha!.com offered t-shirts, stuffed animals, and baseball caps along with pungent commentary. A letter to Attorney General Ashcroft referred to the trial as a ‘‘witch hunt.’’ One posting compared the kid gloves treatment accorded basketball star and accused rapist Kobe Bryant with that given to Stewart. Most telling of all were posts that asked why the government had spent so much time on Stewart while Enron’s Ken Lay and other corporate wrongdoers remained free. The

Media Fairness & 133

site editorialized, ‘‘In a true democracy, justice must be evenhanded. We should not prosecute people just because they are rich, famous, or because we happen to not like them.’’16 Ever the media manager, Stewart set up her own website to explain her side of the story. According to the site it had received 12 million hits just a month after the issuing of Stewart’s indictment. The site included an open letter from Stewart in tasteful green type that began, ‘‘I want you to know that I am innocent—and that I will fight to clear my name. . . . The government’s attempt to criminalize these actions makes no sense to me. . . . I am confident I will be exonerated of these baseless charges.’’17 The Stewart case became the first major trial tried on the Internet, the biggest public legal sideshow since the O. J. Simpson trial, and, like the Simpson trial, a litmus test for millions of Americans. The trial received the coverage we have all come to expect in the Era of Bad Feelings, complete with hired-gun lawyers commenting on the action with all the enthusiasm, wisdom, mangled sentences, and inside phrases that recall washed-up allAmerican athletes explaining the offenses and defenses of a gridiron contest. Tina Brown showed up to bestow on the trial the imprimatur of the media elite, signaling that this was not just a story for the tabloids, but a real media event. While Barbara Walters sat in the visitor’s gallery, Slate maintained a Martha Meter that recorded the possibility that Stewart might do serious jail time. The big question on everyone’s mind focused on why the government would go after Stewart, risking its prestige, angering women across the country, and setting off some doubts among one of the core constituents of the Counterrevolution—business fundamentalists. Well before the trial began, the media weighed in with their views, which predictably took on the look of the two Marthas. CBSNews.com legal analyst Andrew Cohen framed it one way: ‘‘Everyone knows that . . . the federal government would never have prosecuted a nameless defendant for saving $47,000 through an allegedly inappropriate stock sale, especially when that defendant was interested in making a deal prior to indictment.’’18 Another thread drew attention to Stewart as a campaign contributor to the Democrats Republicans love to hate—Bill and Hillary Clinton. Stewart gave nearly $170,000 to Democratic Party accounts from 1992 until her indictment, including $3,000 to Bill Clinton for his 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, $2,000 for Al Gore’s 2000 White House bid, and $1,000 for Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign.19 On the right, Oliver North rejoiced, ‘‘It’s curtains for one of the Democrats’ big money mavens, Martha Stewart.’’20 Reactionary conspiracy maven

134 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

Ann Coulter commented, ‘‘Indeed, the entire Republican Party is evidently responsible for various rich liberal ‘Friends of Bill’ who now stand accused of insider trading, such as Martha Stewart and ImClone chief Sam Waksal. Republicans are responsible for Clinton’s pal Martha Stewart because liberals say so.’’21 The trial itself featured enough leaks and damning revelations that it resembled a made-for-television movie stocked with soap opera-like moments, including Stewart’s personal assistant breaking down in tears on the stand remembering a plumb pudding Stewart had sent her as a Christmas gift. From the outset it was clear that the prosecution had decided that in order to win they not only had to prove Martha Stewart guilty, they also had to destroy her image. Behind the whys of the trial and certainly somewhere in the back regions of the juror’s minds and that of the real jury, the public, lay an image of Stewart as a woman who built a media empire founded on the importance of detail. How could someone who worried about a properly set table or a tastefully arranged bouquet, fretting over colors and styles the way most people fret over their checkbook balance, have gotten herself into such a mess? The prosecutors predictably took a media solution, aiming for the two faces of Martha with the idea of showing that the Bad Martha represented the real Martha. To convict Stewart the jury would have to believe the Good Martha represented another false public relations creation gone sour, another icon whose pierced balloon leaked hot air. Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Patton Seymour delivered the prosecution’s opening statement, painting a portrait of Stewart as a scheming, manipulative liar out to line her own pockets even if it meant going beyond the law. For each dollar drop in her company’s shares, Stewart’s personal stake fell $30 million, Seymour reminded the jury.22 ‘‘Instead of weathering the storm of negative publicity,’’ Ms. Seymour said, ‘‘Martha Stewart tried to mislead investors in her company about the reason for her stock sale.’’23 Clearly the defense’s imperative was to get the jury to see the Good Martha lay at the root of the entire mess. Stewart’s lawyer, Robert Morvillo, did such a brilliant job of this in his opening statement that Stewart made the entire text available at her website, in her favorite green font. Morvillo began, ‘‘This is an unusual case, not because Martha Stewart is a famous person, but because there will be no direct evidence introduced by the government that Martha Stewart conspired to obstruct anything, that what Martha Stewart told the government during her voluntary interviews was deliberately false, or that Martha Stewart was trying to fool investors in her company by accurately denying guilt and explaining her innocence in June

Media Fairness & 135

of 2002.’’ After getting the Good Martha into the spotlight, Morvillo did what any good television host would do, he modestly listed Stewart’s considerable achievements. His summation of Stewart’s career is a brilliant portrait of the Good Martha, so I quote it at length. We know that she is totally self-made, that she came from a very poor family in Nutley, New Jersey. We know that she worked her way through college and graduated from Barnard College here in New York City. We know that she spent a few years in a highly specialized brokerage firm, which she left nearly 30 years ago, 30 years ago. . . . We also know that Martha Stewart initiated a catering business which by virtue of 16-hour days, fierce desire to put forward the best possible product, whether it deals with flowers, fixtures, food, furniture, expanded into a successful multimedia corporation run predominantly by women with similar goals and ideas and skills. Martha Stewart has devoted most of her life to improving the quality of life for others. And because she stressed the notion of making things as good and as perfect as possible, she has often been ridiculed and parodied.24

As the trial moved along, it was clear the prosecution had enlisted witnesses who could inflict real damage, none more than Robert Faneuil, a brokerage assistant for Merrill Lynch. When Faneuil finished with his recitation of Stewart’s tirades, her disdain for underlings, her self-absorption, the sketchy outlines of the Bad Martha had been filled in living color. After handling a call from Stewart, Faneuil told a friend: ‘‘I have never, ever been treated more rudely by a stranger in my life. She actually hung up on me!’’ Three days later, he emailed another friend: ‘‘Martha yelled at me again today, but I snapped in her face and she actually backed down!’’ He testified that Stewart ‘‘told you she was going to leave Mr. Bacanovic and leave Merrill Lynch unless the hold music was changed.’’ According to MSNBC, ‘‘jurors broke up in laughter.’’25 The jury yukking it up as if a well-programmed laugh track had been inserted at the proper moment must have been music to the prosecution’s ears, confirming the success of their strategy. For someone who had so carefully nurtured her image this was probably the unkindest cut of all, worse even than the verdict when it was announced. It said Martha Stewart was a joke. At this point anyone with any sense of the Era of Bad Feelings could have predicted the outcome. Maybe some day one of those tell-all books will reveal what Stewart and Morvillo said to one another after the laughter had subsided, but until then we can only speculate that both of them had to

136 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

know that after this moment it would be an uphill climb. Predictably Morvillo tried to impugn the witness, but even as he grilled Faneuil, he could do nothing to silence the memory of that laughter. It is hard to know how much the testimony influenced what came after, but it certainly put an exclamation point on Morvillo’s somewhat unorthodox defense, in which he called only one witness and let the case rest. When the judge announced the verdicts you could almost hear the collective gasps from across America. The actual pronouncing of ‘‘guilty,’’ one at a time for each charge, reverberated with awful finality. The Martha Stewart image lay shattered on the courtroom floor. All the carefully constructed pieces of MSLO and most of all, her dreams, seemed a jumble of jagged shards eerily reminiscent of Orson Welles and Rita Hayworth demolishing carnival sideshow mirrors in The Lady from Shanghai. So we stare at the brittle glass and wonder what happened, wonder whether there ever was a ‘‘real’’ Martha. In the end, each of us clutches the pieces that have the most meaning. For Stewart, her greatest project has always been herself, rearranging her life into something beautiful and tasteful. Now someone had dared to walk into her living room to crudely shatter what had been built up so carefully. Stewart had created an identity as someone who could navigate the hall of mirrors of our times as skillfully as a veteran kayaker negotiates a particularly treacherous stretch of rapids. To see her capsize is to wonder again if anyone can master the art of coping with a mass-mediated environment. Whether or not Stewart really deserved her sentence, it reinforced an older message that those who dare to mess with the media will attract imageshatterers, as Welles so brilliantly realized when he and his then-wife and movie goddess Rita Hayworth fired bullets at each other’s reflections. In this sense the trial becomes a tragic and pointed commentary on the Era of Bad Feelings and what it has done to us. The labels have become reality so that we are incredibly myopic without them, unable to sort through what we see and hear with anything resembling reasoned judgment. In an event like the trial of Martha Stewart we will continue to argue about the justice of the results, all the while knowing that we do not really know the answer. Some of us will wait patiently for the miraculously uncovered memo, the come-clean confession, that truly explains it all. At such times we inevitably fall back on fundamental beliefs about human nature and right and wrong. Feminists who might have defended Stewart remained silent, perhaps because of their distaste for her domesticity. Politicians and others who might have spoken out about unequal justice and political prosecutions also remained speechless, perhaps sidetracked by other issues

Media Fairness & 137

or their own inability to understand the Stewart trial. Liberalism and democracy depend on faith in human nature the way a plant depends on water. Without that faith we shrivel up and die. When we find ourselves in a hall of mirrors it becomes difficult to sustain that faith. In this climate the winners become the labelers and packagers who put their mark on everything, leaving the rest of us to pick up the pieces. This has been particularly true of women and people of color who have been raising uncomfortable questions about the level playing field for several decades. Even as they asked about the soundness of the cornerstones of economic and social justice, educational equity and voting rights, the fourth cornerstone of media fairness insinuated itself into the conversation. Sammy Sosa, Winona LaDuke, and Fannie Lou Hamer—along with Martha Stewart—could all testify to this. It would not be too inaccurate to say the Civil Rights Movement was viewed through the lens of the media, coloring the impressions of the American people and, in turn, the political process. So even as we debated remedies for economic, educational, and voting inequities, a variation of the Good Martha, Bad Martha theme of manipulation and personal expression helped to frame the answers. That is why the issue of media concentration raised by the Magical Mystery Tour becomes so important. America may have been unable to properly respond to the trial of Martha Stewart because, as Stewart herself probably knows, the two faces of Martha Stewart are also the two faces of the media. One, manipulative and controlling, strives to make us all march to the same tune like an army of zombies whose only mission is to buy things. The other, creative and liberating, offers to enhance our lives with the heady food of possibility. For several decades now America has also found itself caught in a goodbad cultural battle it has been unable to resolve. The tension between these polarities has periodically threatened to divide us irrevocably. Like the Bad Martha, one face has its nose stuck in the air as it asserts various thou-shaltnots. There is also the face of the Good Martha who encourages creativity, especially from places the media often disdains, from the spontaneous hiphop rhythms of the inner city to the Lake Wobegon humor of rural America. It encourages us to take what the mass media have given all of us and like Martha Stewart turn it into something unique and new. At the root of the two faces of America and Martha Stewart lie diametrically opposed views of human nature. People detest the Bad Martha as they detest the arbiters of moral and political correctness, for both harbor a superior attitude that says ordinary people must be taught how to behave by their superiors. On the other hand, people love the Good Martha as they

138 & Civil Rights Revolutions Raise Questions

love the positive side of America because both celebrate the creativity that lies in all of us. The trial of Martha Stewart captured the nation’s imagination because behind it lay the clash of these competing visions. Perhaps Stewart felt this all along, felt that the trial never really had anything to do with her personally, but rather brought together the two sides of the media and America for judgment. Some of us rooted for the Bad Martha to get her comeuppance because it was not just her we wanted to convict, but all those media manipulators we have grown to loathe, the loathing made all the more spiteful by our own codependent complicity. Yet we also held out hope the Good Martha would come out on top, confirming not only the intellectual and emotional investment we made in her but also the optimism about our dreams that sustained it. The political undertones of Stewart’s trial also held larger meaning, for in her two faces we also see the two faces of American politics. One plots to reduce us all to unquestioning fealty to a narrow catechism, the other believes in allowing each American to reach for his or her own vision. The trial of Martha Stewart testifies that the expanding empire of Sir Rupert Murdoch, the censoring of the Dixie Chicks, and the media concentration advocated by the Counterrevolutionary FCC, will make it harder for future Marthas to make their mark. With her release from prison, Stewart began rebuilding her empire. Today she is back on television, apparently having weathered the crisis. Her marthatalks.com website is closed down and her corporate site omits all references to the trial. It is as if it never happened. Her supporters always thought her innocent. Her detractors cannot help but admire her willingness to accept her punishment. It seems, unlike with Orson Welles shooting at Rita Hayworth, that this time the bullets may have hit the mirror, not the real thing. In a large sense Stewart’s struggles fit the Hollywood script— which may be why they made a TV movie of them. Slate’s Henry Blodget wrote the ending to Stewart’s story, ‘‘with the addition of more humanity, she will serve as living proof that life is what you make it—that, no matter what, there’s always a way to mix lemonade. And then sell it.’’26 As for the American people, they yearn for a happy ending to the Era of Bad Feelings.

PART THREE The Suburban Uprising

10

Economic Justice: Home Depot

Hammers hang in neat rows on Home Depot’s wide aisle, a shining promise of self-reliance that goes back centuries. The person who could wield a hammer with some skill and intelligence and not a little bravery had the potential to meet the world on equal terms and become a builder, someone whose work promised immortality. One of the most venerated of Norse gods, Thor, wielded a hammer. Christ was a carpenter. Hammers may seem boring to many people, but to the avid do-it-yourselfer, the more the better. A tool connoisseur will tell you that there is no such thing as a hammer; there are many hammers, each for a different purpose. For example, long-handled framing hammers have large, checkered faces constructed to drive nails as big as spikes into everything from two-byfours to trusses used for spanning roofs. Framing hammers demand the heft of a sledgehammer coupled with the balance of a fly rod and the shock resistance of a shotgun stock. A good one sits in a tool belt like a gunfighter’s .45, hanging loose at the hip where it can be whipped out in an eye blink by someone clinging to a joist thirty feet above the ground. The claw end of a framing hammer is all business, as much an ax as a nail-puller. Wielded skillfully it sends chips flying as if they had been carved by a professional logger. Home Depot’s website lists thirty-three hammers, including rubber hammers, mason hammers, and, of course, the claw-shaped finishing hammers we picture when someone says,‘‘Get me a hammer.’’ Years ago some of these tools could only be found in hardware stores catering to professionals. Now they clog mall mega boxes whose main customers do most of their work when the pros are off fishing. Among the

142 & The Suburban Uprising

hammers, toilet flanges, and wiring cable staring at you in Home Depot lies the story of why the American labor movement has moved from the front of the bus to a seat further back and why Liberal America’s value of social and economic justice needs a hammer. With entire cable networks and dozens of ad-packed magazines spelling out the how-tos, do-it-yourselfing has become a major American leisure activity. Judging from the articles, homeowners feel free to tackle framing, roofing, wiring, plumbing, and heating. As a result your local plumber, electrician or painter kills time playing video games. Time first captured the mood with an August 2, 1954, cover story that featured a homeowner resembling a cross between Fred McMurray and the Hindu goddess Kali. Dressed in a red, white, and blue plaid short-sleeved shirt riding a lawn tractor and smoking a pipe, the do-it-yourselfer with multiple arms held the harbingers of a new age: power tools, including a saw, drill, and buffer.1 A half-century later, a public television show, This Old House, made Norm the carpenter a star and turned original host Bob Vila into a pitchman for that venerable do-it-yourself heaven, Sears. Doing it yourself has brought dollar signs to the eyes of franchisers and chain marketers, whose aggressive expansion threatens one of the last holdouts of the independent business owner—the lumber, hardware, and paint stores that once formed the hearts of so many American towns. The rise of Home Depot is illustrative. Since Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank quit their jobs with a hardware chain and opened their own store in Atlanta on June 22, 1979, the fastest-growing retailer in history has expanded to over 1,500 stores throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico, with a new one opening every forty-three hours. A bit of trivia at the corporate website notes if all the two-inch disposable brushes sold at Home Depot each year were lined up side-by-side, they would paint a stripe 1,622 miles wide, about the distance from New York City to Denver.2 Those fancy power tools for sale at Home Depot allow even the most worthless stumblebum to cut dovetail joints and compound miter corners with as much skill as a veteran. A half-century ago, the phrase ‘‘good with his hands’’ spoke praise reserved only for someone with skin made tough and supple as a horse’s hide by long days outside, with rope-like muscle coils whose outlines suggested the person’s main occupation if you knew how to read them, and with penetrating eyes that came from making precise calculations and exacting movements hour after hour. Such a person moved with the grace of a professional athlete, honed by a lifetime of knowing exactly how much it took to do something well. Some of these craftsmen have become a modern version of the dying cowboy, elbowed out of the way

Economic Justice & 143

by the changes symbolized by Home Depot. Those power tools mean there is less value placed in the expertise that allows someone to hand saw a two-bytwelve to exact length and pound sixteen penny nails one after the other with a virtuoso’s timing and rhythm. In Crabgrass Frontier, the definitive history of the suburbs, Kenneth Jackson presents an interesting series of tables illustrating the population of nineteenth-century cities. Among the classifications is ‘‘artisans,’’ encompassing skilled trades like wheelwright, blacksmith, hatter, moulder, ropemaker, and shoemaker. By the time of the Era of Bad Feelings, artisans had become people who practiced their crafts as a hobby or a very small number of artists who create for patrons in gated communities who display the work like sculptures or paintings. A person good with his hands could often find individual expression only at home, a trait shared by both working men and women, as Bob Vila and Martha Stewart know only too well. Vila and Stewart provide a large clue to understanding how the appeal of Home Depot and similar chains have made do-it-yourself advertising circulars the meat of Sunday papers across the country. Enticing pictures of bay windows and hardwood floors stress style and price. Judging by the ads the predominant use of all this stuff is ‘‘the project,’’ which can be anything from repainting the bedroom to a full-blown addition. Fans of the sitcom ‘‘Home Improvement,’’ which did a wonderful job of skewering an American preoccupation, will recognize all the themes. Energy for ‘‘the project’’ comes from several compelling motivations. One that ‘‘Home Improvement’’ hit dead on represents a theme as old as the frontier: the macho, my toolbox is bigger than yours one-upmanship that has thousands of real versions of Tim the Tool Man competing to build the most elaborate barbecue or have the most dazzling display of Christmas lights. The ads also confirm reality for today’s two-income families, because doing it yourself goes a long way to helping pay the bills, maybe even saving an occasional overdraft on the credit card. Projects enable millions of Americans to enjoy a lifestyle that remains the envy of most of the world. In essence, suburban pioneers imitate their nineteenth-century ancestors who applied ingenuity and elbow grease to make life on the homestead livable. If the growth of Home Depot and Lowe’s and the positioning of their stores provides any indication, the role of the do-it-yourself movement in the growth of suburban America has been a substantial one. A third powerful motivation, like the projects of Martha Stewart, comes from the American desire to individualize an environment of sameness. For many, ‘‘home improvements’’ aim to personalize the mass-produced houses

144 & The Suburban Uprising

that dominate suburbia, where the only exterior difference may be the color of the paint and which side the garage is on. A clue to the depth of this feeling comes from police reports of the drug of choice in many blue-collar and even upscale suburbs as well as rural towns: methamphetamine. Heroin and cocaine, the drugs of choice in the inner cities, are mind-numbers that kill the mental pain associated with just looking around the room or out the window. On the other hand, meth— known as ‘‘speed’’—heightens everything, putting a dull world into instant overdrive, where the moment becomes a fast-moving video game in which you must move the controller rapidly to prevent crashing into the reality from which you have escaped. In an environment where some want to just speed things up, others want to put their own stamp on that most personal of places even at the risk of misconnected black wires or leaky new plumbing. Walk the aisles of Home Depot and catch the stray conversations of those perusing the wares; inevitably you will hear talk about the need to add some improvement to the bathroom, repaint the family room, or remodel the kitchen. This revolt against sameness shows that the quintessential American individualist remains alive and well in the aisles of Home Depot. As individuals try to assert their identity in suburban America, the traditional blue-collar worker is becoming an endangered species. Union membership, particularly in blue-collar unions, has dropped precipitously over the last two decades. The Bureau of Labor Statistics notes the rate declined from 20 percent in 1983 to 12.5 percent by the beginning of 2005.3 CNN reports that only 14 percent of those who voted in 2004 belonged to a union, less than the 18 percent who reported incomes of over $100,000: a mark of how political influence has changed.4 Home Depot and the rise of do-it-yourselfing symbolize some of the immense shifts in the American economy that have fueled a drop in union membership. Home Depot serves as a textbook example of how the service economy has replaced Jackson’s artisans. Home Depot’s employees—many of them former carpenters and plumbers—testify to this shift. The impact of the do-it-yourself movement and the growth of suburban America on many traditional construction trades still awaits someone to untangle the complex interconnections. However, there is little doubt that each brush, each hammer, each carload of building supplies sold by Home Depot and similar stores represents a job that might have gone to a tradesman in another time. As people putter in their kitchens, bathrooms, garages, and bedrooms, the phones stop ringing for those who might have answered those needs. Thus the real-life Norm the carpenter helps make life more complicated for his

Economic Justice & 145

colleagues, the skilled craftsmen who can cut intricate joints and rout complex moldings. The housing boom sparked by the suburbs lured from small towns many strapping young men who knew their way around a toolbox. The traditional unionized construction trades, some dating back over centuries to medieval guilds, suddenly found themselves at a decided disadvantage. One of the great unwritten stories of the last century lies in the acquiescence by the construction trades in the building of suburban homes. The suburban building boom grew so fast that there were not enough union laborers to fill the gap. Only highly skilled trades—plumbing, heating, electrical workers— managed to hold out. The suburbs and Home Depot also embodied many of the other economic changes historians and economists have identified, from assembly-line robots (which Charlie Chaplin anticipated in Modern Times) to the replacement of other jobs by computers and advanced technology. One factor that has kept housing costs low and productivity high has been standardized homes containing components such as mass-produced roofing trusses. Suburban developments also are planned by computers that estimate costs down to the last penny, paralleling assembly lines where the number of people whose hands actually touch a car have dropped considerably. As the country shifted from the Industrial Age to the Computer Age, those unions that still remain a major power base for the Democrats have shifted from venerable organizations such as the United Auto Workers and the Coal Miners to white-collar outfits like AFSCME and the teachers union. Once, a maverick union president like John L. Lewis, whose large, dark bushy eyebrows appeared to be colored by the coal dust that was the unofficial badge of his members, could literally hold the country at bay with the mere threat of a strike; but today no union leader wields such power. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that in January 2005 ‘‘about 36 percent of government workers were union members in 2004, compared with about 8 percent of workers in private-sector industries.’’5 This shift means that unions who heavily depend on government have placed the Democrats in an awkward position with any reform of these institutions. So as the unions changed, the Democratic Party watched its base of blue-collar support whither away. Here enters the dreaded ‘‘t-word,’’ for the tax revolt is linked to Home Depot as inextricably as Home Depot is linked to the decline of the American labor movement. For several decades now, Republicans have run on the mantra ‘‘tax and spend,’’ accusing ‘‘liberals’’ in particular of taking ‘‘the people’s money’’ and putting it into inefficient bureaucracies or giving it to

146 & The Suburban Uprising

people who do not deserve it. Scarcely a day goes by on talk radio without either the host or a caller relating yet another anecdote about government waste or welfare scam artists. These stories pop up from time to time on the snopes.com website. Their themes resonate over and over like a bad commercial jingle: some ‘‘welfare cheat’’ has used your hard-earned tax dollars to line their own pockets or a government bureaucrat with a resemblance to Pinocchio (wooden head, long nose, and all) has inflated your taxes by funding some ridiculous extravagance. That these stories have become the staple of barroom conversations, backyard barbecues, and copy-machine gossip says a great deal about America’s pent-up frustrations. Anecdotes of misuse and abuse pass for tall tales today just like stories of Mike Fink or Davy Crockett. We suspect these anecdotes are bogus, but relate to them because they express some larger emotion. That explains why many people do not really question Rush Limbaugh’s sources. They know he is probably exaggerating, maybe even making up the whole story, but that is not the point any more than anyone back in the 1800s really cared if Mike Fink wrestled an alligator with his bare hands or Davy Crockett grinned down a bear. The wilder the story, the more the audience cheers. Those who try to inject some rationalism into the discussion look like a dude who stepped in a cow pie. Workers who have become suburban Americans are a prime audience for such stories, spurring a much-discussed tax revolt that represents one of American history’s more stunning about-faces. It was, after all, workers who agitated for the income tax in the first place, outraged at the excesses of those plutocrats who built summer cottages in Newport, the Hamptons, and the Adirondacks, and held expensive parties where the wine bill totaled more than several families might make in a year. In the nineteenth century when the plutocrats flaunted their wealth in the faces of folks who unsteadily stood one step away from falling into the gutter, cartoons showing business tycoons as mustached, outrageously fat, monocled creatures reclining on bulging sacks of money expressed the prevailing attitude. Republican crusades against taxes represent nothing new. Trickle-down economics did not originate with Ronald Reagan or the presidents Bush. The current rants one hears on talk radio, advocate that people who ‘‘earn’’ their millions should be allowed to keep them, are as old as history. Cornelius Vanderbilt and his fellow millionaires borrowed it from British aristocrats who thought God had endowed them with the right to lord over the manor house. Exploiting the peasants was how you paid for the wine cellar and the riding stables and all the help it took to maintain the blooming place. George W. Bush may hold the record for running up huge deficits in the shortest

Economic Justice & 147

time on record, deficits primarily caused by wanting to give tax breaks to those who drive BMWs and maintain residences in Vail, who dress in clothes priced in Euros and get personalized health care from private clinics with elaborate rooms. The big question is how has the Counterrevolution convinced suburban homeowners to go along with this venerable prejudice? One answer holds that suburban homeowners have certain aristocratic pretensions themselves, a theme of advertising circulars or the Home and Garden channel. Low taxes on well-mowed lots do not maintain the stables but they do keep up the SUV and the minivan, the vacation time share, and help finance those home projects. Motivations also factor in the turnabout. Suburban homeowners who patronize Home Depot have a pioneer-like aura of hard work and independence. The idea that government should give money to someone perfectly capable of going out and earning it on their own is unthinkable to them. When the Democrats start talking about discrimination or lack of job skills, the homeowner thinks about his own battle with a leaky faucet or the deck he built with his own hands and wonders why the ‘‘welfare cheat’’ cannot do the same thing? Most of all, though, behind all the well-kept lawns and landscaped driveways lies the dirty secret that many homeowners are hanging on to their mini-estates by their finger nails: one layoff, medical catastrophe, or blip in their precarious adjustable-rate mortgages away from losing it all. Stretched thin, these homeowners zero in on taxes. That the Democrats have allowed the GOP to maneuver them into this corner stands as one of the greatest tragedies of our times and yet another reason Liberal America seems on its deathbed. When something reaches the point of becoming a tall tale—where all the evidence in the world to the contrary does not matter—then it becomes very difficult to bring about change, like a person who has picked up a bad reputation and then becomes the subject of wild rumors. The Democrats now lie shattered on the ground like Humpty Dumpty, oozing the rotten-egg smell of ideas grown stale. Under pressure from the GOP, the Democrat’s position on the less fortunate has waffled so much (especially after the Clinton-inspired welfare ‘‘reform’’) that the clamor for the level playing field articulated by the New Deal has become muted. Just as they ignored the questions of social and economic justice raised by Fannie Lou Hamer, Winona LaDuke, and Sammy Sosa the Democrats also ignored the very same issues in the suburbs. The core values of Liberal America that had linked the lower and middle classes, people of color and white America, became lost, allowing the GOP wedge to be driven in with little resistance. The average American need not page through volumes of studies or wander the Internet in the wee hours of the morning to confirm

148 & The Suburban Uprising

this; they need only consult their memories and ask if they can remember a Democratic candidate who has forcefully spoken in defense of equity. John Edwards may have come the closest, but his ‘‘two Americas’’ sermon seemed muffled by the Kerry campaign. The dreams of the fixer-uppers became real because of government programs, but how often do you hear a candidate remind them of this? To understand this requires a much-needed digression back to a time when the vision of Liberal America literally saved the country. Revisiting the New Deal, of course, has become a journey full of pitfalls, akin to walking across a wide river of thin ice during a blinding snowstorm, where you rely as much on instinct as you do on sight. Perhaps no era in American history has generated so many controversial and diverse interpretations. For some Americans, the Great Depression has become a bit like the Holocaust, a period people would like to deny or downplay, saying it was not really that bad and if we had only given Herbert Hoover four more years he would have fixed it or the downturn would have just run its course. Yet the bare facts of those grim years stare back like one of those stark black-and-white Depression-era photographs. In the United States between 1929 and 1933, unemployment soared from approximately 3 percent to over 25 percent, while manufacturing output declined by one-third. By June of 1932, an astounding 55 percent of the work force had left the American economy.6 But the numbers only outline the story, to fill it in the best place to start is with those who actually lived through the Depression. As with the Holocaust, people who survived the Depression—especially those hit hardest—are becoming an endangered species. We should thank Studs Terkel and others for preserving some of this testimony. Terkel’s Hard Times, a series of interviews with some of these survivors, helped create an oral history renaissance, with students from elementary school to doctoral programs collecting stories. Also not to be overlooked remains one of the jewels of the New Deal, the Federal Writer’s Project, whose collection of interviews with hundreds of Americans uniquely documents our past. If the recollections of survivors serve as the voices of the Depression, a darkhaired, self-styled Dust Bowl refugee named Woody Guthrie serves as its troubadour, providing yet another window on the 1930s. Imagine yourself transported back three-quarters of a century, to a time when outhouses commonly stood in the backyard, radio was still a novelty, and people washed their clothes by hand. Estefana Castro remembers, ‘‘We did not have restrooms like we do now. The rich people had restrooms in their homes. But the poor people, like us . . . my father would make a hole, four yards long and about a yard and a half in width. And this was our

Economic Justice & 149

toilet.’’7 No one had vacuum cleaners or dishwashers to help with the household chores. Most dried clothes using the solar method—hanging wet things out on a line. Even before the hard times hit, many families supplemented their incomes with food they grew themselves or caught or shot. The Depression swept into this world like an immense avalanche. Those on the edge saw it coming first and struggled to get out of the way. In parts of rural America the calamity started long before the infamous Stock Market crash, as farmers saw their income literally dry up and blow away. As the avalanche gathered force, it swept away everything in its path, leaving parts of the country looking like a desert. The dust storms that destroyed large areas of the Midwest came during some of the hottest summers on record (check the highest temperature ever recorded for your state and it is quite likely it will be in the 1930s, especially if you live in the Midwest). With the mercury climbing into the 100s day after day—before air conditioning, before rural homes even had electric fans—people hauled mattresses outside at night just to stay cool. Then they would awaken to an eerie, dark sky as the dust storm swept down on them like an avenging angel. Fine particles crept through the tiniest cracks and the towels and sheets people stuffed in doors and windows. Venturing outside required tying something over your mouth, but still the dust slithered into your body and every fold of your clothes. Children violently choked to death from what Guthrie called the ‘‘dust pneumony,’’ their coughs a kind of economic and social flu epidemic. On the farms the dust piled like blizzard drifts, covering machinery, outbuildings, and the crops people had hoped would pull them through the year. Guthrie’s song, ‘‘Dust Bowl Blues,’’ paints a stark picture of dust so black you could not see and ferocious winds that buried farm machinery under six feet of blowing earth. As writers about the Depression have recognized, although those dust storms only infected part of the country, they became metaphors for what hit the rest of America, where ill winds also blew with abandon and the horizon became so dark people wondered if they would ever see the stars and sun again. Fragments of doubt, like those fine particles of dust, swept through the land insinuating themselves into people’s lives just as the storms had done to the farmers, making their way through windows and doors, then working their way into people’s minds. As households failed along with the farms, the country became a vast, aimless, and dangerous army. Some rode the rails, making the tops of boxcars look like passenger cars with the roofs blown off, while others took to the roads. Back when not even a hammer seemed to offer much hope except to cobble together the rough villages that became known as Hoovervilles, where the

150 & The Suburban Uprising

homeless holed up in their makeshift camps built of cardboard, scavenged lumber, tin, canvas, and even sticks. There they lived on the edge of sanity. A man pushed to the edge might just fall right over it and start babbling insanely or grab whatever he could, a tree limb, a section of rusty pipe, a hammer and then start wildly maiming those around him although he did not know who he wanted to kill, only that someone had to pay. In a scene from one of America’s greatest movies, John Ford’s The Grapes of Wrath, the tenant farmer with the metaphorical name of Muley tries to stop a bulldozer from knocking down his house and taking over his land. Beaten, he finally crouches in the dirt, grabs a handful of dust and watches it fall through his fingers. He asks the cat driver who he should shoot and the driver just shakes his head and says he does not know. Oral history interviews with real Muleys form a collage of despair, confusion, faith, and courage. One does not have to listen too hard to hear the real voice of America, a voice that held onto the country’s fundamental values at a time when they seemed to be most in question. We worship the ‘‘greatest generation’’ as those who fought World War II, but the values of those soldiers were forged not in the trenches but in the ditches, back alleys, and Hoovervilles of the Depression. For some, these values were all they had, but they held onto them even though other voices cried out in the storm, urging revolution and violence, and it would have been very easy to succumb to their siren-like allure. Zacarias Pena remembers: Back in 1933 we didn’t have anything to eat. So we would go to this pecan shelling factory and we would get those pecan shells. You know when you break a pecan there is always a little bit of pecan that stays in the shell. So we used to pick up those pieces of pecans. I was little at that time, but I remember drinking coffee with them because I was hungry and that was all there was to eat at that time, and it was good. It tasted real good, pecans with coffee.8

One of Terkel’s most eloquent respondents, a woman named Peggy Terry, described how some people lived during those years: Here were all these people living in old, rusted-out car bodies, I mean that was their home. There were people living in shacks made of orange crates. One family with a whole lot of kids was living in a piano box. This wasn’t just a little section, this was maybe two miles wide and ten miles long. People living in whatever junk they could put together.9

Economic Justice & 151

A theme that emerges again and again in the oral histories refers to the deep psychological wounds caused by unemployment and poverty. In the Federal Writer’s Project collection an interviewer writes of a man named Bill Branch. Bill Branch tells you that he appreciates anything they can give him now when he is unable to help himself, but he cannot live always in such a manner. He wants out of life just a chance to make a decent living for himself and family. By that he means: enough food, a few clothes, a house to live in which does not leak, proper medical care, and a dollar or two for amusement now and then. These things which seem simple enough are so far removed from him now that he is doubtful whether he will ever have them. He says he sees nothing in store for him and he feels at twenty-five that the best of his life is over.10

Into this storm came Franklin Delano Roosevelt. During those years few entered into that maelstrom voluntarily; most were either forced into it by bad luck and the greed of others or they had to walk into it, like troops assigned a suicide mission. Only someone supremely confident and with a great deal of faith braved the darkness with the belief they could lead others out. As lights went out all over the world, many countries chose leaders who were convinced of their faith and also quite mad, leading their nations into the very pit of Hell. Even America had such moments, for there were a fair number of people who bordered on madness more than willing to take the country into communism, fascism, or something else. A survivor of the Farm Holiday movement in Iowa remembers, ‘‘It was close to the spirit of the American Revolution.’’ He describes a speech in which National Farmers Union president John Simpson electrified the crowd with his opening remarks: ‘‘When constitutions, laws and court decisions stand in the way of human progress, it is time that they be scrapped.’’ Another Depression survivor remembers, ‘‘There was a feeling we were on the verge of a bloody revolution, up until the time of the New Deal.’’11 The country came close when thousands of desperate families descended on Washington in what became known as the Bonus March, a movement that hoped to persuade Congress to pay World War I veterans their promised benefits early. When police and the marchers collided on a July morning in 1932, it touched off one of the more controversial actions in American history. Under future World War II heroes Douglas MacArthur and Dwight Eisenhower, army troops swept into the marchers’ camp and set it ablaze. A PBS documentary on the march commented, ‘‘The sight of the great fire

152 & The Suburban Uprising

became the signature image of the greatest unrest our nation’s capital has ever known.’’12 Woody Guthrie’s song ‘‘Jesus Christ’’ illustrates the difference between the moral center of those times and the Era of Bad Feelings. Guthrie’s album notes mention he wrote ‘‘this song looking out a rooming house window in New York City.’’ Sung to the tune used for ‘‘The Ballad of Jesse James,’’ among others, Guthrie’s lyrics portray a Jesus that Jerry Falwell would scarcely recognize. The song is a vocal sermon preaching equality, from its pointed reference to Jesus as a carpenter to its message that the rich should give their money to the poor. If someone had proposed tax cuts for the wealthy as a solution to the Depression, giving money back to those who would ‘‘invest it,’’ there is little doubt this country would have taken a far different path during the 1930s. All one has to do is to recall the history of the Weimar Republic, where big business successfully fought increases in public works and unemployment benefits. Franklin Roosevelt had no such plans. Besides the sheer cussedness of people who held onto their values as if they were money in the bank plus the support of party leaders and a bevy of ‘‘Brain Trust’’ advisors, FDR was fortunate that two people played special roles in helping him with his task. One was his wife Eleanor, who as historians are fond of saying, became his eyes and ears. The other was a tall reed—thin, chain-smoking Iowan named Harry Hopkins, who served as an intellectual guide. When Roosevelt was laying the groundwork for his presidential campaign while he was governor of New York, Hopkins made a name for himself battling the oncoming Depression in various state and local capacities. Working for the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, Hopkins put unemployed men to work on parks in New York City, a precursor of programs he would create for the New Deal. In a prelude of what was to come, Hopkins earned criticism at the time for handing out checks without conducting thorough background checks on their recipients and for putting people to work ‘‘leaf raking.’’ Franklin Roosevelt laid out the guidelines for his work relief program in a speech to the Seventy-fourth Congress. Drawing from Liberal America’s cornerstone of economic justice, the philosophy underlying his address became the underpinning of virtually all New Deal economic programs. The Federal Government must and will quit this business of relief. . . . Work must be found for all able-bodied, but destitute workers. . . . I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash, of market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves or picking

Economic Justice & 153 up papers in public parks. We must preserve the bodies of the unemployed from their destruction, but also their self-respect, self-reliance, and courage and determination.13

To help oversee this effort he went back to the man who had put New Yorkers to work, naming Hopkins as head of the Works Progress Administration. Building on his New York experiences, Harry Hopkins became a vocal champion of using public works projects to stem the unemployment metastasizing like a malignancy eating away all the nation’s vital organs. Although today economists ponder their graphs and data about the efficacy of such methods, we should remember that neither Roosevelt nor Hopkins were theorists, but instead saw a problem that needed solving and dealt with it as best they could, all the while driven by the imperative to preserve the cornerstone of economic justice. An aide remembers, ‘‘Any guy could just walk into the county office—they were set up all over the country—and get a job. Leaf raking, cleaning up libraries, painting the town hall. . . . Within a period of sixty days, four million people were put to work.’’14 Think about that for a moment when some talk show zealot or politician tries to tell you that putting the unemployed to work will take too much time or money, then do the math. Four million in sixty days is over half a million jobs a day! In the Roosevelt years, the gospel held that most public assistance programs involved work. The CCC and the WPA, as the history books tell, put men and women to work on meaningful projects whose impact still stands in virtually every town in the country. While the Republican and corporate fundamentalists derided these as make-work projects, a vast number of New Deal projects literally changed the American landscape. The whining about giving people money for raking leaves did not amount to much when people could see new bridges, roads, and civic buildings. Walk into a town today and you will find a monument to these programs in the form of a post office, a school, a city hall, a fire station, a courthouse, a park band shell. Hopkins’ programs made him the number one target of what passed for the Raucous Right in those days, voices who thought the New Deal cloaked nothing more than warmed-over socialism that would eventually turn the country into another Soviet republic. The Chicago Tribune published an enlarged and framed lead editorial under the headline, ‘‘Turn the Rascals Out.’’ It said: ‘‘Mr. Hopkins is a bull-headed man whose high place in the New Deal was won by his ability to waste more money in quicker time on more absurd undertakings than any other mischievous wit in Washington can think of.’’ Each day anti-FDR newspapers printed the fearsome warning:

154 & The Suburban Uprising

‘‘Only x more days to save the American Way of Life.’’15 We would do well to remember these voices because the beliefs behind them metamorphosed into the Counterrevolution and remarks by the likes of Tom DeLay about turning back the clock. Perhaps Hopkins’ best explanation of the philosophy that guided his life came in a 1939 address he gave to his alma mater, Grinnell College: For the last 27 or 28 years I have lived around various parts of the country, and in more recent years of my life in intimate contact with government. . . . I have lived to see a time when a farmer gets a check signed by the Treasurer of the United States for doing something. I see old people getting pensions; see unemployed people getting checks from the United States Government; college students getting checks signed by the United States Government. . . . This government is ours whether it be local county, State or Federal. It doesn’t belong to anybody but the people of America. Don’t treat it as an impersonal thing; don’t treat it as something to be sneered at; treat it as something that belongs to you. . . . It is going to take brains and skill to run it in the future because this country cannot continue to exist as a democracy with 10,000,000 or 12,000,000 people unemployed. It just can’t be done.16

Today the Counterrevolution has Americans, particularly those in suburbia, believing that the basic values and policies that allowed America to weather the Depression have become as obsolete as a Model T. Yet the visions of Roosevelt and Hopkins never have seemed more relevant. As the summer blackout of 2003 demonstrated, a significant amount of the country’s infrastructure is in serious need of repair. Urban blight, the rehabilitation of state park and recreation areas (many of which still have their CCC and WPA buildings), and the demands for mass transit and new technology all speak to the fact that there is more than enough work that needs to be done. Ironically, it may be the suburbs that need Hopkins’ programs in the nottoo-distant future. Even as the suburbs shifted their political allegiance, their own economic and social equality also has shifted under the Counterrevolution. The advantages these homeowners had accumulated since World War II have begun to slip away like sand sifting through a sieve with holes carefully punched by the Counterrevolution. Studies about the declining economic power of the middle class have become so frequent that the latest often elicits no more than a yawn. The Counterrevolution tends to blow them off as the scribblings of professors whose methodologies remain as suspect as their conclusions or yet another nasty below the waist shot in

Economic Justice & 155

what has become known as ‘‘class warfare’’—a not-so-subtle reference to Marx and times when anyone who opposed greed got painted as a ‘‘red.’’ The burgeoning industry in inequality studies threatens to make the ‘‘Gini’’ index/coefficient a household word. In this case ‘‘Gini’’ refers not to someone who comes out of a bottle, but to a mathematical measurement of income inequality. An increase in the index equals an increase in inequality. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco noted, ‘‘From 1968 to 1989, the Gini index for households increased 11 percent with most of this rise occurring in the 1980s.’’17 In 2004 the United States had a Gini index that said its income equality ranked behind most European countries, India, Canada, Japan, and Australia, and just ahead of Singapore, Thailand, China, and Guatemala.18 The PBS series Now reports, ‘‘The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OCED] has found the United States to be the most unequal society of all industrialized nations. The U.S. ranks last among OECD nations in terms of income equality.’’19 The Economic Policy Institute estimated that the bottom 80 percent of American households control only about 17 percent of the nation’s wealth. Meanwhile, wages and benefits, for workers at the bottom continue to decrease.20 But those living in suburban cul-de-sacs do not need fancy numbers to tell them what has happened. They see the cost of putting their children through college rising as loans and scholarships fail to keep pace with tuition increases. They see the replacement of small, independent businesses that once populated the area by large franchises. They look at their credit card debt, the rising price of gasoline and heating oil, and hear increasing warnings about the bursting of the housing bubble that has sustained so many of them. They know how budget cuts have depressed their schools, their roads, even basic police and fire service. They also know that even as their income taxes have dropped their property taxes may have gone up to offset the loss of services. Statistics confirm their observations. The Center on Budget and Policy studies found that state budget cuts represent the largest declines in state spending in a generation. Calling this ‘‘remarkable,’’ the center notes, ‘‘These shrinking revenues have led many states to reduce expenditures. . . . In the face of rising health care costs and other spending pressures, these spending cuts are making it impossible for most states to maintain public services at consistent levels.’’21 So suburbanites haunt the aisles of Home Depot looking for something to keep their homes together or give them that personal touch. In doing so they share, perhaps more than they might realize, the qualities that brought their parents and grandparents through the tumultuous years of the 1930s. How

156 & The Suburban Uprising

long they will remain dazzled by the Counterrevolution’s media version of the old shell game, as the GOP moves money around, is an open question. Recalling the memories of those who went through the country’s worst economic crisis, reviewing the fundamental beliefs of those who averted a bloody revolution and then placing this all in the context of the changes signaled by Home Depot shows us just how far the Counterrevolution threatens to weaken the cornerstones of our democracy. Just before he died at the very end of World War II, Harry Hopkins jotted down some last thoughts about his country’s future. ‘‘We can and should have our schemes of social insurance for the old and the sick, but it would be a terrible day for America if the rest of us did not want to earn our living by work. These soldiers coming home simply are not going to understand our boasting about our capitalist economy if it can’t deliver the goods in terms of opportunity for work.’’22 Anyone with a hammer would understand exactly what he meant.

11

Educational Equity: The Final Battleground

‘‘Garage Sale.’’ Signs hand lettered with black and red magic marker on cardboard cut from Tide and Cheerios boxes poach on suburban intersections. Boldly drawn arrows point down twisting streets with names like Pleasant Avenue and Partridge Place. A light summer breeze carries sounds of static-filled rock oldies and country classics that mingle with smells of charcoal-grilled hamburgers. Round-bellied men in baseball caps stand statue-like holding hoses and barbecue forks. Broad-hipped women wearing pastel tank tops chat in competition with the noise of children playing on concrete sidewalks. Tightly parked between a tan Chevy SUV and a lusty red Dodge pickup, a dark blue Pontiac displaying a ‘‘support our troops’’ decal gleams in the line of cars that marks the event. The sale spills from the garage and down the black-coated driveway, beginning with card tables haphazardly piled with multi-colored dishes, decaled glasses, and porcelain figurines and ending in a mingle of power tools, countertop appliances, and a stained brown arm chair. In the midst of these household treasures lies a story about America’s cornerstone of educational equity. It begins with the observation that an inordinate number of items focus on children. Tables stacked with clothes for babies and toddlers, some lying in disarray from already being picked over, form a rich catalog of fads come and gone: Batman, Spiderman, and numbered jerseys for sports heroes who have retired, been traded or become tainted. Next sit children’s toys which also speak to forgotten fads, a few that would cause much second guessing if they were in a landfill several decades in the future. What would they make

158 & The Suburban Uprising

of a brownish-green plastic turtle with a mask over his eyes holding a strange object? Or a whole menagerie of monsters resembling mutant offspring of the real dinosaur that sits not too far away? Videotapes and books serve as Rosetta Stones for the menagerie grouped around them. The children’s items go quickly, so quickly that people line up outside, waiting like sprinters in the starting blocks to race down those rows of tables to procure a coveted trophy. You cannot understand the suburbs without understanding the importance of children. In 1961, Lewis Mumford, an early critic of suburbanization, caught the child-centeredness: Here domesticity could flourish, forgetful of the exploitation on which so much of it was based. Here individuality could prosper, oblivious of the pervasive regimentation beyond. This was not merely a child-centered environment; it was based on a childish view of the world, in which reality was sacrificed to the pleasure principle.1

While one can argue with some of his more outlandish generalizations (some that hide a barely concealed elitist prejudice), Mumford did perceptively identify the suburbs’ imaginative center, for children provide the primordial energy that powers all. Henry Adams wrote about the dynamic forces embodied in the virgin of the Chartres Cathedral and the dynamo that mesmerized him at the 1900 Paris Exposition. If he were writing today he might say the same thing about suburban children. No true suburbanite would deny the claim, for virtually every house contains a kind of children’s shrine, a wall of pictures dedicated to children, some yellowed with age. With them may hang athletic medals, honor roll citations, diplomas. This child-centered world has become the setting for the last battleground for the vision of Liberal America—the public school system. The Counterrevolution has captured other prizes including the courts, Congress, the presidency. But one holdout lies down the hallways of thousands of schools that have become like trenches in a protracted war. Because the Counterrevolution realizes this all its forces have turned toward it like those of some great, lumbering army. What drives this army is the Counterrevolution’s mission of linking the suburban demographic with the agenda of the Religious Right. Although suburbanites tend to be socially liberal, their GOP politicians often espouse conservative messages. Part of this is due to the widespread takeover of Republican parties by radical reactionaries. Another reason lies in the fact that one institution that has made inroads in America is the church. The

Educational Equity & 159

Gallup organization reports, ‘‘In 1976, 34 percent of Americans were classified as evangelicals. Twenty-five years later, in 1999, this number was up 12 percentage points to 46 percent.’’2 In an area like suburban America with its institutional vacuum, these churches rush in to fill a void. Pennsylvania provides an instructive example. A history of the state notes, ‘‘Newer evangelical, Pentecostal, and fundamentalist religious groups targeted suburban and exurban populations and embarked on major programs of building and expansion. These churches were often successful precisely because they provided a sense of community for people living in the amorphous new housing developments.’’3 Using suburban Orange County, California, as a window to examine a larger trend, Lisa McGirr’s Suburban Warriors provides an unsettling picture of this growth and its connection to the Counterrevolution. She shows how these suburbanites ‘‘forged study groups, multiplied chapters of national right-wing organizations, and worked within the Republican Party to make their voices heard.’’4 Public schools represent the main institution competing with suburban churches, with both striving to create parent groups, booster clubs, family activities. That is why the major battle in the suburbs is over schools and why the Religious Right is working hard to undermine them. If their religious academies can supplant public schools, they will win. Vouchers are not about inner-city kids any more than taxes are about jobs; they are about giving parents from the suburbs subsidies to put their kids in schools where they can be properly indoctrinated in Jerry Falwell’s view of the world. Littleton, Colorado, provides an instructive example. In most minds, this Denver suburb still remains infamously associated with the shootings at Columbine High School. Littleton actually has two school districts: one, Jefferson County on the western boarder, contains Columbine, the other is the Littleton district, where before Columbine, another ‘‘massacre’’ took place whose consequences, while less bloody, should haunt us as we seek to understand the Era of Bad Feelings. The Columbine shootings stemmed from the inexplicable acts of two teenagers, the strange turnings of their minds distorted by hormones and elemental rights of passage that lie in atavistic regions of the brain. The first Littleton massacre represents a major skirmish in a crucial battle that is still waging over the future of American education and the fate of Liberal America. The shots fired in that first battle aimed squarely at the heart of public schools and their sounds reverberate today in classrooms across the country. What happened in Littleton in 1993–94 did not receive much media attention, but anyone in education has heard the story. It revolves around

160 & The Suburban Uprising

a school district takeover by right-wing activists campaigning against Outcome-Based Education (OBE), a loose school reform effort aimed at teaching students how to think as well as to memorize facts. Stressing projects and demonstrations of knowledge as opposed to multiple choice tests, OBE had become a major force in public education during the last decade. Whether the actual marching orders and strategy of those opposed to the reforms in Littleton came from various religious right groups like Citizens for Excellence in Education (CEE) has never been established. But they certainly provided the justifications. CEE, a division of the National Association of Christian Educators, states that its mission is ‘‘helping parents rescue their children from public schools to private Christian schools and home schools, and rescue their children within the public schools.’’5 Education Week writer Ann Bradley noted that there was no evidence of involvement by outside groups.6 Local leaders claimed they received no outside assistance, but there is an odor of what is termed ‘‘stealth candidacy’’ in the school board members who carried out the massacre. If the masterminds of the takeover did not embrace the reactionaries of the Counterrevolution, the reactionaries embraced them. Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum newsletter announced the victory with the headline: ‘‘O.B.E. [outcomes-based education—sic] Trounced in Model District, Parents Vote for Three R’s in 2 to 1 Mandate.’’7 Whether board members received outside help does not matter in the end, because their agenda matched that of the Counterrevolution. Before the takeover, Superintendent Cile Chavez was named Colorado Superintendent of the Year and the district had been nationally known for its achievements. Visitors from more than 100 school districts in thirty states attended district-hosted monthly open forums to see the innovations and apply them to their own schools.8 Other districts brought Littleton faculty members to conduct workshops in their schools. When the reactionaries succeeded in getting a majority on the school board, the turmoil began. Bradley observed: Littleton is a town torn apart by a raging argument over its schools. Once the pride of the community, the school system is now at the center of a fierce debate over how and what teachers should teach, what should be expected of students, what roles parents should play, how school board members should govern, and what schools should look like at the close of the 20th century.9

In what became known as ‘‘the Sunday-afternoon massacre,’’ the new board fired the superintendent and people began digging trenches. More

Educational Equity & 161

than a thousand residents turned out to support Chavez, but their protests, which landed them on the front pages of area papers, did not reverse the decision. Chavez moved on to become a much-in-demand speaker and consultant, working with education organizations across the country on leadership and change issues. Her story created a large buzz in education circles, yet the media’s ignorance, either deliberate or not—it really makes no difference—never brought the story to the general public. Yet the story bears repeating for it provides a possible blueprint for the fate of other public schools. There seems little doubt the takeover took place through what reactionary strategists refer to as stealth candidates, people who hide their true beliefs so they can get elected. Workshops run by the Christian Coalition in all fifty states have urged potential candidates: ‘‘Smile as much as you can’’ and steer clear of any true religious agenda. . . . Other suggestions included recruiting one’s Sunday School class members as campaign contributors. Candidates were instructed to deflect accusations of far right politics with quips such as, ‘‘As far as the teachers union is concerned, everyone to the right of Karl Marx is radical right.’’ The emphasis of the seminar was on stealth. ‘‘Don’t wear your religion on your sleeve,’’ one Leadership Manual chapter suggests. ‘‘You may be religious—but . . . talk their language—they don’t understand yours.’’10

Once elected, stealth candidates, like an ideological suicide bomber, have several possible missions. First, convert the system to conform to the Counterrevolutionary agenda until schools resemble the Ayatollah academies in the Middle East that preach death to the infidels. If this does not work, advocate a slanted, fact-based curriculum that includes opt-out policies for programs such as ‘‘sex ed . . . outcome-based education and Goals 2000.’’11 Like those school board members in Dover, Pennsylvania, trying to inject religion into the curriculum in the guise of ideas like ‘‘intelligent design.’’ Finally, if you cannot subvert from within, undermine the system by attacking school officials whenever possible. A holy war against the infidel liberals has been declared and nothing short of symbolically taking Jerusalem will do. In Littleton the morale of teachers and administrators dropped because many thought they also would be fired. So many rumors circulated about possible terminations and other actions that a group of parents formed an informal phone network to try to counter them. Chavez described the new board’s style as ‘‘vigilante consumerism’’ in which people not only want to be involved in decision making, but insist that decisions go their way.12 She

162 & The Suburban Uprising

said, ‘‘I decided as superintendent I didn’t want to deliver what the new board wanted. I drew the line on the way they were treating people. They wanted a top-down management. I couldn’t operate that way.’’13 Reactionary fought moderate, no holds barred, egged on by the preaching of the Raucous Right. After the takeover the district struggled to regain its equilibrium, as the new board’s agenda became clear. They had followed a stealth technique of advocating ‘‘back to the basics’’ but, as Bradley noted, it soon became obvious to the community that the basics meant different things to different people. (Why are the reactionaries always surprised when someone interprets anything from the Bible to the Constitution differently?) Regie Routman, who has also written about the Littleton takeover, believes, ‘‘In retrospect, some parents said that they voted for ‘back to basics’ as ‘the answer’ to various perceived problems but they didn’t really know what they were voting for.’’14 In an interview after the takeover, one reactionary leader made a statement that still gives me chills: ‘‘I don’t think we’re going to end up killing each other off.’’15 As the stealth candidates’ agenda emerged, the community rose up against it, so that two years later the right wingers lost by a two-to-one margin to a slate of moderate candidates, a clear statement that people did not buy the radical agenda of the Counterrevolution. The situation eerily resonates with what would happen in 2005 in Dover, Pennsylvania, where an antievolution board was dumped after trying to rewrite the curriculum. Reflecting on what happened in Littleton, Chavez gave a classic description of the Era of Bad Feelings: People’s tolerance level is low, and lots of people are just angry in general. And there’s a huge fear factor in society today. . . . We’re living in a period of major isolation. Here in Denver, as in other communities, walls are going up around neighborhoods. What is the real message of that?16

As Chavez intimates, Littleton represents only a skirmish in a much larger, more serious battle. To understand you must grasp the competing visions. Entering its third century, the American public education system has served as the center of our democracy, becoming one of America’s most valuable contributions to the world, perhaps on a level with the Constitution. While we have our exclusive private schools and tests that decide whether someone will go to Podunk U or Harvard, the average American still has a chance at either, and, if history is any judge, Podunk may, at this very moment, be nurturing another Picasso or Einstein. Lincoln reading by

Educational Equity & 163

candlelight in the wee hours of the morning should be our quintessential icon, done by some contemporary Rembrandt to hang in a place of honor in all our minds. If we need something new to put on our currency, consider a picture of a rural one-room schoolhouse. Crucial to our commitment to universal public education is a system that places control of schools in the hands of the people. Locally elected school boards decide what will be taught and how. These local boards may stand as the last refuge of democracy, where citizens gather together to work for the common good, trying to determine the right path in a host of alternatives. Thomas Jefferson spoke of the importance of public education in a passage many educators can recite from memory: ‘‘Whenever the people are wellinformed, they can be trusted with their own government; that, whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.’’17 In one of my favorite movies, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, James Stewart, who plays an idealistic young lawyer, finds himself in a raw frontier town. One of the the first things he does is to start a school so people can learn to read and write. In a sequence where he tutors his class, one sees written in flawless penmanship on the blackboard behind him ‘‘Education is the basis for law and order.’’ Education has always functioned as one of America’s prime tools for leveling the playing field. One of the most revolutionary changes after the days of the New Deal brought this country’s higher education system from mainly being the playground of the rich to a truly open system. Besides the increases in financial aid that made college affordable to Americans who once could only dream about entering higher education, a major credit for this must go the nation’s much-maligned public schools. Where once the curriculum for lower- and middle-class children often consisted of ‘‘vocational training,’’ our public schools have now shifted to offering the once elite ‘‘college prep’’ track to a majority of students. It is fashionable to malign the performance of American students on standardized tests as compared with other nations, but detractors fail to acknowledge that only in America do such a wide variety of students take those tests. The Counterrevolution now threatens to put the brakes on this engine of opportunity. Between budget cutting and right-wing attempts to politicize the curriculum, the American public education system faces a protracted siege. Nowhere in the Era of Bad Feelings do the choices seem more dramatically drawn, nowhere the stakes so high. If we allow ideology and not democracy to take over our public education system, there is little doubt that it proves Jefferson’s point in a way that the Sage of Monticello could not have anticipated, for America as we know it will go the way of other failed

164 & The Suburban Uprising

experiments and our children will grow up under the same climate of absolutes as those in schools once run by the Taliban. A clue to what the Raucous Right thinks our schools should teach comes from none other than The Hammer himself, Tom DeLay. In sorting out The Hammer’s views on education religion becomes the starting point, as for so much else with today’s Republicans. The fundamentalist creed he and others follow is best summed up by the following from Jerry Falwell’s website describing the mission of his ministry as: ‘‘To act as both salt and light . . . reaching the world with the gospel, teaching and training believers, reviving the hearts of God’s people and healing the wounds of immorality and godlessness in our nation.’’18 In How to Live a Successful Christian Life, Falwell spells out the meaning of this mission. First and foremost one must believe in the literal meaning of the Bible, ‘‘We believe in the trustworthiness of the New Testament documents. There are thousands of copies of the books of the New Testament. By comparing these texts we can be virtually certain of their original message.’’19 (Emphasis added.) To those of us who go to church every Sunday to understand God’s word, the last phrase seems especially interesting, with its absolute assertion of certainty about what God means. To paraphrase a line from the movie Inherit the Wind, ‘‘God talks to Jerry and he delivers the message to the rest of us.’’ To Jerry Falwell, God is not inscrutable; he is easy to understand and those who think otherwise reveal themselves as false believers. The following sentence might be a description of Falwell: ‘‘When a human being believes that everything, including himself, has been created by [God] and that He is Lord of all the creatures, he negates any kind of independence and becomes a Servant of Him in its true sense.’’20 Actually the word in brackets is not God, but Allah and the sentence comes from a commentary on the Ayatollah Khomeini. The second foundation of Falwell’s theology rests on the notion of being ‘‘born again,’’ a conversion experience during which people acquire the true faith. This concept has always caused some consternation for mainline religions. Their indignation stems from the idea that any individual can acquire the faith through grace from above without doing something to deserve this grace. The famous gospel song, ‘‘Amazing Grace,’’ captures it all, with its lines ‘‘I once was lost, but now I’m found.’’ Even the most miserable reprobate can acquire it, which explains why fundamentalists readily embrace the conversion of George W. Bush. This venerable theological argument turns on the difference between faith and works. Those who believe in justification by faith say the strength of faith allows you to become born again. Those who believe in justification by

Educational Equity & 165

works hold that what we do becomes the important determinant. Falwell says, ‘‘A born-again Christian is one who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Spiritual life is not something we can produce by our own efforts.’’ The more miserable the sinner, the greater the conversion. After the born-again experience, one instinctively knows what to do. ‘‘Once we are regenerated, the Holy Spirit indwells us, enabling us to live in the power of the Spirit,’’ says Falwell.21 ‘‘In this case, such a person would never, even for a second, give up or neglect his responsibility of servitude toward, and worship of, [God]. In other words, the spirit of worship is that a person must bear in mind the satisfaction of his Lord in all aspects of his life,’’ says the Khomeini commentary.22 As for people not born again, Falwell believes that by nature human beings are evil sinners and only a conversion experience can turn us around. In effect, those not born again deserve whatever is coming to them. This has obvious consequences for education that lie at the root of struggles for the public school system. First, justification by faith has always had an implied distaste for education because it relies on emotionalism over reason. One can study all you want, even have a Ph.D. in theology from the best divinity school in the world and not know anything, certainly not as much as a junkie on a street corner who suddenly sees the light. As many born-again Christians say, you only need one book and we all know what that is. Khomeini said a similar thing, but he had a different book in mind. If education ultimately holds little meaning for fundamentalists, then why does the religious right seem so concerned about public schools? Because, the public schools, which have other texts than the Bible, plant blasphemous ideas in not only their children but also yours and mine. Falwell made this very clear in a ‘‘Crossfire’’ debate about sex education, where he stated that if one of his children or grandchildren were taught ‘‘sex education without values’’ in any school, he would ‘‘go in the classroom and personally stop it.’’ He went on to encourage parents to ‘‘take your children back. Walk into schools, they are your schools, and stop it.’’23 In the Era of Bad Feelings the notion that God has reached out to you in stormy seas becomes hard to resist. If you have not walked the hallways of an American high school recently you should, because in those concrete corridors one can understand the motivations that can drive some to sympathize with the Counterrevolution. Stand there during passing time amid the din and chaos, keep your eyes and ears open and you will notice two things: some girls dress like sluts and some boys talk like gangsters. Coping with what many see as long-standing rites of adolescent style and rebellion, conservative parents see what they believe is permissiveness and

166 & The Suburban Uprising

relativism and wonder what will happen to their children in such an environment. Parents have forever wrestled with the issue of what is right for their children, but this has become even more pronounced in the Era of Bad Feelings’ climate of violent, sexist video games and movies and television programs that leave little to the imagination, either verbally or physically. Every parent has drawn the line on such things only to have Maria or Juan come home and say other students do it. The absolutes of Jerry Falwell exert a powerful force in such an atmosphere, as Tom DeLay knows. He has said quite forcefully that he accepts Falwell’s theological contention that people are, by nature, evil (one wonders then what he thinks of his constituents, or, for that matter, the rest of us). Writing about an incident in Michigan in which a six-year-old reputedly killed someone, DeLay said, ‘‘Simply put, the problem is within—rather than outside of—us, because as the Judeo-Christian tradition has always taught we enter this world flawed and inclined to do the wrong thing. If one accepts this perspective, then one is also likely to recognize that, as one author recently phrased it, only two forces hold the sinful nature in check: the restraint of conscience or the restraint of the sword. The less that citizens have the former, the more the state must employ the latter.’’24 Think about the implications of this, given what we have already been over—media concentration, rent-a-riot, stealth candidates. The ramification of this scary remark holds that if you are not born again, you are defined as a sinner and this justifies using the government ‘‘sword’’ to punish your sin (as defined by Falwell and company), not unlike theocracies where ‘‘the sword’’ is literally used to punish sinners. As for the curriculum, DeLay told a Texas church audience, ‘‘Christianity offers the only viable, reasonable, definitive answer to the questions of ‘Where did I come from?’ ‘Why am I here?’ ‘Where am I going?’ ‘Does life have any meaningful purpose?’ Only Christianity offers a way to understand that physical and moral border. Only Christianity offers a comprehensive world view that covers all areas of life and thought, every aspect of creation.’’25 Forget the idea that there are other beliefs in the world than the brand of Christianity DeLay espouses, and merely think of this sentence in terms of the great wealth of knowledge in all our libraries. To DeLay it doesn’t matter. He has already symbolically burned those books. We must understand these roots because while Tom DeLay has fallen from his position of power, his beliefs express the education agenda for many in the Counterrevolution. That agenda emerged in the 2000 Republican platform. It is useful to quote it in its entirety and then think about it in the context of DeLay’s statement:

Educational Equity & 167 We advocate choice in education, not as an abstract theory, but as the surest way for families, especially low-income families, to free their youngsters from failing or dangerous schools and put them onto the road to opportunity and success. By the same token, we defend the option for home schooling and call for vigilant enforcement of laws designed to protect family rights and privacy in education. We will continue to work for the return of voluntary school prayer to our schools and will strongly enforce the Republican legislation that guarantees equal access to school facilities by student religious groups. We strongly support voluntary student-initiated prayer in school without governmental interference. We strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, backed by the current administration, against student-initiated prayer.26

In many school board elections across the country, this agenda has failed to find widespread support. So rather than rely on democracy, the Counterrevolution has duplicated the strategy that has worked so well with other areas: under the guise of keeping taxes low, slash budgets to the bone, and, for good measure, throw in the overspending argument, attacking teacher and administrative salaries, various forms of ‘‘waste,’’ and tie it all to ‘‘performance.’’ The roots of this strategy, like so much else on the Republican agenda, lie in the South, for in the wake of Brown v. Board, Southern racists abandoned the public school system. Rather than go to school with African Americans, some Southerners, especially those with money, decided to opt out of the system and place their children in private schools. In the North, some urban and suburban whites have followed suit, pulling their kids out of schools that did not support their views of the world. Then they vote to slash public school budgets. The Counterrevolution also hopes their agenda resonates in the inner cities, where school budgets seem high and test scores and graduation rates remain undeniably low. ‘‘Look at all the money schools have spent,’’ goes the battle cry, ‘‘And still your test scores are miserable. Give inner city parents the same options as rich folks. Give them vouchers so their children can attend the schools of their choice.’’ That elite private schools have admissions standards that can rival Harvard, that most of them already have scholarships for students with special talents (see Hoop Dreams), and that virtually none of these schools will take special education students or discipline problems that public schools must accept, does not matter. The most realistic option for the Counterrevolution becomes the one that pays parents to put their children into schools that add a fourth ‘‘R,’’ to the classic three—religion.

168 & The Suburban Uprising

The growth of religious schools represents one of the great underreported stories in American education. According to the Council for American Private School Education (CAPE), private schools now account for 23 percent of the schools in the country and 1.5 percent of all students. In other words they have the buildings but not the bodies (which is why vouchers become crucial). Only a paltry 13.2 percent of the nation’s private schools are nonsectarian. The most explosive growth in private schools has occurred in those preaching the values of Jerry Falwell and Tom DeLay. CAPE reports that enrollment in schools identifying themselves as evangelicals grew by what it terms ‘‘an astounding increase of 46 percent’’ during the decade of the 1990s. The Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), which serves evangelical Christian schools, has become the nation’s second largest private school association.27 While one could argue into the wee hours of the morning about the difference between evangelicals and fundamentalists, the ideology of ACSI sounds suspiciously like that of Falwell. ACSI states that it ‘‘strives to enable and equip Christian educators and schools worldwide to effectively educate children and young people with the mind of Christ. Thus, students will be prepared for life because Christ, the creator and sustainer of the universe, possesses ‘all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (Colossians 2:3).’’28 That fundamentalist schools could take over CAPE should cause concern because of tactics fundamentalists have employed in the past. The takeover of the Southern Baptists discussed in ‘‘Devil’s Bargains’’ provides the template. Those who have the most to gain by the passing of vouchers legislation and other measures that allow government funds to be diverted to so-called ‘‘private’’ schools represent the Religious Right, whose schools are multiplying the fastest. While direct attempts to fund religious schools have not yet worked, the Raucous Right has conducted a stealth campaign focusing on funding and so-called accountability, of which the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is the most infamous example. NCLB stands as probably one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation to come from Congress and the White House in some time. On the surface, it seems eminently sensible to require schools to meet standards set by states and the federal government, but NCLB is not sensible. With NCLB, the Counterrevolution has largely succeeded in reframing the debate about education funding much as it reframed debates about taxes. Resource-poor schools where the toilets work intermittently, the textbooks have pages missing, and teachers must buy their own classroom supplies also tend to have large numbers of students not performing well on the

Educational Equity & 169

standardized tests that are at the heart of NCLB. For these schools, the GOP moved the debate from lack of resources to lack of performance in a way that would earn the admiration of the most sophisticated riverboat gambler. Schools with inadequate resources and low test scores get grilled about low test scores, not whether lack of resources contributes to them. NCLB even goes further, taking resources away from resource-poor schools with low test scores. That such logic escaped John Kerry and other Democrats when they voted for NCLB received little comment from Kerry supporters, which included education organizations. Educators have no problem with accountability, after all locally controlled public schools help ensure it. What they do question are what they term ‘‘unfunded mandates,’’ for like the much-discussed federal requirement to provide special education services, NCLB does not provide funds to raise achievement. In fact it does not even provide some districts with adequate funds to administer the tests! This became the basis for a lawsuit filed by the state of Connecticut in 2005, one that could end up with the new Bush Supreme Court. The lawsuit stated, ‘‘Connecticut cannot comply with both its state statute and the federal Department of Education’s rigid, arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the NCLB mandates unless the mandates of the NCLB are either fully funded or the mandates are waived.’’29 According to National Public Radio, ‘‘a cost analysis finds that by 2008, Connecticut will have to pay $41.6 million to implement all the requirements of the federal law. The federal government disputes that number.’’30 People attending suburban garage sales are only too well aware of the impact of unfunded mandates. One might say they are partly responsible for them, since garage sales are the equivalent of a homeowner’s fundraiser. In many suburban districts, the Last Battle seems on the verge of becoming a rout; with teacher layoffs, program cuts, and what has become an annual rite in even the most affluent districts—levy or bond referendums. The knock on the door from a youngster seeking to raise funds for his or her school has become as common for most of us as the car wash or bake sale trying to keep the band or the debate team solvent. Even as they offer advertising contracts in exchange for needed cash, school officials lament in private that they have become the equivalent of those Dickensian characters who sold their virtue in dark alleys so they might have a roof over their heads and some morsel on the table. In short, the vaunted public education system that has been both the mainspring of our democracy and the envy of the world is slowly being bled to death by people who resemble those eighteenth-century quacks who thought bleeding the patient was a cure. The GOP tactic of starving public schools to save them sounds suspiciously like the strategy of saving the lower

170 & The Suburban Uprising

and middle classes by giving tax cuts to the wealthy. In this America’s future becomes a high-stakes game, where the Counterrevolution has wagered its future and ours on a profoundly undemocratic end. The question is how long will it be before a backlash appears? The other objection educators have concerns the tests themselves, something also mentioned in the Connecticut lawsuit. The debate about valid assessment instruments that has raged through education for over a century has become especially heated given the stakes of NCLB. Some states have been accused of ‘‘test shopping,’’ a derogatory term used by educators to describe the practice of finding the test that allows the most students to pass. Connecticut State Education Commissioner Betty Sternberg told NPR, ‘‘They’re actually telling us to, and I hate to use the word, but dumb down our test.’’31 Curiously, this debate opens a window on the relationship between the partners in the Counterrevolution. Through much of the 1980s and early 1990s, business served as a major booster of education reform. The influential 1983 report A Nation at Risk served as their bible. Concerned that students who could pencil in the right answers on tests could not deal with real world problems, they funded a variety of efforts designed to improve critical thinking skills, among which was OBE. The 2000 and 2004 Republican platforms mark a major shift in the business commitment to education. During George W. Bush’s administration, business seems to have conceded the field of education to the Religious Right. Corporate voices— and more important corporate dollars to fund innovation—have muted. Behind all the cries about unfunded mandates and dumbed-down tests, NCLB signifies an unprecedented attack on the fundamental principles of public education. Instead of government leveling the education playing field—assuring that a child born in Watts shall have the same resources as one born in Shaker Heights—it slaps that responsibility rudely in the face, turns on its heels, and coolly walks away as if nothing had happened. Where once the Counterrevolution decried government intervention in education (well into the 1950s the Republicans opposed federal aid to education, especially government-prescribed curricula), now they have inserted government squarely into education, squashing the long-standing belief in state and local control. What really makes NCLB a blatant shell game stems from the big question plaguing education policy: after decades of research on how and why children learn and dozens of curricular experiments, no one has a definitive answer for what it takes to raise test scores. For example, if an inner-city school is marked as under-performing by NCLB, it begs the obvious ques-

Educational Equity & 171

tion, ‘‘Why is it under-performing?’’ Why does one school have high scores and another low ones? How does one compare the two faculties? What role do facilities and teaching resources play? Is such a comparison possible, since there are those who argue students learn differently? In the end we come back to money. If they seriously cared, the Counterrevolution should be able to show with some degree of certainty how much is needed to educate Juan or Silvia. They cannot. That the Counterrevolution cannot tell you what it takes to improve a child’s performance on a standardized test reveals the bankruptcy of NCLB and uncovers its true motives. NCLB represents another stealth effort—this one purporting to improve public schools—that hides an agenda of allowing children to attend voucher schools. The failure of NCLB also reveals the bankruptcy of other Counterrevolutionary attacks on government. Substitute welfare for NCLB and you get the picture. Just as we do not know what it takes to improve a student’s academic performance we do not know what it takes to move someone out of poverty. Is it job training? How much? What kind? What if the jobs do not exist or only are the equivalent of flipping burgers? No one seems to be frame the issue in terms of the level playing field where the stakes are nothing less than the American Dream of giving every child an equal chance. At its roots the argument of the Raucous Right about public education seems profoundly undemocratic. The basic principle of the public school system historically holds that through the democratic process we will together decide what is to be taught, how to teach it, and how to assess it. The arguments of the Counterrevolution amount to a kind of childish ‘‘I don’t like what is happening, so I’m going to take my ball and go home.’’ NCLB says that if we do not like what schools are doing, instead of trying to make them better, we should leave them to their fate. Such a policy represents a profound failure of imagination, and an even more profound moral failure. Arising from the fundamentalist position on education, the Counterrevolution’s education platform becomes nothing less than saying, ‘‘Either schools teach our ideology or we will send our children to schools that do!’’ Besides the kind of citizens such ideological rigidity would produce, imagine that argument extended to every area of American life. That seems to be exactly the direction much of this country seems headed: We all either think like The Hammer and his allies, or as he himself advocated, they will be forced to use the sword. The education card represents one of the strongest in the Democrats’ hand, yet they seem unable to play it effectively. Instead of framing

172 & The Suburban Uprising

education as a choice between a democratic public school system and one of religious academies preaching fundamentalist orthodoxy, candidates babble incoherently about issues the public neither understands nor connects with. People like Winona LaDuke have tried to awaken the party to the importance of diversity in education, but they do not seem to hear. The Democrats should invoke the specter of Littleton and the dangerous words of Tom DeLay every chance they get. Wandering through that suburban garage sale with its piles of children’s clothes and toys puts a special exclamation point on the battle over education. The issue facing this country could not be plainer: Do we want every community to go through what Littleton experienced? Do we want an educational system like Iran’s or one that prepares our students to be participating citizens in a twenty-first-century democracy? The garage sale has it right, for it is above all about our children. Contrary to what some believe, education has always been about inculcating values in the young. What makes the Counterrevolution’s take on this so insidious comes from the nature of the values it seeks to force-feed young minds. We have moved from a time when values came with words Martin Luther King, Jr., preached— values like economic justice, voting rights, equal education—to an era when values have become thought of as thou shalt nots preached by Jerry Falwell. Do we want our children to grow up in the world envisioned by Thomas DeLay or Thomas Jefferson? That people do not raise this question more forcefully should cause us all to wonder what the Era of Bad Feelings has done to America.

12

Voting Rights: Red and Blue Lemmings

Like lemmings marching to the sea they came, one following the other, until the numbers became a stream and the stream a river. Still they kept coming, drawn by some irresistible urge, packing themselves closer together when the need demanded it, climbing over, around and past each other, devouring everything in their path so that pastures of grain, meadows of flowers, even whole forests were reduced to bare ground. If the landscape deterred them, they leveled it so that hills and valleys became as flat as Nebraska and streams, ponds, and wetlands evaporated. This human migration stands as one of the largest freely undertaken, government-subsidized mass social movements in history. It accomplished by democratic means what dictators over the ages have tried to accomplish by force: alter the physical, economic, and social environment to create a unique culture. In 1970, the United States became the first nation to have more citizens living in suburbs than either rural or city areas.1 In its 2003 ‘‘Report on American Exceptionalism’’ The Economist noted, ‘‘Among all the ways America is unusual, one of the least noticed but most important is that more than half the population lives in suburbs. In this, it is unique in the world: in most European countries, for example, over two-thirds of the population is classified as urban.’’2 In 1961 Lewis Mumford wrote the most widely quoted and persistent critique of the American suburb: In the mass movement into suburban areas a new kind of community was produced, which caricatured both the historic city and the archetypal suburban

174 & The Suburban Uprising refuge: a multitude of uniform, unidentifiable houses, lined up inflexibly, at uniform distances, on uniform roads, in a treeless communal waste, inhabited by people of the same class, the same income, the same age group, witnessing the same television performances, eating the same tasteless prefabricated foods, from the same freezers, conforming in every outward and inward respect to a common mold.3

Whether or not one agrees with Mumford, the American suburb points out that Frederick Jackson Turner was wrong when he said the frontier died over a century ago. In 1893, Turner wrote that the frontier functioned as a social safety valve by making cheap land and opportunity available to anyone who had the pluck and luck to file a claim and begin the exhausting process of trying to make a crop by felling trees, uprooting stumps and boulders, cutting prairie sod, then hoping the heck that the rains would come at the right times and in the right amounts; that enough rifle shots would find their targets of wild game; and that the winters would be mild. The place these pioneers occupy in our national mythology is well deserved, all the more so because the more historians learn about them the more like ordinary folks they seem, making their deeds seem that much more extraordinary. That frontier conditions should produce a Lincoln seems at once a miracle and inevitable. Maybe it took someone who lived his early years in what amounted to a lean-to to weather the harsh conditions of the Civil War. That American folklore staple, the tall tale, had it right, for only a person who was half-hoss, half-gator with a bit of snapper thrown in seemed capable of surviving the waterless deserts, impassable mountains, and indomitable weather that faced the wagon trains. But the safety valve did not become extinct with the passing of the pioneer. The near-disaster of the Great Depression and the pent-up needs of World War II for housing, education, and jobs demanded satisfaction. Even the most right-wing reactionary could see the need for government action. The suburb represented for many new homeowners all that is right about the philosophy that government should intervene on behalf of the common good. Gratitude fueled the suburban revolution, the strong belief that those who saved the world for democracy deserved to have a home of their own, a college education, decent health care, and good wages. The ‘‘Greatest Generation’’ had gone from almost losing hope in the depths of the Depression to giving the free world hope from places such as Iwo, Normandy, and the Bulge. Now they too deserved hope. Through a variety of government subsidies the creation of the suburbs allowed people of modest means to attain what real estate ads have chris-

Voting Rights & 175

tened the American dream. The immensity of this achievement is only beginning to dawn on us, for it constituted the kind of land and social reform that governments everywhere still try to accomplish. Single-family housing starts in this country rose from 114,000 in 1944 to 937,000 in 1946, 1,183,000 in 1948, and 1,692,000 in 1950.4 It would take a supreme economic historian—and so far no one has proven equal to the daunting task—to untangle the full extent to which government largesse made the suburbs possible. Probably the closest anyone has come is Crabgrass Frontier, an invaluable book by Kenneth Jackson. Jackson notes, ‘‘Suburbanization was not an historical inevitability created by geography, technology, and culture, but rather the product of government policies.’’5 He points out ‘‘the main beneficiary of the $119 billion in FHA [Federal Housing Administration] mortgage insurance issued in the first four decades of FHA operation was suburbia.’’6 Home loans represented only one aspect of government aid to the suburbs. Arguably a large amount of federal highway aid in the last half century has gone to the suburbs, first to get people there and then to relieve the congestion caused by those very same roads, so highway construction has degenerated into a vicious circle of building roads to relieve congestion, which creates more congestion, which creates the need for more roads. With the roads came water, electricity, sewer, and phones. The suburbs also became the drivers of cable television service and helped to create the Information superhighway, changing the Internet from a defense program to the dispenser of Google and eBay. On top of infrastructure funding there were subsidies for local institutions. New communities, as any pioneer knew, needed schools and places to shop. Frontier folks most often built their own, but the conquerors of crabgrass and Japanese beetles took advantage of government aid. Tax Increment Financing, originally intended as a tool for reviving decaying inner-city neighborhoods, built acres of malls. Programs for senior citizens or lowincome families helped erect suburban townhouses and apartments. Federal aid to education helped suburban schools. A significant amount of government aid also went directly to the new suburbanites themselves. The Depression had helped to take the stigma off ‘‘being on relief’’ so that by the 1950s government assistance went to—and was demanded by—a variety of citizens. The much-touted GI Bill opened the gates for housing, education, and job training programs for the middle class. Suburbs themselves gave grants to first-time homeowners. And so the middle class bellied up to the government table, taking generous helpings of taxpayer dollars.

176 & The Suburban Uprising

We must note one major dimension of the suburban migration that weighs heavily on Liberal America: The suburbs deliberately isolated Americans of color as surely as if brick walls had been erected around their neighborhoods with the same purpose as walls built by the Nazis in Warsaw or the Communists in East Berlin. Crabgrass Frontier notes that FHA policies deliberately discriminated against people of color. Since the FHA and the VA financed almost half the housing in the 1950s and 1960s, they shut the door of opportunity on millions of Americans. Jackson states, ‘‘FHA also helped to turn the building industry against the minority and inner-city housing market, and its policies supported the income and racial segregation of suburbia.’’ Warnings began as early as 1955 when Columbia Professor Charles Abrams charged, ‘‘From its inception the FHA set itself up as protector of the all white neighborhood. It sent its agents into the field to keep Negroes and other minorities from buying houses in white neighborhoods.’’7 According to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) these discriminatory practices continue. In October 2002, ACORN released ‘‘The Great Divide,’’ a report on 2001 national loan data as well as for sixty-eight metropolitan areas. The report found continuing and even growing racial and economic disparities in home mortgage lending. Nationally, African American mortgage applicants faced rejection 2.31 times more often than white applicants, and Hispanics were denied 1.53 times more often than whites.8 Income made little difference. ACORN notes in Chicago African Americans earning more than $84,600 had 2.06 times more likelihood of being turned down than whites earning less than $28,450.9 ACORN also points out that loan discrimination is accompanied by discriminatory banking practices in communities of color. A study by Federal Reserve economists found that the number of banking offices in lowand moderate-income areas decreased 21 percent from 1975 to 1995, while the total number of banking offices in all areas rose 29 percent during this same period. In 2001, one-quarter of families with incomes below 80 percent of the area median income did not have a bank account. To make up for this, these communities often rely on what ACORN terms ‘‘shadow banks’’ such as pawnshops, check-cashing services, and payday lenders, many with questionable practices.10 The link between the suburbs and discriminatory housing is no secret, but in the larger context of the Era of Bad Feelings and the critical state of Liberal America, the creation of all-white enclaves at the same time the Republican Party dallied with Strom Thurmond becomes especially important. Racist housing policies enabled the Southern Strategy to assume not merely a regional but a national base. Elements of Thurmond’s Southern

Voting Rights & 177

Manifesto that became gospel for the Counterrevolution now had a farreaching appeal. As for suburbanites themselves, they attracted anthropologists, sociologists, and others like a newly discovered Amazonian tribe, becoming research subjects whose most intimate parts were poked, prodded, and sampled. Myopic professors then placed them under a microscope and peered at what they saw with looks of wonderment and confusion. Enter ‘‘suburbia’’ in the books search on Amazon.com and you will turn up an astounding 10,686 volumes. As for the realm of fiction, which can often be more revealing than dozens of studies, the novels of Mailer, Updike, Cheever and others do not truly do it justice, for their stages seem cramped, the actors and actresses hemmed in by the author’s own prejudices and personal hangups. The movies have not captured it either, suffering from similar problems. Perhaps the art form that has best caught the suburban ethos is that quintessential television genre, the situation comedy. As much as anyone, Lucille Ball established the successful recipe for the sitcom by building her show around a zany personality who always lands in hot water because of some harebrained scheme. People around the world can recite the basic plot: Lucy enlists someone, usually her friend Ethel Mertz, to do something she has been warned not to do. This transgression puts Lucy in an embarrassing position, from which she is rescued just before things get out of hand. In the end the audience learns bad things happen if you stray beyond established boundaries. Since ‘‘I Love Lucy’’ first appeared in 1951, some variation of this basic recipe has come to characterize virtually every sitcom on television. In the tension between group and individual that animates these shows we find a safety valve for similar tensions in our own lives. In a sense the situation comedy serves as a form of cultural exorcism—one hesitates to use the word because it is so loaded. Yet that describes the sitcom’s function perfectly. Like America, the sitcom is torn between the individualism of the Declaration of Independence and the group spirit of the Constitution. In the situations that grow out of attempts to balance the two, we see a reflection of our own tribulations. In laughing at them we exorcise those demons from our cultural psyches. This theme also captures the classic tension of Liberal America, which has always tried to balance the individual and society. Where Republicans have tended to come down heavily on the side of entrepreneurial individualism, believing the market will take care of everything, Liberal America has seen that excessive individualism can become antisocial when predatory and

178 & The Suburban Uprising

amoral manipulators gain control. On the other hand, it also recognizes government can overstep its bounds. It is the four cornerstones that have allowed Liberal American to maintain the balance. That early sitcoms should reflect and affirm the idea of balance that underlies Liberal America and also guided the building of the suburbs represents a fascinating parallel. The rise of the sitcom in the 1950s and 1960s should have signaled something to those who cared about Liberal America, for in the long-standing attempt to balance individual and group the sitcom came down heavily on the side of the group. Even the so-called ‘‘liberal’’ sitcoms like ‘‘All in the Family’’ did not stray far from the formula, they only modified it. Stereotypical ‘‘conservatives’’ such as Archie Bunker became the outsiders raising havoc with the group. This groupthink should have provided a tip-off that something had shifted in America, something that some came to label the suburban ethos. This would come to play a major role in the struggle over the cornerstone of voting rights. At precisely the time women and people of color were raising their questions about whether the country still believed in the principles of Liberal America, middle-class whites, aided by the government, were moving to the suburbs. So like two trains passing in the night Liberal and suburban America went their separate ways. Those sitting in each train perceived only images on their television screens that flickered as quickly as glimpses of passengers on a real train. Standing precariously between the two tracks was the Democratic Party, which appeared fearful and perplexed. It should come as no surprise that in the Era of Bad Feelings, the sitcom should find itself in hot water. As television critics write about the decline of the sitcom and its replacement by reality shows, the numbers confirm their fears. Only two sitcoms could be found among the top thirty shows in 2004 and one of them—‘‘Everybody Loves Raymond’’(note the title)—did not return in 2005. That the sitcom formula should fall victim to the plotters of ‘‘Survivor’’ or the spectacles of people willing to devour anything that crawls on six legs says a great deal about our times. The reality shows offer us a central theme—the Death of Liberal America. Contrary to what some critics have written, there is nothing new in audiences finding perverse pleasure in watching people debase themselves for money and fame. This form of ‘‘entertainment’’ has a long, sordid history. What makes the reality shows a fascinating social document comes from a theme far removed from that of the sitcom, for the reality shows feature plotting and back-stabbing deliberately designed to undermine the group. The message is that underneath our seemingly benign appearances, most of us will behave just like the executives of Enron. Liberal America’s belief in

Voting Rights & 179

the common good does not exist in this world, where the only way an individual can win is if the group loses. The story behind the shift from sitcom to back-stabbing is a tragic one in which the very people whose everyday comforts now exceed those of Roman emperors and medieval nobility turn against the very idea that had made their luxuries possible. In so doing they may unwittingly be committing cultural suicide. Analysts first noted a political shift to the suburbs over a decade ago. An influential Atlantic article by William Schneider, currently a member of the conservative Hudson Institute who serves as a political commentator for CNN, captured it with the title, ‘‘The Suburban Century Begins.’’ Schneider pointed out that ‘‘while the suburbs grew larger, they also became more Republican.’’11 He cites impressive statistics to bolster his argument. In 1960, the suburbs provided one-third of the national vote, voting slightly more Republican than Democratic. By 1988 they accounted for 48 percent of the vote, with 28 percent for the Republicans and 20 percent for the Democrats. Eerily echoing Strom Thurmond, Schneider concluded that these results show, ‘‘the Republicans can ignore the cities,’’ describing suburban voters as ‘‘suspicious of programs aimed at creating social change rather than providing public services.’’12 Schneider affirms that if the suburbs altered America’s social and economic landscape, they also altered its political landscape. If Bush v. Gore dramatized the Counterrevolution’s sometimes violent attempts to prevent liberal- and Democratic-leaning voters from exercising their franchise, the suburbs emblemized another key in their efforts to skewer voting fairness and what the Supreme Court once referred to as the ‘‘one man, one vote’’ principle. As we shall see, the reasons this has come about are complex. Like the reversal of suburban attitudes toward government, the changes in the political landscape portend trouble for Liberal America. To understand this point, think back to that night the pundits bumbled with Florida’s changing colors during the 2000 Presidential Election. Red states and blue states, the pundits lectured, provided the key to understanding American politics, the terms coming from the colors used by the networks to record electoral votes. Like most sound bite attempts to understand America this one reflects black-and-white simplicity. Perhaps the best statement of its absurdity came from former presidential candidate Pete du Pont, who pointed out that a map showing the sales and rentals of porn movies bore an eerie resemblance to the map of the 2000 election results.13 The meaninglessness of the red/blue analogy is demonstrated by one of the most misunderstood and abused terms in recent elections: soccer moms. The term surfaced in the 1990s to describe a group of swing voters. According to

180 & The Suburban Uprising

a New York Times story, published the day of the first 1996 presidential debate, soccer moms ‘‘are the most sought-after voters of the campaign season.’’14 That year the media ran around in search of these mythical creatures, the way heroes and heroines in medieval tales lusted after unicorns. In a humorous, but telling analysis Jacob Wiesberg asked, ‘‘Who exactly, we must ask, are these soccer moms who hold the nation’s fate in their hands?’’15 He found as many definitions as there were media sources. Soccer moms refers to what is known as a cluster segment, based on the analytic technique known as cluster analysis. The readers of American Demographics would understand this perfectly since this is what many of them do for a living. The magazine itself noted this significance in its tenth anniversary edition in 1989: ‘‘Consumer information systems are becoming essential competitive weapons in the micro-marketing wars.’’16 As one demographic expert observes, the object of clustering, ‘‘is to sort cases (people, things, events, etc.) into groups, or clusters, so that the degree of association is strong between members of the same cluster and weak between members of different clusters. Each cluster thus describes, in terms of the data collected, the class to which its members belong; and this description may be abstracted through use from the particular to the general class or type.’’17 Virtually every corporation (and every politician who can afford it) uses cluster analysis to guide how they market soap flakes and policy initiatives. The Contract for America used cluster analysis to refine and direct its message. One researcher described the efforts of the cluster analysis firm Claritas to organize neighborhood zip codes into forty different cluster groups using a technique they named PRIZM for Potential Rating Index for Zip Markets. ‘‘These groups were given catchy names like ‘Blue Blood Estates,’ ‘Shotguns and pickups,’ and ‘Bohemian Mix.’ Classification schemes like PRIZM have proven useful in designing direct mail advertising, choosing radio station formats, and deciding where to locate retail stores.’’18 Microsoft admitted, ‘‘Several cluster studies have been conducted to help organize information available on MSN, for version 2.0 of the product. These studies focused on the organization of Web content, proprietary content, and children’s content.’’19 For all the studies we have of the suburbs, those who really know them best may be market researchers who see this new culture as a ticket to riches. Unfortunately their data are as guarded as a CIA file, Air Force defense plan, or nuclear weapon design. Certainly commercial market researchers have probably spent more money, and perhaps even more time, on the suburbs than their academic colleagues.

Voting Rights & 181

The use of clustering by advertisers parallels the rise of the relatively homogenous suburbs. Government policies that created tight communities of like-minded people suddenly made it possible to corral consumers who for all practical purposes resembled sheep in statistical holding pens. They could then be led to large concrete boxes that painlessly relieved them of their money and allowed them to emerge as transformed as if from a shearing. In essence the suburbinization of America with its geographic sorting of races, income levels, and tastes intersected with the rise of the computers that make cluster analysis possible. This represents yet another irony in the death of Liberal America: All those rows and rows of tract houses and asphalt streets largely subsidized by the government operated against Liberal America by institutionalizing homogeneity and racial exclusiveness in a way that must have warmed the heart of Strom Thurmond. How researchers distill cluster groups remains a secret as closely guarded as the recipe for Dom Perignon. As a consultant to a large federal public health project, I worked with one of these demographic bibles, a backbreaking three-ring binder of data detailing forty-seven taste groups. They had names such as ‘‘Affluent Urban Singles,’’ and ‘‘Young Ex-Urban Families,’’ each accompanied by charts and tables dictating a score on the criteria used to identify them. If we do not know about specific cluster formulas, we do know a great deal about their ingredients. The main ingredient is census data about income levels, family, and employment that number-crunching computers can break down to zip codes and even city blocks. Besides demographic data from the Census Bureau’s short form, the recipe uses the more complex data from the long form with its more detailed questions. With these data alone researchers can pinpoint what areas of the country have more cars, more computers, more televisions. A simple recipe using these ingredients can be put together by your average undergraduate marketing major. This fact does not downplay the considerable massaging these data undergo, for by running extensive cross-tabulations researchers can identify how many people with two cars also have more than one computer and more than two bathrooms. On top of the census data come additional ingredients. Start with all those warranty cards you fill out that ask what magazines you read and sports you play, then add the surveys from those annoying phone calls you get at dinner time or while you and your mate are just heating up the bed. Finally, throw in those online data forms that you must fill out to allow you to access whatever Internet sites you covet. After researchers distill and refine these

182 & The Suburban Uprising

data comes that subtle touch which only a master can truly pull off—the focus group. Once, I naively believed that at one time or another every American would serve as a focus group member. Now I know better. Focus groups refine and pinpoint the cruder analysis done by the data folks. Part art, part science, part witchcraft, it requires a very good facilitator, well-defined questions, and truly creative analysis. From this emerges a masterpiece like soccer moms. Seemingly simple, like that bottle of fine champagne, such terms hide an incredible amount of complexity that is lost on most of us. Like a master wine taster whose nose and mouth can detect the vintage, the subtle flavors and even the vintner, the analysts who use such cluster data can tell you everything you want to know about these groups: what they eat, how they dress, what toothpaste they use, what television programs they watch. As a marketer once told me, ‘‘If I know your zip code, I probably know a lot more about you than you think.’’ One firm that specializes in using cluster analysis for political campaigns touts its abilities on its website. ‘‘We understand the American electorate and we know how to craft effective political communications to achieve attitude change. . . . Having worked with many political figures, we also know how to talk to legislators to make the most persuasive case in the language they know and understand best.’’ After an explanation of the basic tools it uses, the firm explains how it uses cluster analysis in a language foreign to many of us. ‘‘After collecting the quantitative data, we utilize multivariate analysis to define a series of respondent clusters—those most significant constituencies with common attitudinal, behavioral, and values characteristics.’’ They conclude, ‘‘Taken together, these clusters form a portrait of the landscape of public opinion on the issues we’re examining.’’20 To understand cluster analysis make an inventory of your possessions such as the car you drive, its color, make, model, and year. When they ask this information at a motel these days it’s not just to check their parking lot, rather it can be plugged into demographic clusters to identify the prime audiences for that particular chain. Think of how this one variable, your car, fits in with others around you. What type of people drive the same car? Now play the same game with other parts of your life. What clothes do you wear and where do you buy them? How much of your income do you spend on clothes? Is your TV the latest and greatest model or has it been around for a while? Invariably others have similar preferences, probably your close friends. Together you form the foundations of a cluster of similar people across the country. A good market research firm can pinpoint the cluster characteristics

Voting Rights & 183

of a neighborhood block. If you have ever listened to ‘‘The Motley Fool’’ radio program, the financial analysts have a segment where they play a similar game, trying to guess which stock a guest might hold by asking a series of questions. Claritas has a website where you can explore clusters using their PRIZM NE system (http://www.clusterbigip1.claritas.com/MyBestSegments/Default.jsp). After you enter your zip code, the web page will spew out a list of the clusters in your area and their characteristics. I entered my zip code and found the following live in my home town: ‘‘Country Squires, Fast-Track Families, Kids & Cul-de-Sacs, Middleburg Managers, and New Homesteaders.’’21 Looking up one of these groups, the Country Squires, gave me the characteristics of the 1.89 percent of U.S. households belonging to this cluster: ages 35–64, families, mostly white, college grads, professional, household income of $97,596. Lifestyle traits include: ‘‘Have broadband Internet access, go skiing, read USA Today, watch the Disney Channel, and drive a GMC Denali.’’22 The site once featured multicolored national maps that showed where these clusters concentrate, but this feature is now available only to clients. For those who have seen them, these maps provide a mix of white, green, yellow, blue, and red as if some Jackson Pollock imitator had shaken a paint brush on a U.S. map. The colors function like those in a weather map, marking the degree of concentration the way weather satellites mark storm intensity. An article highlighting the Claritas site in USA Today was titled ‘‘Old Labels Just Don’t Stick in 21st Century.’’ It noted, ‘‘The research brain trusts are pinpointing who lives where; what they’re most likely to read, drive and eat; how many kids they have; and where they shop. And they are doing it with unprecedented precision.’’23 The article also goes on to point out that while contemporary suburban houses and lawns may still fit the old stereotypes, what lies inside them may not. We have already seen how Martha Stewart and Home Depot symbolize a need to individualize the standardized layouts that have made buying a house like buying a car—choose your model and then your accessories. Equally important is that the people inside no longer all look the same. USA Today writers Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg observe, ‘‘As Hispanics, blacks and Asian-Americans increasingly move to middle-class suburbs and prosperous neighborhoods, they’re identified more by their lifestyles and spending habits than by their ancestry.’’24 Here lies a new American landscape where state and geographical boundaries have little meaning, but the boundaries of collective minds stand clearly delineated. Now you can begin to see the absurdity of red and blue states. National campaigns rely on maps a great deal more sophisticated

184 & The Suburban Uprising

than the ones described here. On such a map, states disappear into blotches of color. On a national scale the map would at first appear a crazy mosaic, a modern art rendering of America, almost like those painters who used to paint with small dots of paint, each dot a census tract. Stare at it long enough and like one of those trick puzzles that at first seems gibberish but after some staring becomes something recognizable, so too would this pointillistic portrait of America become clear. The art analogy is instructive, for the demographic techniques used by market researchers resemble a work of modern art hung next to an eighteenthcentury landscape. As any Art 101 student knows, there is a profound difference of perspective and philosophy between the landscape and the modern work. Clustering and modern art emphasize multiple perspectives; landscapes and red and blue maps represent a single perspective. Reality in the world of the landscape is simple, perhaps two-dimensional if the artist is especially gifted. Reality in modern art and clustering is a complex arrangement of interrelationships seen from multiple dimensions. From this perspective we can understand why clusters hold the keys to the White House and Congress. Wonder why all those election ads sound the same, even the ones for local candidates where only the names and faces are changed? Clusters. If you happen to fall into one of those target groups, every minute, every dollar of the campaign aims at you. If you do not, the ads probably seem boring or obnoxious. Robert Scheer wrote about this feeling in his article ‘‘A New Low: Pandering to ‘Soccer Moms.’ ’’ Unnerved by the Dole-Clinton debate, he wrote, ‘‘Never have I so wanted to be a soccer mom as during the Dole–Clinton debate.’’25 To him the two candidates seemed to be ‘‘oily salesmen selling something I didn’t need. . . . But what do I know, not being in the target group for this electoral season?’’ He concludes by expressing frustration with the entire debate because it did not seem to have anything relevant to him. ‘‘There must be some special code language that has a particular resonance with soccer moms as they buzz around in their minivans filled with kids.’’ He wrote, ‘‘Clearly they don’t care about any of the traditional issues.’’ As Scheer found out, fall into the wrong cluster and you might as well be invisible. Demographics dictate where candidates visit, what they say, and how they say it. Whole phrases, the order in which they are delivered, their emphasis, and even the tone of voice and tilt of the head may come from cluster data. The cluster-driven campaign has created a perplexing constitutional issue that none of the framers could have foreseen. Certain clusters have become the swing vote, and by becoming the swing vote they have more political power than any state or group of states. Campaigns, of course, have always

Voting Rights & 185

tried to identify like-minded groups of supporters. However, when the framers wrote the Constitution they thought in terms of comparatively simple groups like classes and regions, never imagining a tool like clustering that would allow campaign managers to target messages as precisely as a smart missile. The framers argued about big states and small states, industry versus agriculture, city versus country. They did not envision a situation in which a voter in suburban Atlanta, suburban Seattle, or suburban New York might not only live in what looks like the same place, but also have so many similar marketing characteristics that they could be clones or androids. Maybe that is why this theme dominates current science fiction. Never before have we had tools that enable political parties to define not merely voting tendencies but the very lives of people as if they were right there sitting on the sofa, drinking a soda like a member of the family. And never before has there been a way of linking like-minded groups as if they all lived next door, reaching them instantaneously through that flickering glass hearth they stare at for hours at a time. Like some army resembling the giant terra cotta statues buried in neat military rows by a powerful Chinese emperor, clusters lie sleeping, waiting for only the right message delivered in the form of an ad to awaken them. Once moving, they devour a steady diet of images as carefully formulated for their peculiar tastes as the food given to pigs and cows that eke out their lives on giant feedlots. Clustering explains much that has happened to American politics and Liberal America in the last decade. How many voters feel like Scheer, watching those debates and commercials and reading literature that does not resonate with them? No wonder voting percentages have dropped. People feel disconnected from the process because the process no longer has any interest in communicating with them. What makes clustering unique lies in its ability to precisely identify those inclined to toe the party line and then connect them instantaneously through everything from direct mail to media ads. In some respects the use of clustering in our political campaigns has created a classic negative feedback loop with the researchers focusing only on likely voter clusters. Meanwhile they ignore everyone else. This feedback loop promises to continue to spiral inward, until a few clusters form the focus of a campaign and everyone else finds themselves left out. Now we again find ourselves at one of those blind intersections that seem regular features of the Era of Bad Feelings. The GOP has understood how to use cluster data for quite some time. The master of this put George W. Bush in the White House—Karl Rove. He understands how to link voter lists, direct mail, and targeted campaign material in a way that would draw the envy of

186 & The Suburban Uprising

any market researcher. Rove seems to have grasped the new American map that clustering has drawn. Advertising Age recognized his talent in December 2004, when it identified him as one of ten people who made a mark on marketing that year. ‘‘He did it again,’’ Advertising Age trumpeted. ‘‘He connected red loyalists with some of the saviest direct marketing.’’26 While many view Rove as a master of dirty tricks, his selection highlighted an overlooked dimension of the 2004 election—the triumph of clustering. The chapter on the Dixie Chicks explored the possibility of a few media conglomerates controlling all information. The chapters on Strom Thurmond and Devil’s bargains delved into the ideology and formation of the Counterrevolutionary coalition. When ideology and politicized media intersect with Rove’s use of clustering, some very troubling issues surface. A favorite scare scenario of the Information Age evokes shadowy people sitting at computer screens compiling hidden databases. Clustering represents the powerful use of these data, especially as it becomes more and more sophisticated. If you can be placed in a cluster then you have already been defined. In the not-too-distant future when all those avuncular anchors get together on election night they may no longer be speaking of red and blue states but what is happening with the ‘‘Young Urban Ethnics’’ and ‘‘Older Mobile Well Educated.’’ When clustering is combined with reapportionment it creates a condition that threatens the very foundations of what the Constitution’s framers strove to create. The gerrymandering of this new century will come to increasingly resemble a Claritas map of like-minded voters, as did the redrawn map of Texas supposedly first sketched on a napkin by Tom DeLay. As a result, we now have a Congress in which a growing number of districts can be described as ‘‘uncontested.’’ The Center for Voting and Democracy has issued a series of reports over the years about how uncompetitive our elections have become. Their report ‘‘Dubious Democracy 2003–2004’’ notes: Over 90% of Americans live in congressional districts that are essentially oneparty monopolies. This means that most voters are faced with unappealing choices: ratify the incumbent party, waste their vote on a candidate who is sure to lose, or sit out the race. Not surprisingly, increasing numbers of American are opting for the latter option.27

The center also found that what they term the ‘‘landslide index,’’ which measures the percentage of races where incumbents won by a margin of 20 percent or more, has increased to the point of where 80 percent of congressional races fall into this category.

Voting Rights & 187

This huge percentage of ‘‘landslide’’ districts now gives office holders free reign to push forward their most radical ideas plus the luxury of never having to compromise. So we have a Congress that epitomizes the Era of Bad Feelings. Enter ‘‘congressional rancor’’ into a search engine these days and it inundates you with examples. One of the most notorious came when VicePresident Dick Cheney used a four-letter word to upbraid Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick J. Leahy, then told the media ‘‘I think that a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue.’’28 Something vital also disappears: the spirited give and take of real debate that is the lifeblood of democracy. Those with landslide districts do not need to listen anymore. Each congressional seat might as well be a suburban house in a gated community where everyone thinks alike and the world beyond the guard house at the entrance is kept carefully at bay. Say hello to the Stepford Congresswoman. The Democrats appeared numb as they watched the pieces fall into place. First came the creation of the homogenous suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s, a creation that began as they tried to hold onto the myth of the Solid South. The same attitude that allowed them to rebuff Fannie Lou Hamer also permitted them to look the other way—or even support—FHA discrimination. Then came the creation of the suburban ethos symbolized in the sitcom, one that leaned heavily to group conformity, at the same time women and people of color were articulating their questions about diversity and the failures of the level playing field. Finally came clustering, which allowed researchers and political operatives to corral suburbanites into likeminded groups. The GOP pricked the old FDR coalition and its members went sailing off into the wind. The Democrats rebuff of Hamer in 1964 began a slow bleeding away of voters of color who had flocked to the party of FDR during and after the New Deal. The dramatic rise of Hispanic voters has largely been misplayed, as have the concerns of Winona LaDuke. Meanwhile the steady decline in union membership has bled away blue-collar support that had served as the heart of the party for over a century. An overlooked trend also had a profound impact. In what constituted a political transfusion, those rural voters who had also been a key part of the New Deal moved to the suburbs where their own ambivalence about their rural roots plus the pounding of cluster-driven messages in essence transferred this life blood of the New Deal coalition to the heart of the Counterrevolution. No wonder the body of the Democratic Party became pale and anemic, dominated by those pushing single-issue causes.

188 & The Suburban Uprising

Describing the suburban migration in terms of lemmings captures how clustering has altered our democracy. In myth, lemmings are driven by some inner switch that, when thrown, sends them all simultaneously scampering in the same direction. The homogenous groupings identified by clustering and the analysis of the hidden switches that motivate these groups creates an ominous possibility. The mythical end of the lemmings in a mad rush off a cliff and into the sea has long stood as a metaphor for humans blindly following some misguided impulse. In the Era of Bad Feelings that metaphor takes on new meaning.

13

Media Fairness: The SUV on the Monolith

In the artificially muted sunlight, the shiny maroon SUV sits improbably on the flat top of a stone monolith whose daunting vertical sides emphasize the miraculous scene, as if God’s hand had carefully set the vehicle there like a child playing with a toy. In the background reddish brown buttes and rocky crags stretch past the edges of the frame. With the incongruous exception of the SUV, you cannot see a trace of another human being, not even a faint trail. This Monument Valley setting has become the backdrop of choice for a saurian menagerie of vehicles from tyrannosaurus-like pickups to fourwheelers that skim across the landscape like velociraptors. Advertisers deliberately choose this setting to echo in the American imagination, for since its appearance in John Ford’s Stagecoach, Monument Valley has represented moviemaking shorthand for the Old West. One half expects the Duke himself to appear holding a rifle. The incongruity of the scene draws a second look that leads to a question the Duke himself might ask, pointing his rifle, ‘‘Just who the heck put that darned thing up there?’’ Someone who might answer that question is Leo Marx, who almost half a century ago wrote the classic The Machine in the Garden. Marx’s exploration of art, political speeches, and other nineteenthcentury artifacts showed the era’s profoundly ambivalent attitude toward America’s growing industrialization. One prime exhibit came in the form of a George Inness painting, The Erie and Lackawama RR, which portrayed a dark, steam-belching locomotive cutting across the edenic scenery of the Hudson River Valley. The SUV on the monolith appears to contradict the theme Marx uncovered, a contradiction that speaks volumes about where

190 & The Suburban Uprising

America, and particularly Liberal America, has traveled over the last century. If for Marx the ambivalence in the Inness painting came from the smoke of industrialization, the image of the SUV betrays ambivalence about reality itself in this media era. Were he alive today, John Ford would have no ambivalence about that SUV. Since the singular, symbolic place that is Monument Valley served as a virtual cast member for Ford’s famous stock company, punctuating the action like a moody chorus, the director would have regarded that SUV as an obscenity, like spitting in the Sistine Chapel. That might be too strong an opinion, but most SUV commercials do have the tone of video games where the player tries to maim as many people as possible, only instead of human beings it is rocks and trees that they ride roughshod over. These ads typically feature some four-wheeled beast careening over the landscape, undaunted by precipitous mountain sides, rapids-filled streams, or piles of immense boulders. In the SUV commercials, unlike the Inness painting, the vehicle not only dominates the composition, but seems to impose its will on the landscape. It is all about ‘‘intimidation’’ intones one ad, as if to say, nature means nothing to me, save as a playground for my pleasure. A series of Chevy pickup ads even seems to parody the whole genre, blowing its trucks up to monster size (honey, I’ve enlarged the truck!), their brontosaurus-like proportions causing us to feel like those people in Jurassic Park who wander too far off course. The audacity of these ads, which range from the ridiculous to the obscene, suggests that not merely nature, but reality itself has become a playground where the bag of tricks that lie in hard drives can make the impossible real. Seeing an SUV on a monolith seems appropriate for an era where corporate logos crop up on everything. Certain parts of the country resemble a NASCAR racer or an Olympic skier, who after a particularly draining downhill run where life hangs by a ski tip, somehow musters up enough energy to ensure the logo on her skis earns prominent placing in the camera’s eye. Endorsement deals come faster than an auctioneer’s cadences, each corporate signing of some sports hero rivaling Shaq’s latest team switch. In a race for Olympic gold, companies compete ruthlessly to supply everything from uniforms to track shoes and bobsleds (which do look like NASCAR racers). A marketing study of the 1992 Barcelona Summer Games found, ‘‘When respondents were asked about the commercialization of the Olympics, the majority (59%) confirmed that the Olympics are ‘overcommercialized.’ However, three-fourths (75%) of the respondents agreed that they are ‘more likely’ to purchase a product which sponsors or financially supports the Olympics over a product that does not.’’1

Media Fairness & 191

The corporatization of the Olympics should serve as a lesson for all of us, for its story may foretell something about the future of America. Under Republican Peter Ueberoth, the 1984 Olympics established the precedent for merchandising the games. Needing quick cash, the Olympic movement became an unabashed commercial enterprise, up for the highest bidder. The Barcelona Olympics put commercialism on center stage when the basketball Dream Team won the gold medal. Reebok had paid big bucks to ensure that all American athletes wore warmups with the company logo prominently displayed because they knew photographs of the winning athletes standing there on the medal platform, their eyes watering with tears as the National Anthem played in the background, would appear in newspapers all over the world. The problem at Barcelona came from six Dream Team athletes who had contracts with Reebok nemesis Nike, including the biggest Nike moneymaker of all, Michael Jordan. Jordan and teammates Charles Barkley and Magic Johnson made it clear they had no intention of serving as a rival product’s billboard. With typical insouciance, ‘‘Sir’’ Charles came right to the point, ‘‘Us Nike guys,’’ he said, ‘‘Are loyal to Nike, because they pay us a lot of money. I have two million reasons not to wear Reebok.’’2 As the main drama unfolded at the medal ceremony, all three wore their Reebok warmups, but they carried American flags that they purposely used to cover the offending logos. Whoever thought of that idea deserves a gold medal, for the symbolism goes well beyond the protest. By using the flag the three players made a forceful statement that neither they nor the country should be bought and sold. African American athletes protesting this modern corporate slavery reinforced the message. Corporatization like that plaguing the Olympic movement has now become a problem for all of us, not just Michael Jordan. Everyone in America today faces the same issue he did: whether to cave in and become a corporate billboard or to reassert the primacy of the flag. With city and state budgets getting tighter each year, more consider selling out. The first wave came when sports teams began demanding expensive stadiums with luxury suites for their corporate clients. When citizens rebelled against paying taxes for this blatant corporate welfare, cities began offering naming rights in exchange for money to build these sports palaces. Meanwhile college teams did not want to be left out of the action, producing a holiday season crammed with bowl games that have announcers mangling the namesakes of some obscure sponsors. The advertising even insinuates itself into our public schools. A high school stadium without a scoreboard highlighting some business has become a rarity. Entrepreneur Chris Whittle pioneered a deal that offered television

192 & The Suburban Uprising

sets and news broadcasts to schools in return for the privilege of running a few minutes of daily advertising. Other corporations placed ads masked as informational posters in the hallways. The lunch room and teachers’ lounge went up for bids to companies who wanted the right to put their products on students’ plates or in vending machines. While it is questionable how much these efforts truly aided schools, the symbolism of them becomes troubling. As Jordan, Barkley, and Johnson pointed out, when America is for sale, nothing remains sacred. There may come a time when a school district needing money for a new building will offer the naming rights to some company or a national park sell naming rights to natural features. So we might hear, ‘‘Hello, my name is Mary, I’ll be your park ranger for today. This is no longer Mt. Rushmore but Mt. Halliburton.’’ The rapid approach of such a time hit home when a friend of mine reported that his newest motor vehicle renewal letter came complete with an envelope full of coupons and ads, because his state had entered the prostitution business, whoring for the aptly named Super America. Mark Twain once referred to the corporate excesses of the late nineteenth century as the Great Barbecue, so perhaps the Era of Bad Feelings ought to be remembered as the Great Whorehouse. With ‘‘privatization’’ (read corporatization), the new buzzword courtesy of the Counterrevolution, the selling of assets has become a strategy for cash-poor governments everywhere. A Maine newspaper reported that two communities even considered pasting logos on squad cars, turning their officers into uniformed Jeff Gordons. According to the article, ‘‘For just $1, local governments can purchase a new police car, ambulance or even a fire truck through a national program. The only catch—communities have to keep the vehicle for three years, and the cars and trucks themselves will be sporting as many as a dozen corporate logos.’’ With typical Yankee humor the article concluded, ‘‘Aren’t there already enough jokes about cops and doughnut shops out there without sticking a ‘Mr. Jellyroll’ logo on a town’s police cruisers?’’3 When you connect this ridiculousness with budget cuts being imposed on many municipalities because of tax cuts for high rollers, it does not take a conspiracy nut to ask the question as to whether the tax cuts force cities into becoming corporate fiefdoms. ‘‘Hello, sir, I’m Trooper Jones from Nike. Yeah, I know it used to be called Centerville but we needed the money and besides no one really liked the name Centerville much anyway. Isn’t it neater to have a town with a swoosh on everything? Sure makes these badges look sharp. And I don’t have to wear those clunky shoes any more or those itchy uniforms. And you if think these look sharp you should see what the guys on the garbage detail

Media Fairness & 193

get to wear. Why when they pick up those cans up, they say they feel just like Olympic athletes heaving that garbage into the truck. Nike told us they may put the whole town in a commercial and maybe bring Michael, too. Now, that would be something, wouldn’t it, Michael right here in our little town?’’ If you think this scenario fanciful, ask the people in Richland, New Jersey. Situated on Route 40, the town serves as the headquarters for Dalponte Farms, which grows mint for Bacardi rum. Both Bacardi and Richland had mint green on their minds when they cut a deal that would rename Richland ‘‘Mojito’’ in honor of a cocktail being publicized by Bacardi. In exchange, the rum manufacturer offered the township $5,000 for a park gazebo, playground equipment, and a revitalization project for Route 40. The idea of selling your name for a cocktail put a new twist on the old story of selling your soul to the Devil, a twist that undoubtedly has more than a few Hollywood script writers salivating about a plot for the next Bill Murray movie or perhaps a new reality show (Town X takes on Town Y to see who gets a new school). Mayor Chuck Chiarello gave the Mojito affair a benediction worthy of any sell-out, ‘‘We weighed all the facts and looked at it as something good for the farmers, good for recreation and having a very short-lived existence.’’4 This last refers to the fact the renaming took place only for two weeks in May. Perhaps if Bacardi had offered more they could have had a year. A threat that might cut into the future business of municipalities with such plans comes from the use of the computer-generated images that put that SUV on the monolith. The SUV advertiser wants us to think of the power it must have taken to get that truck up there until you realize the truck is not even real (curiously a subgenre of these ads deliberately makes clear the scenes are taking place on someone’s hard drive). This clearly represents a different kind of power than Leo Marx saw in the Erie and Lackawanna painting, whose imagery foretells the era of the railroad robber barons crudely imposing their will on the country. SUV ads and their computergenerated images stand for a power that Shakespeare and Homer respected and that has become a major force in our own times: magic. Anyone who has played with a digital photograph knows the potency lurking in all those bits and bytes—the ability to alter reality to our liking. Taking the red eye out is only the start. With a few mouse clicks, blemishes and wrinkles disappear. A few more clicks can change someone’s eye or hair color; another click and we can put that image on top of a monolith. That SUV in Monument Valley confirms what all of us have feared: The distance between the television screen and audience is disappearing, transforming the tube from glass hearth into an electronic portal through

194 & The Suburban Uprising

which we can commute to another world as surely as walking through a wardrobe into Narnia. There no longer exist separate realities of real and make-believe, heaven and earth that remain clearly delineated in everyone’s mind. Somehow the gods have come down to earth. Mighty Olympus has been reduced to a molehill and Zeus and Athena walk among us while plotting the fates of the cosmos on their cell phones. Hollywood tricks have become the playthings of any teenager with enough megabytes to fashion passable imitations of what the masters at Industrial Light and Magic once claimed as their own. The fate of The Incredible Hulk provides an instructive lesson, as anyone who saw it at a multiplex knows. As you tried to watch the movie, worldly teenagers pointed out the tricks while snickering at the badly edited parts. With doctored photographs becoming the norm, Hollywood stars file lawsuits to prevent their images from being altered on magazine covers or pay the magazine editors to alter the image and keep quiet about it. Flat-chested actresses no longer need silicone, they just need Silicon Graphics (a maker of computer design ware). Brunettes do not need the bottle to become blonde, just a mouse. Why spend days in the gym buffing up and throwing up, when the folks with digital workouts can bulk you up. A picture of Kate Winslet on the cover of GQ was ‘‘highly styled, buffed, trimmed and altered’’ according to the journal’s editor. In a statement that could serve as the motto for this era, he went on to say, ‘‘Almost no picture that appears in GQ . . . has not been digitally altered in some way.’’5 A quick trip on the Internet produces a catalog of ads, television programs, and movies where nothing is what it seems. The scary part comes not from Hollywood but from what we used to think of as ‘‘reality’’—news and documentary programs. The alteration of news photographs has become such a ubiquitous practice that the National Press Photographers Association felt compelled to publish a statement about it. Referring to a picture of former Texas governor Ann Richards sitting astride a Harley-Davidson motorcycle that appeared on the cover of Texas Monthly, the association pointed out that the only real part of Richards in the photo was her head. The magazine tried to claim a small caption took them off the hook, but the association noted. ‘‘No amount of captioning can forgive a visual lie. In the context of news, if a photo looks real, it better be real. This photo looked real but it was a fake. We have an obligation to history to leave behind us a collection of real photographs.’’6 Such rules may apply to photographers who work for legitimate publications, but what about everybody else? Websites showcase truly amazing legitimate works by digital artists, but unfortunately ten times as many porn

Media Fairness & 195

sites feature pictures purporting to be some Hollywood star in various states of undress or doing acts only possible in a digital world. Carl Sanchez of the Amateur WebMaster Association says ‘‘In a survey we conducted, webmasters and graphic designers ranked putting Bush’s head on a different body #1 on a list of favorite design activities.’’7 The list of culprits caught in this manipulation would make for another book. An article by Jack Karp notes the following: O. J. Simpson’s face was blackened by Time in a mug shot that appeared on the cover, the University of Idaho and the University of Wisconsin digitally manipulated publicity photographs, CBS superimposed its own logo over an NBC logo appearing on a Times Square billboard during a New Year’s Eve broadcast.8 The United States, believing Saddam Hussein had altered his appearance, admitted issuing altered pictures of the Iraqi dictator to help those who were trying to track him down.9 An even more frightening example comes from the great murderer, Osama bin Laden, whose infrequent appearances on Al Jazeera have the world wondering if he really lives or is merely the product of some clever video editing. The thought that the United States has spent millions of dollars trying to capture an image that may be about as real as Yoda may earn al-Qaeda an Academy Award. Perhaps the most famous digitally altered photograph appeared on the Internet showing a man standing on the observation deck of the World Trade Center as one of those fateful airliners made its murderous approach. A digital Where’s Waldo, the same gentleman has popped up on altered photographs of the Hindenberg explosion, the Titanic, and a host of other famous modern disasters.10 Another series of widely circulated pictures purportedly captured the space shuttle Columbia exploding in space. These fakes and others can be found at snopes.com.11 The Matrix and The Lord of the Rings films brilliantly captured this world, their phenomenal success showing that not only does everyone get it, they have a great deal of fear about it. The magic ring, which makes you invisible, the awesome feats of wizards with crooked staffs and crystal globes, the perverse creatures they summon at the mere wave of a hand, take our world back to the dawn of history, when humans sat in the dark huddled around uncertain fires, dreaming nightmares about the phantom shapes that circulated just beyond the fringes of flickering light. Plato’s cave, where people mistake shadows for reality, has mutated like one of the Dark Lord’s creatures. The loser becomes democracy, which cannot hope to survive long if our information sources become suspect. The inevitable result only further isolates people in their cocoons, as we retreat to the safety of places we know and trust.

196 & The Suburban Uprising

Liberal America stands to lose a great deal from this. It is not out of line to expect those media voices of the Raucous Right, who play havoc with the truth, to embrace the world of digital images and begin to bend them to their own purposes. Protected by a Supreme Court that appears to value corporate freedom above individual freedom and the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, digital trickery could take the vitriol to a new level. Imagine innuendoes of Hillary and Bill featuring images purporting to show the actual transgressions. Imagine the political possibilities that could come from coupling manipulation with clustering. The last presidential election featured a glaring example of political media manipulation—an altered photograph supposedly showing John Kerry standing next to Jane Fonda at an anti–Vietnam War rally. The fake attracted so much attention that Ken Light, one of the photographers whose photos were stolen to make the image, felt compelled to write an editorial condemning the act. He said the digital trickery, ‘‘tells us more about the troublesome combination of Photoshop and the Internet than it does about the prospective Democratic candidate for president.’’ Then he added, ‘‘Who could have predicted that my Ethical Problems in Photography presentation would be showing young journalists how National Geographic moved one of the Egyptian pyramids to make it fit on a cover better, or the way colleges seeking a more diverse image edit African American faces into sports crowds that look too white?’’ The fingerprints of the Counterrevolution were all over that altered photograph, which Light pointed out was circulated by ‘‘conservative groups’’ on the Internet.12 A second, even more frightening example concerns former Corporation for Public Broadcasting chairman Ken Tomlinson’s attempts to politicize the Public Broadcasting System. In an argument that sounds suspiciously like Roger Ailes’s defense of Fox’s political bias, Tomlinson announced that PBS needed to counter the what he called the ‘‘liberal’’ leanings of Bill Moyer’s Now. The exchange between Tomlinson and Moyers tells us a great deal about the Era of Bad Feelings. In a widely circulated address, Moyers asserted his program was being tarred as ‘‘biased’’ because it raised uncomfortable questions. ‘‘What some on [the PBS] board are now doing today, led by its chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, is too important, too disturbing, and yes, even dangerous for a gathering like this not to address it,’’ Moyers told the National Conference on Media Reform. ‘‘We’re seeing unfold a contemporary example of the age old ambition of power and ideology to squelch—to punish the journalists who tell the stories that make princes and priests uncomfortable.’’13 In other words, if you do not like what someone says, call them a ‘‘liberal.’’ In November 2005, an investigation by Corporation for

Media Fairness & 197

Public Broadcasting Inspector General Kenneth Konz found that Tomlinson, who by then had resigned from CPB, violated statutory provisions for directly negotiating with the programmers for the right-leaning political program he commissioned as an alternative for Moyers and used ‘‘political tests’’ to recruit President and CEO Patricia Harrison. Konz’s most troubling finding, though, concerned collusion between Tomlinson and the White House. Investigators said they found email correspondence between Mr. Tomlinson and the White House that while ‘‘cryptic’’ in nature ‘‘gives the appearance that the former chairman was strongly motivated by political considerations in filling the president/C.E.O. position.’’14 Given this level of manipulation, is anything real? We fall back on our basic instincts, our gut feelings and the opinions of those we think we trust, modern Frodos and Sams trying to do the right thing. Meanwhile the Dark Lords of the Raucous Right link diatribes about Hollywood and manipulation by the media with their favorite bugaboo, Liberal America. ‘‘Yes, you are being manipulated,’’ they shout. ‘‘And guess who is doing it to you: those nasty liberals.’’ Hear the talk show hosts rant: they want you to think Saddam never really had any weapons of mass destruction, they want you to forget about Whitewater and Monica, they’re trying to take your hardearned taxes and give them to wooden-headed bureaucrats. In suburbia, where everything can seem an illusion, such pleas have some logic. A typical diatribe appeared in The National Review. ‘‘The fact is everybody knows that Dan Rather is an egomaniacal liberal,’’ wrote Jonah Goldberg. ‘‘Everybody knows that the major news networks lean to the left. Everybody knows that Grape Nuts tastes like kitty litter.’’15 (No apologies to Grape Nuts eaters.) Another example comes from the book Bias by Bernard Goldberg (no relation to Jonah Goldberg), a former CBS news journalist, who provides a long list of examples of why the news is controlled by liberals. Critic Tom Shales views Bernard Goldberg as an equivalent to the woman who wrote the book about ‘‘liberals’’ committing treason, noting, ‘‘Goldberg’s specialty is conjuring vast, sweeping generalizations that fit in with his own very obvious bias and are based on the tiniest of specifics rather than well-researched evidence.’’16 As has already been said, this book is not about who is manipulating the media, but the larger issues it raises. If those who work in the media are liberally biased one would assume that the White House would be against the FCC decision allowing more media concentration, since that gives liberals even more power. The real concern is if The Matrix is right, what power do we have against these shadowy forces? If they can put an SUV on top of a monolith what can they do with me? Fannie Lou Hamer’s Mississippi knew

198 & The Suburban Uprising

just how this strategy operates—fear coupled with power becomes a mighty weapon that only the angry or the desperate will dare take on. That the media have failed to police themselves has become almost a cliche´. Outside of the Newspaper Photographer’s Association statement, neither the television networks nor the working press have constructed a policy to deal with the problem of digital manipulation. Everyone seems to look the other way, including our legislators. At this date I know of no attempt by anyone in Congress to propose legislation that would address media truthfulness. Media trickery that puts SUVs on Monument Valley monoliths and alters political photographs means Americans view reality through a distorted lens. How distorted our view has become was revealed after the 2004 election by USA Today, which detailed the arrangement between the Bush administration with African American commentator Armstrong Williams ‘‘to regularly comment on NCLB [No Child Left Behind] during the course of his broadcasts,’’ and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.17 After USA Today reported about Williams, rats seemed to literally explode from the dark corners of the room in the form of revelations of media connivance. As they scurried for cover, they illustrated how the lines between news, entertainment, advertising, and editorializing have become so blurred that only a seasoned critic can even begin to sort them out. During the 2004 election, for example, the Alliance for Better Campaigns reported that candidates, parties, and independent groups spent ‘‘more than $1.6 billion (emphasis added) on the November election, double the amount spent in 2000.’’18 The almost two million spots in the nation’s top 100 markets (calculated at the standard thirty-second time slot for ads) meant that viewers in these areas absorbed a staggering 677 days of political commercials. Viewers in Tampa endured over 47,000 ads, the most of any market area. Local Philadelphia station WPVE pulled in $23.8 million in political advertising dollars.19 This same distortion became even more pronounced in local campaign coverage. A study by the Lear Center found that in House races six times more hours of ads ran for these candidates than news stories about them. In Denver, which featured a highly competitive U.S. Senate race, 88 percent of news reports contained no stories about the contest.20 In his opening remarks at a press conference announcing the findings, Lear Center Director Martin Kaplan stated, ‘‘Coverage of local politics on local news is an endangered species.’’21 In other words the main purveyors of the knowledge we need to understand Social Security reform or Middle East policy are becoming the same people who sell us soap flakes. We may find ourselves

Media Fairness & 199

deciding the most important issues facing our nation the same way we choose which shampoo to use and with less understanding. Along with challenges to voting rights and our growing economic inequality, the commercialization of elections coupled with growing media concentration and politicization has reached a point of no return, where the public can no longer sort out what is real from what is merely another cynical attempt to manipulate them. In this world it becomes easy for people to dismiss all sources or trust only those that share their prejudices. Economic justice can become an illusion, educational equity becomes useless except for those knowledgeable about the magician’s tricks, and voting freedom becomes as valid as throwing darts at a ballot. Figuring out whether the playing field is level becomes the equivalent of floating weightlessly in space where up and down, left and right, lose meaning. A second dimension of those SUV ads raises more complex issues. If, as Leo Marx suggests, such documents help us to understand how people view the balance between nature and civilization, then the ads signal a shift in our national consciousness. Nature and its mysteries have traditionally been the sources of magic and spiritual visions. Shamans harnessed those shapes that flickered in the firelight, Moses and Jesus went into the desert, and more recently Thoreau and Muir become secular saints whose sermons celebrated the power of wilderness. In the SUV ads we manipulate nature—whether on a computer screen or in reality does not really matter. The nature of the shaman disappears forever, the magic tamed by SUVs, CPUs, and CPAs. The manipulation of our media environments symbolized by placing an SUV on a monolith parallels a similar attitude about manipulating our natural environment. Where one says we have the tools to create and manipulate any vision from the orcs of Middle Earth to the multiple Mr. Smiths of The Matrix, the other says that we can also do that to the realm of the real. We can control nature just as surely as we can control computer images. The phenomenal achievement of The Lord of the Rings series lies in its ability to literally create an entire world with exacting detail, from its landscapes to every living thing that populates them. In suburban America developers have created equivalents to Middle Earth by bulldozing, blasting, and even dewatering to create totally artificial worlds within what used to be acres of grass and forest. Much of the prevailing interpretation of the suburbs speaks about them as a classic example of our need to live somewhere between nature and civilization. The suburbs, goes the interpretation, lie between city and country, their expansive lawns a symbol of that desire for what Marx termed the ‘‘middle landscape.’’ In actuality, though, the suburbs and SUV ads represent the domination of

200 & The Suburban Uprising

nature. Suburban construction routinely ignores the natural features of the terrain in a way that would cause Frank Lloyd Wright to become apoplectic. Hills flatten, wetlands dry up, streams straighten, ponds fill, and forests disappear with the wave of a transect, all to fulfill some master script, much as in the filming of Hollywood epics, where if something in the ‘‘real’’ world does not fit, it can be matted out with something better. The motivations that put SUVs on monoliths and suburbs in farm fields stem from the same ideology, one which sees nature as something that can be manipulated however the developer wishes. The much-maligned sameness of many developments comes only in part from their architecture. The real sin lies in the bulldozing of unique natural features that might place those houses in some truly distinct setting. Even as they replant the landscape, these developers often forego native trees and shrubs for generic greenery, the way plastic trees populate children’s play sets. This brings up a touchy subject: the role of environmentalism in the liberal canon. Does it belong among the cornerstones, or is it another cause that has nothing to do with Liberal America? Conventional wisdom holds that environmentalism represents a ‘‘liberal’’ belief, that ‘‘liberals’’ favor protecting spotted owls, preserving wilderness, and condemning SUVs. Yet as currently framed, many environmental initiatives have only a tenuous connection with the cornerstones of Liberal America. This understanding explains why the Democratic Party is in trouble. Like the Democrats, the environmental movement has failed to show how their proposals will help to keep the playing field level. For many Democrats, environmentalism represents one of a long list of litmus tests for party candidates such as the one whom I asked what she advocated. ‘‘I’m for the environment and health care and education and jobs, of course,’’ the candidate shot back. Yet the case can be made that environmentalism should be part of any liberal agenda. The most critical case is global warming. Still dismissed by some members of the Raucous Right and the Bush administration, which refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty, the consensus among most researchers is no longer whether average temperatures have increased, but how quickly this is happening and how far-reaching are the effects. The interlocking consequences of global warming threaten to alter our landscape, which in turn will affect activities from agriculture to commercial fishing, influencing economies and the societies that depend on them. Among the many stories missed by the mainstream press lay an ominous report from Alaska detailing how the area once referred to as ‘‘Seward’s Icebox,’’ could become ‘‘Bush’s Hell.’’ According to a story by Seth Borenstein in The Anchorage Daily News, ‘‘Glaciers are receding. Permafrost is

Media Fairness & 201

thawing. Roads are collapsing. Trees are dying. Villages are being forced to move, and animals are being forced to seek new habitats.’’22 Just ask tourists at the $8 million Begich-Boggs visitor center built in 1986 to showcase Alaska’s most popular tourist attraction, the Portage Glacier. Located about an hour from Anchorage, the center has become a monument to global warming, since the glacier has receded so far that it can no longer be seen easily from the center. Scientists calculate that about 98 percent of Alaska’s glaciers are receding or stagnant, adding 13.2 trillion gallons of melted water to the seas each year and causing worldwide concern in coastal communities about rising water levels and a warming of the oceans that could dramatically change the world’s climate since the oceans serve as our planet’s thermostat.23 Glacial melting is not the only apocalyptic sign of global warming in Alaska. The melting of the permafrost has caused native villages that had been located in the same place for generations to ponder whether they need to move because severe erosion caused by melting permafrost makes them vulnerable to storms blowing off rising oceans. The warming has also reduced the use of ice roads that service North Slope oil rigs from 200 days a year in 1970 to 103 days in 2002, according to Alaska state documents. The most visible result of global warming in Alaska can actually be seen from space: the death of more than four million acres of the spruce trees that many regard as a symbol for the state and for wilderness. Glenn Juday, a professor of forest ecology at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, says ‘‘It’s the largest episode of insect-caused tree mortality ever recorded in North America.’’24 The devastation stems from the revitalized spruce-bark beetle, whose numbers traditionally remained low because of Alaska’s notorious winters. If Alaska does become Bush’s Hell, the consequences for the average American will be to tilt an already tilted playing field. Take one potential consequence: the food supply. In America alone, the Great Plains may earn back their nineteenth-century epithet as the Great American Desert. Thousands of families could abandon dried-up farms and ranches in an eerie replay of the Great Depression. Meanwhile the huge quantity of food they produce will dry up as surely as the land, sending prices skyrocketing and increasing this country’s importation of foreign products. Those farmers and ranchers who remain will face greater pressures to sell out to large corporations. Small towns will continue to empty, adding thousands to the job market while putting greater pressure on suburban resources. For the average American the bottom line of global warming lies not in some of the natural disasters the media love to contemplate but in a simple fact: life will become more expensive. It may also become less enriching, for

202 & The Suburban Uprising

parks and recreation areas that serve as vacation spots for those of us who do not own condos in Aspen or Carmel could lose their natural beauty. Hunting stands and fishing holes will disappear. The wealthy, on the other hand, will make money from global warming as they always do from scarcities and disasters. Then all of us may face corporate logos pasted on everything. Like the Inness painting of a train steaming across the landscape, the SUV on the monolith represents a symbol of our uneasiness over our times. In the nineteenth century, as Leo Marx points out, people like Thoreau worried about what the machine was doing to the garden. In our own times faced with the SUV on the monolith, people have attacked the symbol but not what lies behind it. We face a more serious environmental crisis that rivals even global warming. Media manipulation and the manipulation of the suburban landscape represent an attempt to remake the American social and intellectual environment. Putting corporate logos on football stadiums, police cars, and in school hallways plus the obliteration of unique environmental communities and the falsification of media images makes individualism, truth, and intellectual freedom as much endangered species as the spotted owl or the snail darter. The landscape we stand to lose becomes not only local ecological communities but the unique trails and spiritual monuments of the human mind. The Counterrevolution with its focus on inequality stands to gain immensely from this, for in a world where nothing is real only raw, naked power triumphs. The unique idea that sparkles with the singularity of a wilderness mountain stream or the insights of a high-flying eagle eye may become as scarce as those natural treasures. How can one know if the playing field remains level if the very perspective has become distorted and the playing field an illusion? From the Southern Strategy through the Reagan years up to the present administration, the GOP succeeded in literally turning the country upside down. It now resembles a political Wonderland where language and meaning have become so twisted that like Alice we ask, ‘‘I wonder if I have been changed in the night?’’ Think how support for something as basic as the progressive income tax has become ‘‘class warfare.’’ And, of course, there is the centerpiece of this linguistic sleight of hand, turning ‘‘liberal’’ into a four-letter word. Meanwhile the Democrats putter with gun safety and CAFTA even as the very political environment on which they stand consists of fragile strips of celluloid and free-roaming pixels governed by some quantum-like imperative that has the party bouncing with the apparent randomness of subatomic particles in a cloud chamber. Politicians have not seriously addressed

Media Fairness & 203

media manipulation any more than they fully recognize what the trial of Martha Stewart or the travails of the Dixie Chicks represent. The world has shifted under the Democrats, sending them into a free fall. They descend without even a scream. Perhaps it should be no surprise that what may be the most divisive issue of our times—the Iraq War—should center on information and media manipulation. American wars over at least the last hundred-plus years have raised issues of manipulation, but Iraq may be unique in that it forms a perfect storm for the Counterrevolution. Maybe that is why it inspires such strong opinions in this Era of Bad Feelings. There is little question the human cost is falling disproportionately on the lower and middle classes and the less educated in terms of both American and Iraqi lives. The issue of human rights has also entered the picture as people ask how far this administration has gone in terms of denying civil liberties. As for voting rights, Iraq is yet another undeclared war that has left the American people without a clear vote on whether we are truly at war or not. The partners in the Counterrevolution also figure in the whys of the war. Allegations of contractors profiteering from their work in Iraq echo similar questions from past wars. Not since the Spanish-American War of 1898, however, has the issue of American imperialism been raised with such forcefulness. Contemporary critics wonder whether we would be in Iraq if that country were not a large oil producer. The support for dispensationalism by GOP leaders such as Tom DeLay outlined in the ‘‘Devil’s Bargains’’ chapter asks to what extent fundamentalist doctrine has influenced Middle East policy. Finally the support for the war by politicized media like Fox and Clear Channel raises an issue we have not faced for some time: Are certain media outlets beating the war drums too loudly? These examples have made the Iraq War a battle of analogies as partisans on both sides trot out Adolf Hitler, Munich, and Lyndon Johnson to lend support to their positions. We will probably never know the degree to which the Iraq War is the result of media manipulation, but the fact that the question is being raised in this time when reality itself no longer seems certain and the current administration already stands convicted of manipulating the media, seems especially troubling. Instead of chasing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, are we chasing our own media tales?

14

Conclusion: Shifting Winds

Elemental. It is an apt description of a simulator’s portrayal of a monster hurricane. The screen opens in pastel blues and greens that recall a peaceful tropical lagoon with sugar sand and the sleep-inducing sound of gently breaking waves. Then the green takes on that ominous, sickly color the sky does before unleashing its furies, a color that, if you have ever seen it standing vulnerably alone in a wilderness, you never forget along with the plummeting air pressure sucking at your guts. A riot of color breaks out— yellows, oranges, violet, pink—echoing the cacophonous sounds, winds, and smells that accompany a storm. Blood red washes over everything so quickly you know no one has time to retreat. It is as if the land has suffered a grievous wound and bleeds uncontrollably.1 During the summer of 2004, while most of us endured campaign ads, more than 250 federal, state, and local officials representing fifty agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the states of Mississippi and Louisiana gathered to watch those changing colors model a hurricane hitting New Orleans. The simulation data told the toll of the storm they named ‘‘Pam.’’ Packing 120-mph winds and dropping twenty inches of rain, Pam destroyed half a million buildings, leaving in its wake 30 million tons of debris and 237 cubic yards of hazardous waste. The human toll ranged from 25,000 to 100,000 deaths. Half the population became trapped in attics, on rooftops and in makeshift refuges.2 As they watched Pam unfold, the participants concluded evacuation would be a major problem since an estimated 100,000 households in the area did not have cars. The survivors would need 1,000 shelters to remain open for months before it might be safe to rebuild.

206 & Conclusion

Search-and-rescue operations would require 800 searchers. One participant asked, ‘‘How many caskets and carcasses are going to be floating through the streets?’’3 As the Pam exercise concluded, Colonel Michael L. Brown of the Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness stated, ‘‘Hurricane planning in Louisiana will continue, over the next 60 days, we will polish the action plans developed during the Hurricane Pam exercise. We have also determined where to focus our efforts in the future.’’4 That summer experts from Louisiana State University, who participated in the Pam exercise, were also advising the media about the potential impact of a Gulf Coast hurricane. National Geographic drew on their knowledge for an October 2004 article with the following scenario, ‘‘Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued.’’5 FX also drew on the researchers’ expertise, which it used for the June 5, 2003, docudrama ‘‘Oil Storm,’’ which had residents congregating in the Superdome. On August 29, 2005, America confronted the real thing as Hurricane Katrina carved a path similar to Pam. ‘‘It’s eerie how close it is,’’ said Madhu Beriwal, president of Innovative Emergency Management Inc., the firm that led the Pam simulation team.6 As Katrina’s devastation unfolded according to Pam’s script, the 250 people who participated in the Pam exercise appeared paralyzed. A San Francisco Chronicle reporter who called FEMA to ask about Pam, noted ‘‘FEMA representatives did not return phone calls for this story.’’7 Juxtapose quotes from FEMA officials after Pam with those after Katrina and you wonder which hurricane was real. At the end of Pam, FEMA regional director Ron Castleman commented, ‘‘We have made great progress in our preparedness efforts. Disaster response teams developed action plans in critical areas such as search and rescue, medical care, sheltering, temporary housing, school restoration and debris management. These plans are essential for quick response to a hurricane but will also help in other emergencies.’’8 When Katrina struck, FEMA head Michael Brown told Larry King, ‘‘Hurricane Katrina caused the same kind of damage that we anticipated. So we planned for it two years ago. Last year, we exercised it. And unfortunately this year, we’re implementing it.’’9 Shortly after the interview, Brown resigned. A sense of things turned upside down appeared common during the early days after Katrina blew otherworldly scenes into our living rooms. As audience and reporters asked similar questions, we sensed something in America had snapped, something a great deal more critical than what snapped after 9/11, for 9/11 was done to us and the failure to respond to Katrina was something we had done to ourselves. There is something in Katrina of the

Conclusion & 207

disaster that hit New Orleans in 1867, when a mob of racists, including some police, massacred a group of whites and African Americans who had gathered to convene a constitutional convention. The riot shocked America, helping to provoke the Reconstruction Acts and the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. For Katrina, the finger pointing will continue long after the official investigations conclude, for the very immediacy of Katrina made us all reporters and investigators. The very nature of our questions suggested we knew this went beyond the bureaucrats who had forgotten Pam, beyond a system that had functioned poorly, into the rarified atmosphere of values. Almost a century ago people in rural American communities like Lincoln, Colorado, found a way to take care of people in need, but in 2005 America could not take care of people begging for help on our television screens. This point received further reinforcement when a few weeks after Katrina, the government evacuated and rescued those threatened by hurricane Rita. In Katrina all the pieces this book has explored came together to create a hellish mirror that reflected the realities of life under the Counterrevolution. The grim conditions we agonized over did not appear overnight. They had festered over the years until like a particularly large and aching infection they burst over the country. Katrina not only leveled houses across the Gulf Coast, it blew away the misperceptions, distortions, and confusion that had been erected around Liberal America, leaving standing in plain sight the four cornerstones—economic justice, voting rights, educational equity, and media fairness. Like the damaged structures left behind by Katrina, we could see that the Era of Bad Feelings had left those cornerstones in a precarious position. As people fanned out across Louisiana and Mississippi to ponder what they could salvage and rebuild, we also need to ask how much of Liberal America we can salvage and rebuild. While Pam exposed incompetent and callous officials who claimed they had no idea of Katrina’s potential force, another forecast made that same summer of 2004 provided the broader understanding needed to place the entire wretched mess in perspective. The task force that submitted it did not compose any meteorological forecasts or serve as disaster relief experts, but it formed a point of view that helps us see how this country could produce scenes like those of Katrina. In a sense the report they issued explains the larger reasons for the disaster and like one of those enhanced satellite weather photographs allows us to perceive how the trends this book has explored come together in a perfect political storm, the likes of which we have not seen for some time. In the words of that report lay an analysis as devastating as Pam and as accurate.

208 & Conclusion

A month before the conclusion of the Pam simulation, a task force of distinguished academic researchers representing the American Political Science Association (APSA), released American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality, a sobering document with ominous conclusions. One statement particularly evoked comments many made about Katrina as well as the fundamental value of Liberal America. In the section ‘‘The Uneven Playing Field,’’ the task force wrote, ‘‘Government is expected to help insure equal opportunity for all, not tilt toward those who already have wealth and power.’’10 As a detailed examination of the health of the level playing field, the APSA report stands as a noteworthy analysis of what the Era of Bad Feelings has cost America. The report’s opening pages read like a doctor’s diagnosis, ‘‘Our country’s ideals of equal citizenship and responsive government may be under growing threat in an era of persistent and rising inequalities. Disparities of income, wealth, and access to opportunity are growing more sharply in the United States than many other nations, and gaps between races and ethnic groups persist. Progress toward realizing American ideals of democracy may have stalled, and in some areas reversed.’’11 In essence the APSA report represents a monitor of the nation’s heart, its statistics and graphs tracing the health of our democracy like a medical chart. An especially compelling graph that resembles a national EKG compares income distribution over the last century in America, Great Britain, and France. It shows that differences in the proportion of income held by the top 1 percent of families stayed remarkably similar in all three countries. In the 1980s the lines diverge until ‘‘by 1988, the share of income held by the very rich was two or three times higher in the United States than in Britain and France.’’ The authors go on to observe in a statement that echoes Katrina’s wake-up call, ‘‘disparities of income are particularly striking when it comes to comparisons across races.’’12 Perhaps that explains why the images from New Orleans hit so hard, for we had become so accustomed to images carefully edited—even altered— that when we actually saw unedited reality staring us in the face it almost became too much. Echoing the speeches of Fannie Lou Hamer and Winona LaDuke, we saw poverty stripped as raw as that scene where the Ghost of Christmas Present pulls back his cloak for Ebeneezer Scrooge to show him two starving children. The Superdome seemed to function like a giant magnet of truth, sucking into one place the poverty that stalked those streets of New Orleans that the tourists did not visit. Had the correspondents had the guts to come to New Orleans—or any other American inner city or failing rural town—earlier, they could have

Conclusion & 209

shot scenes every bit as compelling as those of Katrina. ‘‘Apparently none of these ace reporters has ever set foot in Washington’s Anacostia district, or South Central Los Angeles, or the trailer parks of rural Arkansas,’’ Rosa Brooks wrote in the Los Angeles Times.13 It took Katrina to bring New Orleans’ dismal statistics to people across the world: two-thirds of the city is African American with a median household income of $27,133 and 40 percent of the city’s children live below the poverty level.14 The growing inequality in America is hardly an open secret, but Katrina accomplished what over a decade of articles, books, and statistics cited in previous chapters had seemed unable to accomplish—it put human faces on the Counterrevolution’s lack of economic justice. Howard Kurtz wrote, ‘‘A Sept. 12 Washington Post story was headlined ‘Katrina Pushes Issues of Race and Poverty at Bush.’ An equally apt headline would have been, ‘Katrina Pushes Issues of Race and Poverty at a Media Establishment That Has Largely Ignored Them.’ ’’15 Suddenly the faces of poverty stared from the front page. A crowd of African American women huddle around a slumped figure with a white sheet draped over her shoulder. A woman in a head scarf and striped t-shirt extends a hand in comfort, trying to assure the exhausted and overheated victim all will be OK. Behind her another woman holds her hands to her mouth in a mixture of shock and grief while a man near tears watches with two boys whose faces betray their anxiety and confusion. A second photograph: a large man holding a tiny baby over the shoulder of his football jersey pulls back a blanket to reveal the corpse of an old man as thin as a concentration camp victim slumped in a chaise lounge. Behind him lies the Superdome crowd that became a symbol for this disaster. To the side of the picture a woman walks toward the camera as she shouts at the photographer in frustration. There are no white faces anywhere. A third picture: an African American woman with her dress draped over her shoulder swims through water colored like a stained glass window by oil, dragging an overnight bag and bottles of water. A fourth: a young man with his foot in bandages lies on a cot clutching a bottle of water as vehicles drive by without even acknowledging him. Then we see picture after picture of the crowds. Some huddle on bridges and overpasses that remain above the water, waiting for the rescue that is not coming. Others who have been fortunate to escape lie in makeshift camps that eerily resemble the Hoovervilles of the Great Depression. At times it seems more reporters and celebrities can get into the city than aid workers. Somehow they manage to bring Harry Coniff to the Superdome but they cannot get anyone out. As rescue plans stall somewhere in the

210 & Conclusion

ether, the Superdome becomes a perverse tourist attraction for media photographers who fly over it and drive around it, but take no one out with them. Treated worse than zoo animals the people make their anger known. When George Bush announced he would do something to end the endemic poverty in the areas hit by Katrina, you did not know whether to laugh or cry. Forget the fact that his tax cuts and budget cuts coupled with the South’s notoriously stingy public services helped to sustain this poverty. Instead remember the basic thrust of the Counterrevolution dating back to the alliance with Strom Thurmond. As it systematically undermined Liberal America’s cornerstones, the Counterrevolution put in place substitutes: economic elitism, discriminatory voting, ideological education, and partisan media. Confirmation that Bush’s rhetoric may rank as one of the more cynical remarks made by an American president came not long after the speech when the Counterrevolutionary Congress predictably balked at the price tag, prompting Bush to reassure his allies he would not raise taxes. As America continues to absorb the largest forced migration since the Dust Bowl, some wonder whether it will create a similar economic crisis. As for those physically- and psychologically battered survivors—whom the press kept calling ‘‘refugees’’ as if they came from another country—the Okies wrote what could be their script seventy years ago, wandering aimlessly trying to find work and confronting what Woody Guthrie called ‘‘vigilante men’’ determined to send them away. Yet blaming the Counterrevolution alone seems too simplistic, for the Democrats have played their part. Over the last three decades in some primal act the party had poked out its own eyes and now wanders aimlessly across an increasingly hostile landscape, where the very earth itself has become an uncertainty, and the one infallible tool it needs to navigate through this Hell of its own making—its moral compass—has been carelessly dropped on the ground. Pick the bill of your choice from budget cuts to the Iraq War. The bankruptcy of the Democrats’ ideas lay on full display when Bill Clinton discussed Katrina with CNN’s Larry King and could only suggest maybe we needed to reorganize FEMA. Talk about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Today Democrats reminisce wistfully about the last time they held the reins of power, but 2004 made it clear William Jefferson Clinton locked the party into a strategy of trying to walk down the middle of the road, where to observers it resembles nothing so much as a drunk desperately trying to pass a sobriety test as he wobbles uncertainly between the straight and narrow and the threat of landing unceremoniously on his backside. French writer Bernard-Henri Le´vy, who filed a series of Tocqueville-

Conclusion & 211

like reports with the Atlantic, likened the Democratic Party to a ‘‘black hole,’’ where ‘‘these brilliant pioneers who were supposed to set down the cornerstones for the people’s house of tomorrow had only one idea, one obsession, and, fundamentally, one watchword: how, in four years, to fight the Republicans on the battlefield of fundraising.’’ As a consequence he notes the Democrats are ‘‘in the process of losing [their] footing on the ground of ideas, and thus of losing, period.’’16 Maybe the Democrats were watching during one especially long night on CNN, when Aaron Brown asked, ‘‘Don’t these people vote?’’17 Had Brown read the APSA report, he would have found his answer in statistics demonstrating how the wealthy beneficiaries of the Counterrevolution have placed their weighty thumbs on the scale of democracy, tilting it dramatically. According to the report, 90 percent of the wealthy vote versus only 50 percent of those making less than $15,000. Ninety-five percent of the donors who made substantial political contributions had incomes over $100,000. Three-quarters of the wealthy participate in some kind of political organization versus only 29 percent of the least affluent. Those in the top income brackets ‘‘appear to have had almost three times more influence on their senator’s votes than those near the bottom.’’18 CNN’s 2004 exit poll results suggest that the APSA task force conclusions may be understated. One-third of those who voted had a household income of over $75,000—a figure that gives us all cause to reflect on America’s future. CNN pointed out that only a little over a quarter of those who voted had a high school education or less, while those with postgraduate study accounted for 16 percent of all voters.19 Perhaps the most fascinating finding is that in 2004 the suburbs accounted for almost half the total presidential vote—45 percent.20 The APSA task force detailed this tilt of the playing field as surely as the hurricane simulator portrayed Pam. Echoing the chapter on clustering, members noted that the ability to identify what the APSA calls a ‘‘precise set of voters’’ has produced artificial districts with ‘‘very peculiar boundaries . . . becoming the norm.’’ As a result, ‘‘when ‘class warfare’ proceeds in the cloistered confines of government offices, the rich generally win.’’21 As we have seen, this creates an abundance of safe seats for those who draw maps like the one on Tom Delay’s Texas restaurant napkin. Perhaps Aaron Brown should have checked the Louisiana map. The impact on potential voters can be substantial. The APSA task force observed that between 1960 and 1980 the proportion of people who felt ‘‘the government is run by a few big interests looking out only for themselves’’ has nearly doubled. Evoking a root cause of the Era of Bad Feelings they note this creates a ‘‘negative spiral’’ in which Americans ‘‘become in-

212 & Conclusion

creasingly discouraged about the effectiveness of democratic governance, spreading cynicism and withdrawal from elections and other arenas of public life.’’22 As the less affluent withdraw, the affluent gain more power, putting in place even stronger measures that tilt the playing field until many come to feel democracy has become like a Las Vegas casino where the odds favor the house. As Winona LaDuke observed, America’s largest party is the nonvoters. In Bowling Alone Robert Putnam details that not only has voting dropped but also participation in civic activity. He notes that polls show since 1973 the number of Americans who report that ‘‘in the past year’’ they have ‘‘attended a public meeting on town or school affairs’’ has fallen by more than a third.23 Discouraged citizens took center stage during Katrina. ‘‘It’s a known fact that we have twice as many African Americans registered to vote [as white people], but when it comes down to voting, the white population generally outvotes them,’’ said Louis Keller, Sr., the registrar of voters in Orleans Parish.24 Perhaps one explanation comes from a 2004 voting scandal. While most of the nation focused on voting irregularities in Ohio and other states during the presidential election, New Orleans in the words of Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘‘wins the award for the worst voting situation in the country when it comes from electronic voting machines.’’25 In an eerie presaging of the inability to get aid to Katrina victims, Louisiana officials experienced major problems getting electronic voting machines to New Orleans. That the largely African American New Orleans was the major location in Louisiana facing this problem in the midst of a contentious presidential and senate race should have people rolling their eyes at this replay of 2000. At ten A.M. on Election Day, New Orleans station WWLTV reported a long list of voting problems called in by viewers including, missing voting machines, malfunctioning voting machines, and missing provisional ballots. Voting officials even lacked keys for some machines.26 Based on this incompetence, Katrina should not have surprised anyone. In an interview, Barbara Arnwine, Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law, all but identified the New Orleans voting scandal as a major reason for the election of Republican senator David Vetter. ‘‘No one is talking about what went wrong in New Orleans,’’ she said, ‘‘and how that affected what everyone’s been talking about instead, which is the . . . overwhelming unexpected victory for the . . . Republican senatorial candidate there. I think that has something to do with the fact that New Orleans had most of their polls down for a good part of the day.’’27 Behind all this lay yet another Louisiana scandal, in which two officials of the Sequoia voting machines company,

Conclusion & 213

which supplied the New Orleans machines, were indicted in 1999 for bribing Louisiana elections commissioner Jerry Fowler with $8 million.28 As the Civil Rights Commission investigation into the 2000 Florida vote demonstrated, the South has always found creative ways to discourage African Americans from voting. Louisiana has a few interesting tactics. One revolves around photo IDs. New Orleans ACORN organizer Stephen Bradbury notes, ‘‘The print material that’s made available says you need a photo ID to vote. And it goes on to list a number of things, and the very last thing it says is you can sign an affidavit if you don’t have a photo ID. Most people don’t get down that far in the list; they see the first item and think they can’t vote without one. Some of the commissioners at voting sites will tell people they need to have ID. That is one way to dissuade people from voting.’’ Bradbury also pointed out an even more insidious practice, the socalled ‘‘inactive voters list.’’ When the New Orleans Times-Picayune published the list of 44,000 plus inactive voters in the summer of 2004, many people assumed it meant that if your name appeared on the list, you could not vote. According to Bradbury, ‘‘A significant percentage of people on that list . . . believe they may not vote. Some of them have told us they thought they would be arrested if their names are on that list! These are people who are not even going to try.’’29 Aaron Brown’s question leads us back to Katrina, for the systematic exclusion of New Orleans’ African Americans from the polls not only recalls the Counterrevolution’s previous attempts to discourage voting but also reminds us that people who do not receive the tools to vote may also find themselves deprived of what they need to live. The logical consequences of those missing voting machines turned out to be thousands of people huddled around the Superdome. The APSA task force identified one reason why they came. In a section titled ‘‘Congress Favors the Organized,’’ the APSA report observes that congressional pork now feeds relatively narrow factions: ‘‘Members of Congress have directed government funds coming into their districts to specific geographic areas that vote at higher rates and provide their greatest support.’’30 Inundated by scenes such as those at the Superdome, the media’s response ranks among the most hard-hitting this country has seen in a long time. On the Friday after Katrina struck, CNN’s Aaron Brown settled in to his usual post for special coverage of the disaster. At some point during that evening as he took what amounted to a trip through the beleaguered city, Brown symbolically threw away his script and began to show visible shock and anger. Viewing one particularly horrific scene he said, ‘‘Time after time in all of this you see moments that take your breath away. You keep thinking there

214 & Conclusion

must be some explanation, but I can’t imagine what it is.’’ During another segment he interviewed an obviously drained reporter who looked as though he had not shaved in several days. Standing in front of a public hospital, the reporter related how the nearby private Tulane Medical Center had been evacuated earlier, but the public facility still had hundreds of patients and no one had come to their rescue. The obvious contrast moved Brown to remark, ‘‘You do get the opinion that poor people get shafted.’’ Later that week workers would find the bodies of forty patients who didn’t make it. As the evening wound on with image after image of despair, Brown expressed frustration with the entire rescue effort, ‘‘You have to wonder what planet are you people on?’’31 Brown was not alone. The networks and their anchors asked similar questions, all of them unintended variations on Fannie Lou Hamer’s, ‘‘Is this America?’’ New Orleans was compared to a third world country. The rescue response was contrasted with that of 9/11 and the Asian tsunami. Reporters who had maintained stiff neutrality about the deteriorating Iraq War wondered whether the deployment of Louisiana National Guard troops half way around the world had hampered rescue efforts. Most of all, some used the ‘‘R’’ word—racism—to refer to the treatment of those imprisoned in the Superdome. Newsweek’s cover story said it all, ‘‘A National Shame.’’ In contrast, the voices of the Raucous Right seemed to literally come unhinged when confronted with images their pinched view of reality seemed unable to accommodate. Fox’s Bill O’Reilly resembled one of those people in a leaky boat using makeshift boards to paddle. The best he could do was to literally bring William Graham Sumner back from the dusty, moldy shelf where most people consigned him a century ago. Interviewing Newt Gingrich on September 7, O’Reilly editorialized, ‘‘I don’t think the government is equipped in any way, shape or form to solve anybody’s problems and to get them out of harm’s way at all. Some things government does well. Military. Our military’s the best in the world. Our capitalistic system provides opportunity for many more people than anywhere else in the world. But the government cannot help you personally.’’32 The Counterrevolution has always wanted to turn back the clock, but O’Reilly wanted to turn it back to the Middle Ages. What would the millions of Americans who have been helped by government dating back to Big Meadow and those Colorado counties make of such a remark? Even Herbert Hoover favored government aid during the Great Depression. Commenting on Katrina’s aftermath, Rush Limbaugh blamed the devastation on ‘‘the welfare and entitlement thinking of government.’’ According to Limbaugh, ‘‘What do you expect when you have a welfare state mentality as

Conclusion & 215

your city government? I mean, I’m not even being critical. I’m just trying to point out something obvious here! That—talking about this for 18 years, folks—socialism versus capitalism; entrepreneurialism and self-reliance versus the entitlement mentality—so much on display here. That’s what nobody’s got the guts to say.’’33 In another diatribe he began spouting opinions Theodore Bilbo would have smiled at. ‘‘The non-black population was just as devastated, but apparently they were able to get out, and the black population wasn’t able to get out. Maybe New Orleans has a half decent mass transit and some of these people don’t need cars.’’34 These diatribes resembled the ending of Inherit the Wind where William Jennings Bryan literally comes unglued and even his supporters can only turn away in embarrassment. This brings us to the most disturbing and controversial aspect of Katrina— the reports of lawlessness that had reporters intimating the city had gone mad. Rumors ran rampant about the depredations of gangs who prayed on the helpless, shooting people to steal boats and food and at night looting, killing, and raping those imprisoned inside the Superdome and Convention Center. The real story emerging seems to be that it was not so much gangs that went wild as reporters. New York Times reporter David Carr tracked down some of the sensationalistic reports and found that as of September 19, the coroner reported seventeen dead at both the Superdome and the Convention Center, most from natural causes. Captain Jeffery Winn, the head of the city’s SWAT team, stated one person at the convention center died from multiple stab wounds and one National Guardsman was shot in the leg. The head of the city’s sex crimes unit had reports of two attempted rapes at the Superdome, although Carr notes rape is notoriously underreported. Carr concludes, ‘‘Many of the urban legends that sprang up—the systematic rape of children, the slitting of a 7-year-old’s throat—so far seem to be just that.’’35 Los Angeles Times reporters Susannah Rosenblatt and James Rainey confirmed Carr’s story, adding additional information. National Guard spokesman Major Ed Bush observed that the Superdome ‘‘just morphed into this mythical place where the most unthinkable deeds were being done.’’ New Orlean Times-Picayune editor Jim Amoss saw something more insidious at work, ‘‘If the dome and Convention Center had harbored large numbers of middle class white people,’’ Amoss said, ‘‘it would not have been a fertile ground for this kind of rumor-mongering.’’ Rosenblatt and Rainey also confirmed Carr’s death reports, noting that Bob Johannessen, spokesman for the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, stated that of the 841 recorded hurricane-related deaths in Louisiana, four were identified as gunshot victims.36

216 & Conclusion

The story behind the story should give us all pause as we recall the fears of media manipulation raised in earlier chapters. In New Orleans the unreal became real. Carr’s investigation notes that on September 1, coverage dramatically changed, tracing this shift in tone squarely back to Fox News. According to Carr, ‘‘The Fox News anchor, John Gibson, helped set the scene: ‘All kinds of reports of looting, fires and violence. Thugs shooting at rescue crews. Thousands of police and National Guard troops are on the scene trying to get the situation under control. Thousands more on the way. So heads up, looters.’ ’’ In a conversation with a Fox reporter on the scene, Gibson admitted, ‘‘We have yet to confirm a lot of that.’’37 Later that evening MSNBC followed Gibson’s lead and after that rumors mushroomed. Rosenblatt and Rainey also note Fox was the first to lead with what they termed ‘‘hyperbolic reporting.’’38 To be fair to Fox they were not the only media outlet doing this kind of reporting. In fact New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin helped to fan the fires by painting a few hyperbolic scenarios in various interviews. This raises an interesting question: Did the hurricane wipe out media fairness along with all those buildings? Curiously one place the media did not venture during and shortly after Katrina was into New Orleans’ public schools, for like their usual coverage of public events, New Orleans hurricane coverage said little about education. Perhaps the answer to this curious omission lay in the sorry state of the city’s public schools, which in a large sense had already endured the equivalent of Katrina before the real storm. Although someone has yet to undertake it, New Orleans represents a classic case study of what could happen if the nation embarks on a program to privatize education. New Orleans schools are divided between the largely minority public schools and the largely white private schools. The duality of this system represents yet another unnerving parallel with Katrina since we know those who got out before the levies broke were largely white and affluent and those left behind black and poor. It also provides testimony to the success of the Southern Strategy, which essentially allowed the South to circumvent Brown v. Board. In justification for providing federal aid for private schools after Katrina, the federal Department of Education noted, ‘‘These significantly impacted Louisiana communities averaged 32% of students attending private K–12 schools—much higher than the 11% national average of private school students.’’39 According to reports, tuition in these schools ranges from $4,000 to $10,000 per year, amounts hardly within the reach of those at or below the poverty level.40 In New Orleans, the number of private schools and the hefty tuition has apparently created a tidy business for banks and others making loans with rates as high as 10 percent to parents. Maybe

Conclusion & 217

that’s why they call the city the ‘‘Big Easy.’’ While the area is heavily Catholic, given the South’s history of ‘‘white flight’’ to private schools it does not take much imagination to picture the student bodies of these private schools. Actually the data for them, like much else, can be found on the Internet. It shows a curious duality, for a few private schools are almost 100 percent African American while the majority are from 70 percent to 93 percent white with figures around 80 percent not unusual.41 Although the data do not show this, it is probably a good bet these schools do not include many students with learning problems, disabilities, or other issues. By virtue of their ability to choose students, private schools can bleed the public system of high-achieving children. With a significant number of students in private schools, support for the public system erodes. Shortly before Katrina hit, a press release announced that after years of scandals and corruption (which earlier that year had the district declaring bankruptcy), state and federal authorities had pressured the school board to put the district under the control of Alvarez and Marsal (A&M), a firm specializing in reviving failing businesses. A&M noted that the district did not even know how many employees it had.42 If New Orleans’ schools are failing financially they also are failing academically. Only one high school in the entire city earned a five-star rating in Louisiana’s report card system—and almost 60 percent of the students in that school are white! An astounding 47 percent of the schools are classed as ‘‘Academically Unacceptable.’’43 According to Louisiana Department of Education data, dropout rates range as high as 28.4 percent at Clark High School and 25.1 percent at Booker T. Washington. Attendance in some schools is as low as 78 percent at Cohen High, 71.4 percent at Frederick Douglass High, and 62.1 percent at Augustine Middle School.44 Only 32 percent of the district’s teachers have a master’s degree or better. The poverty levels of students in New Orleans schools is indicated by the fact that 51,271 of 67,922 students are on free/reduced lunch.45 The administration’s decision to award Katrina funds to private schools represents—as far as I know—the first time the federal government has directly aided religious schools. Challenging this administration’s decision will prove difficult, since anyone who raises questions will be accused of ‘‘insensitivity.’’ Most insidiously the decision institutionalizes New Orleans’ dual system and, of course, bleeds much-needed funds away from the alreadystarving public system. Katrina may have provided the Counterrevolution with the opportunity it has long sought—a chance to turn public schools into private ones. It also stands as a monument to Strom Thurmond, institutionalizing the dual race system in the South. Maybe they should name the bill

218 & Conclusion

after him. The interesting question becomes how long public dollars will flow to those private academies. The most frightening part of Katrina is that one partner in the Counterrevolution had an entirely different view of the devastation than most of us. As any reader of the Left Behind series knows, plagues and pestilence are prominent features of the Last Days. They do not mark the failure of a system or a tilting of the playing field or even an inexplicable disaster, but instead signal that time when true believers shall be saved while the rest of us will be consigned to eternal damnation. In Katrina’s wake some fundamentalists proclaimed that the storm represented God’s punishment. Hal Lindsey, who has written about Bible prophecy, stated, ‘‘It seems clear that the prophetic times I have been expecting for decades have finally arrived. And even worse, it appears that the judgment of America has begun.’’ Charles Colson commented, ‘‘ ‘Did God have anything to do with Katrina?,’ people ask. My answer is, he allowed it and perhaps he allowed it to get our attention so that we don’t delude ourselves into thinking that all we have to do is put things back the way they were and life will be normal again.’’46 Had those helicopters swooping over New Orleans been hovering over the rest of the nation, they might have been able to show how this local perspective comprised part of a larger canvas. The continued assault on voting fairness, the increasing distortions of the media, the disconcerting increase in economic inequality and the assault on public education add up to the tilted playing field the APSA report warns is damaging our democracy. Take a mental level and lay it on democracy’s foundation to see how far the bubble marking the level of the playing field moves off center. Then ponder the consequences. The interesting thing about a tilted playing field is that it constantly drums an incessant ‘‘why’’ into everyone on its slippery slopes. Katrina’s death toll has seared itself into our memories, but we still face the spiritual death occurring as the playing field continues to tilt. The Raucous Right that has so deftly inflamed the Era of Bad Feelings likes to think the anger expressed in acts of symbolic road rage represents a vote of confidence in their agenda. But even they must know they are riding a tiger and everyone knows tigers do not like to be ridden. Ultimately, behind everything from the Era of Bad Feelings to Katrina lie two contrasting views of human nature dueling for this nation’s future. On one side lies the belief forcefully propounded by religious fundamentalists that human beings are by nature sinful creatures without grace who will wallow in degradation, perversity, and depravity. This view is also not unfamiliar to closet Dixiecrats who believe in the inequality of races and

Conclusion & 219

corporate fundamentalists who view consumers as weak-minded addicts with fixations on everything from lipstick to plasma television sets. This nation faces nothing less than an iron curtain of dogma that threatens to implacably divide us into the equivalent of the Cavaliers and Roundheads who spread blood across the soil of England. The stakes in this civil war have become nothing less than the fate of succeeding generations, for if the playing field tilts too far it will become extremely difficult to level it without drastic action or a replay of the Great Depression. The most disturbing aspect of the rhetoric of the Raucous Right lies in a thinly veiled contempt for not only their ideological opposites, but also for all Americans. A telling portrait in the April 2005 Atlantic caught right-wing broadcaster John Ziegler in a rare moment of candor. His words appear at length because they reveal the true feelings these purveyors of venom hold for the rest of us: The vast majority of people are much, much dumber than you have ever been led to believe. Never forget this. And just like people are far dumber than you have been led to believe, they are also far more dishonest than anyone is seemingly willing to admit to you. Do not trust anyone unless you have some sort of significant leverage over him or her and they know that you have that leverage over them.47

From the premise that people with opposing beliefs are not worthy of respect it is easy to conclude that one can do whatever they want with those they hold in contempt, the way a certain political movement used to deal with people who wore stars on their chests. As Tom DeLay noted, sometimes sinners need the sword to keep them in line. In contrast to this vision stands the core belief of Liberal America that people will do the right thing if only given help to overcome the occasional bad luck that befalls them, education to cope with those who would take advantage of them, information that is predicated on fairness, and the right to cast their vote and have it fairly counted. Democracy is, by nature, a liberal institution, for it is founded on the notion that the collective wisdom of the people serves as a force for good. The level playing field depends on this view. If you believe people are by nature good then you believe they should all have an equal chance. For all of us pondering Katrina, the question of our future reverberates. Evidence suggests we neither yearn for a laundry list of programs, nor do we support a tilt of the playing field. Instead Americans deserve a simple and forceful affirmation of economic justice, media fairness, educational equity,

220 & Conclusion

and the right to vote. This country needs leaders who will judge each bill and program with those fundamental values. This is true for both parties. The Democrats have squandered the trust of Liberal America, becoming a party that seemingly stands for nothing. The Republican Party has been hijacked by the Counterrevolution. Many Republicans I know still hold what I would term ‘‘true Conservative values,’’ but find themselves confused, even angry at losing their party to Strom Thurmond, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Tom DeLay, and the likes of Enron. Business owners and corporate CEOs are frankly embarrassed by the selfishness of the Counterrevolution. These traditional Republicans worry that the agenda of Christian and corporate fundamentalists has become the agenda of their party. Despite the clouds looming overhead, there remain signs of a more humane and optimistic America. The prodigious energy spent by customers of Home Depot and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia and the insatiable appetite for the nostalgia of the ‘‘greatest generation’’ suggests that Americans feel frustrated because they long for a larger purpose for their lives. People want to make a difference, and, while psychologists may not agree, it is a fundamental human characteristic to want to make a difference for the common good. Why else do we resonate with incredible stories of ordinary people doing extraordinary things? In the end the final irony may be on us, for the Era of Bad Feelings may ultimately be about good feelings, about cries for meaning and community at a time that seems to have discarded them like worn clothing. America has stood at this place before, so if history serves as any guide, sooner or later the frustration will turn in a positive direction. Throughout American history political parties and movements have rallied people around the idea of the level playing field—so if the present political parties no longer stand for this value, another group will. Working on your bathroom seems a poor substitute for working for the community; making place mats appears a poor alternative for working with your neighbors. In the aftermath of Katrina some will treat it as an isolated natural disaster made worse by bureaucratic bungling. First Lady Laura Bush offered an explanation that could stand as the motto for two decades of Counterrevolutionary government bashing. She told reporters during a visit to a New Orleans school ‘‘Well, I know that’s it’s very, very slow. And of course, that’s how government always is.’’48 The First Lady’s remarks reveal that the failed response to Katrina is the result of two decades of leadership from a party that has denigrated government. To paraphrase an old saying, we get the government they think we deserve.

Conclusion & 221

What Mrs. Bush did not acknowledge was that over the last decade or so the equivalent of Katrina has pummeled the United States. This disaster has packed Counterrevolutionary winds that have radically altered income distribution in this country, blasting away the jobs and the hard-earned wages of millions of Americans. As surely as Katrina blew away homes and businesses, this Counterrevolutionary storm has also cost us an unnerving number of homes lost to foreclosure and the closing of millions of family businesses that have lost out to national chains. This disaster also packs a storm surge that has inundated our public schools with unfunded mandates and increasing debt, drowning administrators and teachers in paperwork and befouling public schools with religious orthodoxy. Along with these have come torrents that threaten to wash away one of the most important Liberal American cornerstones—voting rights. Finally we view tangled piles of debris generated by an increasingly politicized media and a decreasing certainty that what we see and hear is real. In a way the equivalent of many New Orleans already exist, their damages just as real and devastating. New Orleans is not the only city to face economic injustice, voting irregularities, deteriorating schools, and media manipulation. You need only drive through certain sections of our nation’s largest cities or through dying rural towns and Native American reservations to see sights reminiscent of Katrina. The big question plaguing America is whether this very real Counterrevolutionary hurricane will spur the same bureaucratic bungling and indifference that accompanied Katrina. Will Katrina provide yet another example of the already heavy thumb the Counterrevolution presses on the scales of economic justice or will the Counterrevolution give way to a ‘‘new birth of freedom,’’ as Lincoln said at Gettysburg? Americans have been hearing Republican propaganda for so long that castigates the New Deal, that you begin to wonder yourself if maybe the New Deal was an aberration. But more crucially is what these statements say about the American people. Is it true people really do not want to use government to help one another, that in fact Sumner and O’Reilly are right? Is it survival of the fittest? The response of the American people to Katrina provided testimony to the nation’s moral strength as great as anything since the Great Depression. The amount of aid collected for Katrina now stands as one of the most massive voluntary contributions to a disaster in American history. The outpouring of generosity continues to be staggering, suggesting what is truly possible in America. All of us have our personal favorites among the thousands of examples of ordinary people doing extraordinary things to

222 & Conclusion

help Katrina’s victims. For me a touching photo symbolized it all. It showed a small black child guiding the wheelchair of an elderly white woman. Their hands touched one another in a way that said legions about the American people. So as the experts pondered the damage to Liberal America’s cornerstones, the American people spoke for a need to not only retain but also shore up those cornerstones. You wonder how this could invigorate a country if only our leaders truly understood it. The synopsis of the FX movie featuring a New Orleans hurricane ends, ‘‘Something nobler comes to pass. We are now amid a great shift into the future, a future filled with renewed purpose and renewed exploration of all means at our disposal for survival in a world that is not the world of our parents, but the world of our children.’’49 New Orleans could provide a perfect laboratory to test whether the ideals of Liberal America can rebuild a city. Harry Hopkins would know what to do. The man who put half a million people back to work in a single day would create another alphabet soup of agencies to raise New Orleans out of the muck. Local residents could sign up for jobs to clean up debris left by Katrina, others could begin working to put the city’s infrastructure back on line. Finally an urban corps could start constructing replacement homes and businesses. In exchange for this needed public work, residents could receive food, shelter, and vouchers they could use to reconstruct their homes, Habitat-forHumanity style in the largest barn-raising ever held in America. Others could sign up for a health corps and a teacher corps to help restaff hospitals and schools in exchange for a promise to stay there for four years. Perhaps Congress will give us another Halliburton boondoggle, but that will not kill the idea. In the end shifting winds blew over the wreckage left behind by Katrina and the Counterrevolution, winds that promised hope. Hope represents the cement that holds those four cornerstones together. In the end it really is quite simple—a level playing field promises a better life for all. For, as Fannie Lou Hamer, Martha Stewart, Winona LaDuke, and Sammy Sosa testify, you never know where or when a great talent will arise. In his book The Conscience of a Liberal, the late Paul Wellstone wrote, ‘‘Politics is not about left, right and center. It is about speaking to the concerns and circumstances of people’s lives. People yearn for a politics that speaks to and includes them.’’50 To quote Winona LaDuke, ‘‘We are all ultimately interconnected.’’51 As these people testify, the story of Liberal America is not one of pessimism but optimism. From the Dover, Pennsylvania, voters who rejected turning their schools into religious academies to the thousands who mobilized for the Magical Mystery Tour, Americans have shown that when the cornerstones

Conclusion & 223

are at stake and the issues clearly drawn, they will reject the Counterrevolution’s arguments. Perhaps Katrina did send a message, one that said the Era of Bad Feelings was ending. The story of those stormy days tells us that if we lose faith in the values of Liberal America we lose faith in ourselves, our institutions, and our country. If Liberal America dies, something vital dies with it.

Afterword On April 5, 2006, the day Tom DeLay’s decision not to run again made the coveted central, above-the-fold position on the front page of the New York Times, the general tone of the coverage seemed to celebrate the slaying of an ogre, ending the Era of Bad Feelings. In this age of hyper-history, few recalled that similar sentiments were voiced when Newt Gingrich fell on his sword. Borrowing from an old script, the pundits predicted the end of enmity, forgetting that the bad feelings have been driven by a movement, not a former Texas bug spray entrepreneur. That the Counterrevolution still lived could be seen in other stories appearing in the Times’ front section that day, stories that provided ample evidence that the Hammer’s departure did not signal an end to the ongoing assault on Liberal America’s four cornerstones. Several stories concerned social and economic justice. Below the fold, a front page article announced what most of us suspected: Bush’s latest tax cut on investments heavily favored the wealthy, reducing taxes on those who made over $10 million by an average of $500,000. Buried inside were stories about continuing Congressional wrangling over immigration policy and attempts by both the GOP and the Democrats to spin what was termed an ‘‘altercation’’ between a Capitol police officer and Georgia representative Cynthia McKinney, who is African American. The Times’ education page highlighted a new debate over public and private schools and yet another problem caused by No Child Left Behind. As for media fairness, the question of the day seemed to be the future employment of Katie Couric as the next network news reader. Maureen Dowd, whose radar seems particularly attuned to media imagery, wrote about the bizarre coverage of the Middle East journey made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign secretary Jack Straw, coverage about who slept where and said what that evoked the media circus surrounding Martha Stewart’s trial and the Dixie Chicks’ criticism of President Bush. There was also more about the tangled media reality that is the war in Iraq. As for voting rights, this cornerstone kept its usual low profile, appearing only in references to DeLay’s infamous redistricting.

224 & Conclusion

Meanwhile, few paid much attention to the forces allayed against the cornerstones, choosing to concentrate on DeLay’s lobbying and financial troubles while ignoring his support for the Religious Right. The aftermath of Katrina continued to fester as residents of a gated New Orleans neighborhood killed plans for nearby trailer housing a` la the Woody Guthrie Depression-era ‘‘vigilante men.’’ Oh yes, there was still the Enron case. Yet there was a sense that DeLay’s departure did provide an indication of how fed up people were with the Era of Bad Feelings and all the shady activities that characterized it. What remained was the need to come to grips with what DeLay had personified, with the people who saw him as the ‘‘pizza delivery man’’ for their Counterrevolutionary agenda of a Sumnerlike ‘‘survival of the fittest,’’ private ayatollah academies, concentrated, politicized and distorting media, and the erosion of voting rights. In what may be the single greatest sentence written in the last century, Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote from his Birmingham jail cell, ‘‘We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.’’ When we truly realize that vision then the Era of Bad Feelings can be said to be over.

Notes

This book is intentionally designed to make as many sources as possible available through the Internet so the reader can check the source. Readers should note that some sites require a user to register before accessing a particular page or may require the user to be a subscriber to a particular publication. In other cases a user may see only select parts of a larger publication that is only available through registration or fee payment. Because the Internet is constantly changing, some links may have been modified. A few that are marked are no longer in service. For those sources that do not link, usually entering the author and article title in a search engine can locate the new URL. As a researcher I use a page-saving program, Meta Products Inquiry, to save the exact source at the time it was viewed for fact-checking documentation. Perhaps some day these can be published as a companion CD.

Preface 1. C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, New York: Oxford, 1966, pp. xii–xiii. 2. Wallace Stegner, ‘‘Bernard DeVoto,’’ A Literary History of the American West, Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1998. http://www2.tcu.edu/ depts/prs/amwest/html/wl0899.html

Chapter 1 1. Thomas Krainz, Delivering Aid: Implementing Progressive Era Social Welfare in the American West, Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2005, pp. 1, 232–236.

226 & Notes 2. Hubert Humphrey, The Education of a Public Man, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976, p. 50. 3. Paul Wellstone, ‘‘A New American Century of Justice,’’ Prepared Remarks before the Iowa AFL-CIO Convention, Waterloo, Iowa, August 12, 1998. http:// www.geocities.com/~demcrat/newcentury.html 4. Thomas Evan and Stuart Taylor, Jr., ‘‘Center Court,’’ Newsweek, July 1, 2003, p. 49. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200307/ai_kepm 308664 5. ‘‘A Divided Nation: Background,’’ Newshour, November 6, 2003. http://www .pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec03/divided_bg_11-06.html 6. David Broder, ‘‘Can Nation’s Values Bridge a Growing Divide?’’ The Washington Post, November 26, 2003, A25. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wpdyn?pagename¼article&contentId¼A14636-2003Nov25¬Found¼true 7. William Novelli, ‘‘Where Are Our Leaders?’’ AARP Bulletin, June, 2005, p. 24. 8. ‘‘Politics as Warfare,’’ The Economist Survey on American Exceptionalism, The Economist, November 6, 2003. http://economist.com/surveys/displayStory .cfm?Story_id¼2172066 9. Juliette Eilperin and Albert B. Crenshaw, ‘‘House Democrats Storm Out of Ways and Means Committee,’’ washingtonpost.com, July 18, 2003. http://www .washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11104-2003Jul18?language¼printer

PART ONE Chapter 2 1. Amy Geier Edgar, ‘‘Thurmond’s Hometown Mourns Former Senator’s Death,’’ The State.com, June 27, 2003. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/ 6180540.htm 2. Kari Frederickson, The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932– 1968, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Frederickson presents a strong case for Thurmond as a moderate. http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/frederickson _dixiecrat.html 3. Jeanne Meserve, Bruce Morton, and Matt Smith, ‘‘Longtime Senator Left Larger-Than-Life Mark on South, Congress,’’ CNN.com Special Report. http:// edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/special.strom.thurmond/stories/bio/ 4. Hubert Humphrey, The Education of a Public Man, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976, p. 459. 5. Robert Ferrell, Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, New York: Harper, 1980, p. 142. 6. John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, ‘‘Platform of the States Rights Democratic Party,’’ The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatforms.php?platindex¼SR1948

Notes & 227 7. Juan Williams, ‘‘The Many Masks of Thurgood Marshall,’’ The Masks of Thurgood Marshall. http://www.thurgoodmarshall.com/speeches/masks_article .htm 8. ‘‘Thurmond Holds Senate Record for Filibustering,’’ Fox News.com, June 27, 2003. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,90552,00.html 9. Meserve. 10. Jonathan Bean, review of Nixon’s Civil Rights: Politics, Principle, and Policy by Dean Kotlowski, Business History Review, Summer, 2002. http://64.233.167.104/ search?q¼cache:Wxe8Irh9jN0J:www.hbs.edu/bhr/archives/bookreviews/76/2002sum merjbean.pdfþsouthernþstrategyþnixon&hl¼en; Pat Buchanan, ‘‘The Neocons and Nixon’s Southern Strategy,’’ The American Cause.org. http://www.theamericancause .org/pattheneoconsandnixons.htm 11. Wayne Washington, ‘‘Dent Abandoned Politics and Embraced Religion,’’ The State.com, January 23, 2005. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/ 10712139.htm 12. ‘‘GOP Leader Under Fire,’’ Newshour, December 12, 2002. http://www .pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/july-dec02/lott_12-12.html 13. Earl Black and Merle Black, The Rise of Southern Republicans, Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2002. 14. Ronald Reagan, ‘‘Inaugural Address: January 20, 1981,’’ Ronald Reagan’s Major Speeches, 1964–89, The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. http://www .reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1981/12081a.htm 15. James Walls, ‘‘Testimony,’’ 38th Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives Report No. 65. http://www.adena.com/adena/usa/cw/cw130.htm 16. The Southern Manifesto, Congressional Record, 84th Congress Second Session. Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956). Washington, DC: Governmental Printing Office, 1956, 4459–4460. http://www.strom.clemson.edu/strom/manifesto.html 17. Frederickson. 18. ‘‘Government for the People,’’ Republican Platform 2000, CNN.com. http:// www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/ 19. ‘‘Judicial Reform: Courts That Work, Laws That Make Sense,’’ Republican Platform 2000. 20. William Graham Sumner, ‘‘On a New Philosophy: That Poverty is the Best Policy,’’ What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, University of Virginia Xroads. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/sumner1.html 21. ‘‘Quotes by John D. Rockefeller,’’ Said What? http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/ quotes/j/john_d_rockefeller_2366.php 22. Oliver Wendell Holmes, ‘‘Dissenting,’’ Lochner v. New York, ’Lectric Law Library. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case37.htm 23. Richard Hofstader, Social Darwinism in American Thought, Boston: Beacon Press, 1992, p. 172. 24. Manifesto. 25. Frederickson.

228 & Notes 26. ‘‘Middle Class Squeeze,’’ Now, December 13, 2002. http://www.pbs.org/now/ politics/middleclass.html 27. Paul Krugman, ‘‘For Richer,’’ The Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive, originally published in The New York Times, October 20, 2002. http://www.pkarchive .org/economy/ForRicher.html 28. ‘‘Middle Class Squeeze.’’ 29. Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, eserver.org. http:// eserver.org/18th/burke.txt 30. Manifesto.

Chapter 3 1. Billy Pison, ‘‘Trends in Baptists Policy,’’ Baptist History and Heritage Society. http://www.baptisthistory.org/contissues/pinson.htm 2. James Heflin, ‘‘Wonder-Working Power,’’ Information Clearing House, April 18, 2003. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2993.htm 3. ‘‘The Baptist Faith and Message,’’ SBC.com. http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000 .asp 4. Ibid. 5. ‘‘The Baptist Faith and Message.’’ 6. Greg Warner, ‘‘Jimmy Carter Says He Can No Longer Be Associated with the SBC,’’ Baptist Standard, October 23, 2000. http://www.baptiststandard.com/2000/ 10_23/pages/carter.html 7. ‘‘Land Says His Exclusion Proves CNN Is ‘Slanting the News’ on SBC,’’ Baptist Standard, June 23, 1999. http://www.baptiststandard.com/1999/6_23/pages/ land.html 8. Nina J. Easton, Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Crusade, New York: Touchstone, 2000. 9. Joel Spring, Political Agendas for Education from the Christian Coalition to the Green Party, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997, questia.com. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?action¼getPage&docId¼28594419&offset¼1 10. Grover Norquist, ‘‘Dobson and the GOP,’’ Americans for Tax Reform, July, 1988. http://www.atr.org/press/editorials/tas/tas0798.html 11. ‘‘Independent Ads: The National Security Political Action Committee ‘Willie Horton,’ ’’ InsidePolitics.org. http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/independentads .html 12. Norquist. 13. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Supreme Court of the United States, 395 U.S. 367, Electronic Privacy Information Center. http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html 14. ‘‘Republican Contract with America,’’ www.house.gov. http://www.house .gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html 15. Ibid.

Notes & 229 16. ‘‘A ‘Contract with the Family.’—Includes Related Information on the Contract with the American Family,’’ Christian Century, May 24, 1995. http://www.24hoursch olar.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n18_v112/ai_16997239#continue 17. Spring. 18. ‘‘Winning the Future,’’ NEWT.ORG. http://newt.org/index.php?src¼news& prid¼882&category¼Winning%20the%20Future 19. Gail Sheehy, ‘‘The Inner Quest of Newt Gingrich,’’ Vanity Fair, September 1995. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanityfair1.html 20. ‘‘Representative Tom DeLay (R-Texas),’’ Online NewsHour. http://www .pbs.org/newshour/108th/bio_delay.html 21. Ibid. 22. Paul Krugman, ‘‘Some Crazy Guy,’’ The Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive. http://www.pkarchive.org/column/061303.html 23. Robert Dreyfuss, ‘‘DeLay, Incorporated,’’ The Texas Observer, February 4, 2000. http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID¼142 24. Ibid. 25. ‘‘Two Heads of Tom Delay,’’ Religious Freedom Coalition of the Southeast. http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/tom.html 26. Ibid. 27. ‘‘Rep. DeLay Calls Faith-Based Initiative an Opportunity to ‘Rebuke Church-State Separation,’ ’’ Americans United for Church and State.org. http://www.au.org/site/News2 ?page¼NewsArticle&id¼6045&abbr¼pr&security¼1002&news_iv_ctrl¼1381 28. Tom DeLay, ‘‘Be Not Afraid,’’ National Review Online, July 30, 2003. http:// www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-delay073003.asp 29. Jan Jarboe Russell, ‘‘DeLay Poisons Mideast Peace Process,’’ Seattle Post Intelligencer, August 14, 2003. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/134877_ russell14.html 30. ‘‘Christian Zionist DeLay’s Foreign Meddling,’’ Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2003. http://www.sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/08/1632098.php 31. ‘‘Education and Opportunity: Leave No American Behind,’’ Republican Platform 2000, cnn.com. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/ features/platform.00/#12 32. Ibid. 33. George W. Bush, ‘‘The State of The Union 2003,’’ whitehouse.gov. http:// www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html 34. ‘‘Evolution Revolution,’’ Evolution: Religion, PBS.org. http://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/evolution/religion/revolution/1990.html 35. The Sword of the Lord, October 11, 2002. http://www.swordofthelord.com/ sword.pdf 36. John R. Rice, ‘‘What Was Back of Kennedy’s Murder?’’ Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1968. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/wc_period/Pre-WCR_ reactions_to_assassination/Pre-WCR_reactions_by_the_right/Rice—What_was_back_ of.html

230 & Notes 37. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, ‘‘The Falwell Follies,’’ www. Au.org. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page¼NewsArticle&id¼5839&abbr¼cs_ 38. ‘‘Sermons,’’ baptistfire.com. http://www.baptistfire.com/gospel/pressler.shtml 39. Vanessa Gezari, ‘‘Rural Pa. Town Latest Battleground in Evolution Debate,’’ Arizona Daily Star, October 9, 2005. http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/ 96955.php 40. Dover Area School District, ‘‘Biology Statement.’’ http://www.dover.k12 .pa.us/doversd/site/default.asp 41. Laurie Goodstein, ‘‘Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals,’’ The New York Times, November 9, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/national/09dover .html 42. ‘‘Therapy of the masses,’’ The Economist Survey on American Exceptionalism, The Economist. http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm? Story_id¼2172112

Chapter 4 1. Bob Costantini, ‘‘inDecision 2000: Bush v. Gore Disorder in the Court,’’ evote.com. http://www.evote.com/features/2000-12/campscotus.asp 2. Jamin Raskin, ‘‘Bandits in Black Robes,’’ Washington Monthly, March 2001. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0103.raskin.html; Vincent Bugliosi, ‘‘None Dare Call It Treason,’’ The Nation, February 5, 2001. http://www.thenation.com/ doc/20010205/bugliosi 3. ‘‘The Florida Election Cases,’’ United States Supreme Court, p. 32 of the PDF file. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/florida.html 4. ‘‘Bush v. Gore Commentary,’’ The Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings .edu/dybdocroot/press/companion/bushvgore/other/excerpts.htm 5. ‘‘The Florida Election Cases,’’ pp. 11 (PDF 24), 1 (PDF 24), and 7 (PDF 32). 6. Al Kamen, ‘‘Miami ‘Riot’ Squad: Where Are They Now?’’ The Washington Post, January 24, 2005. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A310742005Jan23 7. Tim Padgett, ‘‘Mob Scene in Miami,’’ Time, November 26, 2000. http://www .time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,89450,00.html 8. ‘‘Florida Recount,’’ Democrats.com. http://archive.democrats.com/preview .cfm?term¼Florida%20Recount 9. McLaughlin Group, December 23–24, 2000. http://www.mclaughlin.com/ library/transcript.asp?id¼186 10. Robert Parry, ‘‘Bush’s Conspiracy to Riot,’’ consortiumnews.com. http:// www.consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html 11. Ibid. 12. Go to the IRS website then enter Bush Chaney Recount Fund. The particular form is 8872. http://www.irs.gov/charities/political/article/0,,id¼109644,00 .html

Notes & 231 13. John Lantigua, ‘‘Miami’s Rent-a-Riot,’’ salon.com, November 28, 2000. http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/; Gigot Paul, ‘‘Miami Heat,’’ WSJ.com, November 23, 2000. http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/ pgigot/?id¼65000673 14. Gigot. 15. Lantigua. 16. Gigot. 17. Ibid. 18. Lantigua. 19. Ibid. 20. Gigot. 21. Parry. 22. ‘‘Rights Commission’s Report on Florida Election,’’ washingtonpost.com, June 5, 2001. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401 .htm 23. E. J. Dionne, Jr., and William Kristol, Bush v. Gore, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001, p. 97. 24. Gigot. 25. Lantigua. 26. ‘‘Voting Rights,’’ WomenMatter.net. http://www.womenmatter.net/voting_ whatstheproblem.htm 27. Kamen. 28. ‘‘Rights Commission’s Report on Florida Election.’’ 29. Greg Palast, ‘‘The Great Florida Ex-Con Game,’’ Harpers Magazine, March 1, 2002. http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid¼122&row¼1 30. ‘‘Bush v. Gore Commentary.’’ 31. ‘‘The Florida Election Cases,’’ pp. 4–5. 32. Bev Harris was among the first to raise the issue. See her website: http://www .blackboxvoting.org/ The issue of voting machine irregularities is also discussed at: http://www.bradmesser.com/J2_BonusPages/VoteProbsSalon.html; and http://www .verifiedvoting.org/index.php 33. ‘‘Resolution on Electronic Voting,’’ verifiedvotingfoundation.org. http://www .verifiedvoting.org/article.php?id¼5028 34. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/index.php 35. ‘‘The 2004 Scientific American 50 Award: Policy Leaders,’’ Scientific American, November 11, 2004. http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID¼000E616FD6AD-118F-91DD83414B7F0000 36. http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ 37. Sandeep S. Atwal, ‘‘How George W. Bush Won the 2004 Presidential Election,’’ Scoop Independent News. http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00147.htm 38. ‘‘Bush v. Gore Commentary.’’ http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/press/ companion/bushvgore/other/excerpts.htm 39. Dionne and Kristol, pp. 302, 305.

232 & Notes

Chapter 5 1. Michael Fitzgerald, ‘‘Dixie Chicks Axed by Clear Channel,’’ Jacksonville Business Journal, March 18, 2003. http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/ stories/2003/03/17/daily14.html 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Breuse Hickman, ‘‘Dixie Chicks Get Last Laugh,’’ Florida Today. http:// www.politicscafe.com/forum/index.php?board¼5;action¼display;threadid¼930 5. ‘‘Corporate: Know the Facts,’’ Clear Channel. http://www.clearchannel.com/ Corporate/corporate_ktf.aspx 6. ‘‘Tears on TV: Dixie Chicks Explain Bush Bashing,’’ Drudge Report, April 23, 2003. http://www.drudgereport.com/dixie.htm 7. ‘‘Apology from Natalie Maines,’’ The Dixie Chiks. http://www.thespeciousre port.com/2003_dixiechicks.html 8. Wayne Barrett, ‘‘Bush’s Voice of America,’’ The Village Voice Online. http:// www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/barrett.php 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. Michael Copps, ‘‘Copps Statement on Commission Proposal of Statutory Maximum Forfeiture against Clear Channel Communications,’’ fcc.gov. http://www .fcc.gov/commissioners/copps/statements2004.html 12. Brooks Boliek, ‘‘Dixie Chicks’ Radio Ban on Senate Panel Hit List,’’ Holly woodReporter.com, July 9, 2003. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_ display.jsp?vnu_content_id¼1930521 13. James Fallows, ‘‘The Age of Murdoch,’’ The Atlantic, August 2003. http:// www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/09/fallows.htm 14. Ibid. 15. David Walsh, ‘‘Fox News Chief Doubled as Political Adviser to Bush,’’ Rense .com. http://www.rense.com/general32/fox.htm 16. Fallows. 17. ‘‘Independent Ads: The National Security Political Action Committee ‘Willie Horton,’ ’’ insidepolitics.org. http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/independentads .html 18. Robert Greenwald and Alexandra Kitty, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, New York: Disinformation, 2005. http://www.outfoxed.org/ 19. ‘‘Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War,’’ The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/primarysources.htm; and http://www .pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf 20. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, ‘‘News Audiences Increasingly Politicized,’’ June 8, 2004. http://people-press.org/reports/display .php3?ReportID¼215 21. Ibid.

Notes & 233 22. Fallows. 23. Ibid. 24. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948), Hollywood Renegades Archive. http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/paramountdoc_1948 supreme.htm 25. Ibid. 26. ‘‘List of Songs Deemed Inappropriate after September 11 by Clear Channel,’’ Wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_deemed_inappropriate_ after_Sept._11_by_Clear_Channel 27. ‘‘The Doors in History: 26 February.’’ http://history.waiting-forthe-sun.net/ Pages/February/26_february.html; Eric D. Nuzum, Parental Advisory: Music Censorship in America. http://ericnuzum.com/banned/incidents/50s.html 28. ‘‘House approves roll back of new media ownership rule,’’ Online NewsHour, July 23, 2003. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/july-dec03/ fcc_7-23.html 29. Jonathan Adelstein, ‘‘Citizen Kane for the 21st Century? The Defining Moment for Media Ownership,’’ fcc.gov. http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/adelstein/; and http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd030502.html (DOC234045A1.pdf) 30. Ibid. 31. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Supreme Court of the United States, 395 U.S. 367, Electronic Privacy Information Center. http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html 32. Adelstein, ‘‘Citizen Kane for the 21st Century?’’ 33. Jonathan Adelstein, ‘‘Big Macs and Big Media: The Decision to Supersize,’’ The Media Institute. http://www.mediainstitute.org/Speeches/adelstein_speech .html 34. Michael Copps, ‘‘Copps Statement,’’ fcc.gov. http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/ documents.html 35. Michael Powell, ‘‘Powell Statement,’’ fcc.gov, p. 2. http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/ documents.html 36. ‘‘Powell Statement,’’ p. 4. 37. Report and Order,’’ fcc.gov, p. 13. http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/documents .html 38. ‘‘Copps Statement,’’ fcc.gov, pp. 1, 3. http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/documents .html 39. ‘‘Adelstein Statement,’’ fcc.gov, pp. 1, 5. http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/ documents.html 40. William Safire, ‘‘Regulate the FCC,’’ The New York Times, June 16, 2003, p. A-23. http://www.nrcdxas.org/articles/FCC061703a.html 41. ‘‘Congress moves to overturn new media ownership rules,’’ Online NewsHour, July 16, 2003. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/july-dec03/ fcc_7-16.html

234 & Notes 42. ‘‘Stop the FCC, Read Below,’’ RGTV Home. http://www.roguetv.org/ News.asp?NewsID¼12 43. Frank Ahrens, ‘‘Senators Move to Block New Media Ownership Rules,’’ The Washington Post, July 16, 2003, p. E01. http://www.orbicom.uqam/ca/in_focus/ news/archives/2003_juillet/16_juil_2003.html 44. Katy Boss, ‘‘FCC Deregulation Attracts Criticism,’’ Grand Valley Lanthorn, August 8, 2003. http://72.14.203.104/search?q¼cache:3TmDVdsPmT8J:owa.benton .org/listserv/wa.exe%3FA2%3Dind0308%26L%3Dbenton-compolicy%26F%3DI %26S%3D%26P%3D810þ%22katyþbossþ%22þgrandþvalleyþlanthorn&hl¼ en&gl¼us&ct¼clnk&cd¼1; and http://marx.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-1/2003w33/ msg00068.htm

PART TWO Chapter 6 1. Michael Silverman, ‘‘Pedro: Racist Press Bashes Sosa,’’ Boston Herald, June 6, 2003. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/344605241.html?did¼344605241& FMT¼ABS&FMTS¼FT&date¼Junþ6%2Cþ2003&author¼MICHAELþSILVER MAN&pub¼BostonþHerald&desc¼BASEBALL%3BþPedro%3AþRacistþpressþ bashesþSosa 2. Jose de Jesus Ortiz, ‘‘An Issue of Interpretation,’’ Houston Chronicle, June 14, 2003. This is a textbook example of why media diversity matters. http://www .chron.com/content/archive, then search for author and title. 3. Hal McCoy, ‘‘Language Can Be an Unfair Barrier,’’ The Cincinnati Post, June 23, 2003. http://www.cincypost.com/2003/06/23/mccoy06-23-2003.html 4. Neil Hayes, ‘‘Steroids Era Has Distorted Baseball Numbers,’’ MSNBC.com, August 1, 2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7783162/ 5. T. J. Mathews, Dr. Fay Menacker, and Marian F. McDorman, ‘‘Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2002 Period Linked by Birth/Infant Death Data Set,’’ National Vital Statistics Reports, vol. 53, number 10. November 24, 2004, pp. 1, 4. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_10.pdf 6. ‘‘Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy for Selected Countries, 2005,’’ infoplease, September 8, 2005. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html 7. ‘‘Annual Demographic Survey: 2002,’’ Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of the Census. http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032003/ hhinc/new03_000.htm 8. ‘‘U.S. Unemployment rates by Selected Characteristics, 1960–2002,’’ The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2003, New York: Almanac Books, 2003, p. 143. 9. C. Lewis Kincannon, ‘‘United States Population,’’ Almanac, p. 395. 10. Minnesota Department of Education, 2004 MARSS Manual, Appendix D. 11. ‘‘Memorable Quotes from Gangs of New York,’’ IMBd.com. http://us .imdb.com/title/tt0217505/quotes

Notes & 235 12. http://www.ellisisland.com/ 13. Emma Lazarus, ‘‘The ‘New Colossus,’ ’’ nps.gov. http://www.nps.gov/stli/ newcolossus/index.html 14. ‘‘Stalkers Guide to International Migration,’’ pstalker.com. http://pstalker .com/migration/mg_immig_1.htm 15. George J. Borjas, ‘‘The Economics of Immigration,’’ Economic Literature, December 1994, pp. 1667–1717. http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~.GBorjas.Academic .Ksg/publications_for_download.html 16. ‘‘5 Immigration Myths,’’ xoom.it. http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/broccad 2000/immigrazione/foschi/miti.htm 17. Nick Anderson and Peter M. Warren, Los Angeles Times, December 24, 1997. http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/linguistics/people/grads/macswan/LAT30.htm 18. Pat Kossan, ‘‘Activist for English Immersion Injects Feud into Arizona Race,’’ Arizona Republic, July 16, 2002. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ JWCRAWFORD/AR11.htm 19. Phyllis Schlafly, ‘‘A Conservative Agenda For 2001,’’ eagleform.org. http:// www.eagleforum.org/column/2001/jan01/00-01-10.shtml 20. Jim Boulet, Jr., ‘‘GOP Draft Platform: Kids Lose,’’ National Revue Online. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment072800d.html 21. ‘‘Klingon Interpreter,’’ snopes.com. http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/ klingon.asp 22. Nancy Roman, ‘‘Gingrich Lays Out Goals to Reform Government,’’ The Washington Times, January 6, 1998, p. A-1. http://www.englishfirst.org/be/newt& be198.htm 23. ‘‘The ‘Hispanization’ of America,’’ Multicultural Associates.net. http://www .mculture.net/articles/article_hispanization.html 24. Loui Olivas, ‘‘Hispanic Demographics,’’ a presentation to ASU COD, December 9, 1999. http://courses.ed.asu.edu/glass/olivas/index.htm 25. ‘‘Texas Redistricting Map.’’ http://www.comdig2.de/test/images/planC01151_ MAP1928356439before.jpg 26. ‘‘Survey Finds Hispanics Optimistic about Direction of the Country and Their Future,’’ LULAC. http://www.lulac.org/programs/civic/voter/univpres.html 27. Ann W. Clutter and Ruben D. Nieto, ‘‘Understand Hispanic Culture,’’ Ohio State University Fact Sheet, HYG-5237-00. http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/ 5237.html 28. Tom Knott, ‘‘Sosa Whining: Put a Cork in It,’’ The Washington Times. http:// washtimes.com/sports/20030609-122704-6367r.htm 29. Ira Simmons, ‘‘The Fraud Of Sammy Sosa,’’ Chronwatch, June 7, 2003. http:// www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid¼3000&catcode¼13 30. King Kaufman, ‘‘Sammy Sosa’s Sanity,’’ salon.com, June 5, 2003. http:// www.salon.com/news/sports/col/kaufman/2003/06/05/sosa/index_np.html 31. Geoffrey Norman, ‘‘Put a Cork in It,’’ National Review Online, June 10, 2003. http://www.nationalreview.com/norman/norman061003.asp

236 & Notes 32. ‘‘Our Plan for America,’’ JohnKerry.com. http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/ 33. Donald Lambro, ‘‘Republicans draw Hispanic voters from Democrats,’’ hacer.org. http://www.hacer.org/current/US017.php 34. Jorge Ramos, The Latino Wave: How Hispanics Are Transforming Politics in America, New York: HarperCollins, 2005, p. 1. 35. Domenico Maceri, ‘‘Bush’s Espan˜ol: Not Good, but Pleases Latino Audiences,’’ hispanicvista.com. http://www.hispanicvista.com/html/091602maceri. htm 36. Ibid. 37. ‘‘2000 Democratic Platform Supports Bilingual Education and English as ‘Our’ Common Language, Self-Determination Based on Federally Defined Status Options,’’ Puerto-Rico Herald. http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/vol4n33/ DemPlatform-en.shtml 38. Ramos, p. 2. 39. Ceril Shagrin, ‘‘Why Hispanics Prefer Spanish-Language Television,’’ marketingymedios.com. http://www.marketingymedios.com/marketingymedios/search/ article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id¼1000944718 40. Don Wade, ‘‘Different Standard Does Exist,’’ GoMemphis.com, June 8, 2003. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product¼CA&p_theme¼ca&p_ action¼search&p_maxdocs¼200&p_text_search-0¼Don%20AND%20Wade,% 20AND%20Different%20AND%20Standard%20AND%20Does%20AND%20 Exist,&s_dispstring¼Don%20Wade,%20Different%20Standard%20Does% 20Exist,%20AND%20date(all)&p_perpage¼10&p_sort¼YMD_date:D&xcal_use weights¼no

Chapter 7 1. Winona LaDuke, ‘‘Indigenous Mind,’’ resurgence.org. http://www.resur gence.org/resurgence/articles/laduke.htm 2. Gerald Vizenour, anishinabe adisokan, Minneapolis: Nodin Press, 1970, p. 10. 3. ‘‘The Rise and Fall of Ralph Nader’s Candidacy,’’ StopNader.com. (site no longer active) http://www.stopnader.com/ 4. Elizabeth Schulte, ‘‘Are Nader Voters to Blame for Bush?’’ Socialist Worker Online, December 2, 2002, p. 7. See: http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/432/ 432_07_Nader.shtml 5. Robert Kuttner, ‘‘Al Gore, the Populist,’’ The American Prospect, July 24, 2000. http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2000/07/kuttner_r_07_24.html 6. ‘‘Liberal vs. Liberal,’’ Online NewsHour, October 24, 2000. http://www .pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/nader_10-24.html 7. Winona LaDuke, ‘‘Buying the Presidential Debates (2000),’’ The Winona LaDuke Reader, Stillwater, MN: Voyageur Press, 2002, p. 258. 8. Ruy Teixeira, ‘‘America’s Forgotten Majority,’’ Speakout.com. http://speakout .com/activism/opinions/4494-1.html

Notes & 237 9. Winona LaDuke, ‘‘Winona LaDuke’s Acceptance Speech for the Green Party’s Nomination for Vice President of the United States of America (2000),’’ The Winona LaDuke Reader, pp. 267–273. http://gos.sbc.edu/l/laduke.html 10. ‘‘White Earth Land Recovery Project,’’ onaway.org. http://www.onaway.org/ indig/ojibwe.htm; The White Earth Land Recovery Project site: http://www.native harvest.com/ 11. Winona LaDuke, ‘‘Namewag,’’ Recovering the Sacred, Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2005, p. 227. 12. Phyllis Schlafly, ‘‘What’s Wrong with Outcome-Based Education?’’ eagle forum.org. http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1993/may93/psrmay93.html 13. Jon Reyhner, ‘‘American Indian/Alaska Native Education: An Overview,’’ American Indian Education. http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~jar/AIE/Ind_Ed.html 14. National Indian Education Association, ‘‘Education Facts and History,’’ niea.org. http://www.niea.org/history/ 15. Ibid. 16. National Indian Education Association, ‘‘Bush Administration Blasted on Indian Education,’’ niea.org. http://www.niea.org/media/news_detail.php?id¼18&catid¼ 17. Office of Indian Education Programs, ‘‘BIA Annual Report Card: 2003– 2004.’’ Bureau of Indian Affairs. http://www.oiep.bia.edu/ 18. ‘‘National Educational Statistics and Other Equity Indicators,’’ The MidAtlantic Equity Consortium. http://www.maec.org/natstats.html 19. Reyhner. 20. LaDuke acceptance speech. 21. LaDuke, ‘‘The Indigenous Mind.’’ 22. ‘‘An Interview with Rose von Thater-Braan: Nourishing a Science for the 21st Century,’’ Leverage Points, October 28, 2005. http://www.pegasuscom.com/lev points/RvTBint.html 23. Donella Meadows, ‘‘Whole Earth Models and Systems,’’ Co-evolution Quarterly, Summer 1982, pp. 98–108. 24. Donella Meadows, ‘‘System Dynamics Meets the Press,’’ context.org. http:// www.context.org/ICLIB/IC23/Meadows.htm 25. ‘‘An Interview with Rose von Thater-Braan.’’ 26. LaDuke, ‘‘Namewag,’’ p. 228. 27. ‘‘Christ-Centered Curriculum,’’ JOY Center of Learning. http://www.joy center.on.ca/menujs.html?schools.htm 28. ‘‘An Interview with Rose von Thater-Braan.’’ 29. Jay Walljasper, ‘‘The Party Crasher,’’ City Pages, October 11, 2000. http:// www.citypages.com/databank/21/1036/article9043.asp.

Chapter 8 1. Robert Johnson, ‘‘Hellhound on My Tail.’’ http://www.luckymojo.com/blue shellhoundjohnson.html

238 & Notes 2. Neil McMillen, ‘‘An Oral History with Fannie Lou Hamer’’ Ruleville, Mississippi, April 14, 1972. Mississippi Oral History Program, the University of Southern Mississippi. http://www.lib.usm.edu/~spcol/crda/oh/hamertrans.htm 3. Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, 1-104-0-10-1-1-1. These documents are available online. Documents from this source are referred to as MSC with the document number. A note to those entering this somewhat confusing realm: the best way to find the Hamer documents is to enter her name in the name search. To find the right number in the long list, use the ‘‘find’’ feature on your browser to enter the number, since the numbers on the page are not in numerical order. http:// www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/archives.html 4. Fannie Lou Hamer, To Praise Our Bridges, Jackson, MS: KIPCO, 1967, p. 21. 5. ‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer,’’ SNCC: 1960–1966. http://www.ibiblio.org/sncc/hamer .html 6. McMillen. 7. MSC 10-60-0-32-8-1-1. 8. ‘‘Fannie Lou Hamer: 1917–1977,’’ Minerva Computer Services. http://www .beejae.com/hamer.htm 9. Ibid. 10. Doc Carney, ‘‘The Mississippi Sovereignty Commission in Its Own Words . . .’’ patriotnews.com, May 21, 2003. http://country-liberal-party.com/pages/ The_Mississippi_Sovereignty_Commission.htm 11. Ibid. 12. Kevin Sack, ‘‘Mississippi Unseals Files of Agency That Fought Desegregation,’’ The New York Times, March 18, 1998. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/ projects/ftrials/price&bowers/SovereigntyCommission.html 13. MSC 2-44-2-25-2-1-1. 14. MSC 2-165-5-2-2-1-1. 15. MSC 7-0-8-169-1-1-1. 16. MSC 1-104-0-2-1-1-1. 17. MSC 4-0-4-55-2-1-1. 18. MSC 3-14A-2-105-9-1-1. 19. MSC 1-71-0-7-12-1-1, 13-0-5-28-5-1-1. 20. MSC 2-165-5-23-1-1-1. 21. MSC 6-45-1-20-2-1-125. MSC 2-165-1-6-1-1-1. 22. MSC 2-165-1-49-1-1-1. 23. MSC 2-165-1-49-1-1-1. 24. Kay Mills, This Little Light of Mine: The Life of Fannie Lou Hamer, New York: Penguin, 1994, p. 121. 25. MSC 2-165-1-30-1-1-1. 26. Mills, p. 129. 27. Chana Kai Lee, For Freedom’s Sake: The Life of Fannie Lou Hamer, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1999, p. 95. 28. Ibid., p. 94.

Notes & 239 29. Mills, p. 125. 30. MSC 2-165-4-60-6-1-1 and Congressional Record 23394. 31. MSC 2-165-1-44-1-1-1. 32. MSC 2-139-0-47-1-1-1. 33. MSC 2-165-4-95-1-1-1. 34. MSC 2-165-4-60-17-1-1 and Congressional Record 23405. 35. MSC 2-165-4-60-3-1-1 and Congressional Record 23391. 36. MSC 2-165-4-60-10-1-1 and Congressional Record 23398. 37. MSC 2-165-4-60-25-1-1 and Congressional Record 23413. 38. MSC 2-165-4-60-21-1-1 and Congressional Record 23409. 39. McMillen. 40. MSC 1-104-0-25-1-1-1. 41. MSC 9-31-10-34-1-1-1. 42. McMillen, The Fannie Lou Hamer Project was created to continue her legacy. Those interested in learning more can get in touch at http://www.flhp.org 43. Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage, New York: Bantam, 1987, p. 161. 44. Tom Piazza, ‘‘Wynton Marsalis,’’ Smithsonian, November, 2005, p. 32.

Chapter 9 1. ‘‘Martha Stewart: Biography,’’ Food Network.com. http://www1.foodtv.com/ celebrities/stewartbio/0,3405,,00.html 2. Ed Vuillamy, ‘‘The Flawed Goddess,’’ The Observer, June 23, 2003. http:// observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,742285,00.html 3. ‘‘The Two Faces of Martha,’’ The Economist, April 18, 2002. 4. ‘‘Anti-Martha,’’ FreeMartha.org. http://freemartha.org/links.php?category¼ Anti-Martha&page¼2 5. Donna Lypchuk, ‘‘Martha Stewart Disease,’’ eye weekly, May 11, 1995. http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_05.11.95/NEWS/nec0511.htm 6. ‘‘Gothic Martha Stewart.’’ http://www.trystancraft.com/martha/ 7. ‘‘Cakes Across America Is August 3rd: Sign Martha’s Birthday Card Now,’’ SaveMartha!.com. http://www.savemartha.com/cakes6.html 8. Caitlin Flanagan, ‘‘How Serfdom Saved the Women’s Movement,’’ review of The Equality Trap by Mary Ann Mason, The Atlantic, March 2004. http:// www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/03/flanagan.htm 9. Mary Ann Mason, ‘‘The Equality Trap,’’ Mary Ann Mason Online. http:// www.grad.berkeley.edu/deans/mason/Eqaulitytrapintro.shtml 10. Micki Moore, ‘‘Marvelous Martha: She’s a Good Thing,’’ Transcribed by Andrew Ritchie, SaveMartha!.com. http://savemartha.com/indexþ18.html 11. ‘‘Case Study: The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450–1750,’’ www.gendercide .org. http://www.gendercide.org/case_witchhunts.html 12. Ibid.

240 & Notes 13. ‘‘ImClone Founder’s Dad in Trouble,’’ CBSNEWS.com, October 10, 2003. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/03/national/main556695.shtml 14. ‘‘United States v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic, Defendants’’ (referred to as ‘‘Stewart Indictment’’) CBSNEWS.com. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/ stewart060404.pdf; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/03/national/main556 695.shtml 15. Susan McDougal, ‘‘Prison Advice for Martha,’’ ‘‘Imagining Martha’s Prison Life,’’ the early show, March 8, 2004. http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2004/03/08/ earlyshow/living/main604606.shtml 16. ‘‘The Martha Stewart Scandal: Tempest in a Cuisinart . . . ,’’ SaveMartha! .com. http://www.savemartha.com/martha_stewart_trial_why.html 17. ‘‘Martha Stewart,’’ Wikipedia.org. The website: http://www.marthatalks .com/ closed on Stewart’s release. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Stewart 18. Andrew Cohen, ‘‘Prosecuting Martha,’’ CBS News Online edition, June 4, 2003. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/04/news/opinion/courtwatch/main 557026.shtml 19. ‘‘Martha Stewart,’’ ‘‘Campaign Contribution Search: Hall of Fame, Business Executives,’’ NEWSMEAT.com. http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/ Martha_Stewart.php 20. Oliver North, ‘‘The Democrat Road Map to Peace,’’ townhall.com, June 6, 2003. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20030606.shtml 21. Ann Coulter, ‘‘More Slander,’’ Jewish World Review Insight, July 11, 2002. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter071102.asp 22. Thomas Mulligan, ‘‘ ‘Liar’ Stewart Took Advantage of Share Tip-off, Court Told,’’ theage.com, January 29, 2004. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/ 28/1075088087974.html?from¼storyrhs 23. Christine Hauser, ‘‘Opening Arguments Begin at Martha Stewart Trial,’’ The New York Times: Business, January 27, 2004. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/ 27/business/27CND-MART.html?ex¼1138683600&en¼acacda72c17163bb&ei¼ 5070 24. Robert G. Morvillo, ‘‘Opening Argument on Behalf of Martha Stewart’’ (site closed). http://www.marthatalks.com/trial_update/opening_argument_2.html 25. ‘‘E-Mails Describe Stewart as Quick-Tempered,’’ MSNBC.com, February 6, 2004. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4178853/ 26. Henry Blodget, ‘‘What Martha Learned in Prison,’’ Slate, March 3, 2005. http://www.slate.com/id/2114312/?nav¼navoa

PART THREE Chapter 10 1. ‘‘Do It Yourself.’’ http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101540802,00 .html

Notes & 241 2. Home Depot, ‘‘About Our Products,’’ The Home Depot, Inc. http://www.home depot.com/HDUS/EN_US/corporate/about/our_products.shtml 3. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Union Members in 2004.’’ http://www.bls.gov/ news.release/union2.nr0.htm 4. ‘‘Election 2004,’’ CNN.com. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/ results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html 5. ‘‘Union Members in 2004.’’ 6. ‘‘Great Depression,’’ Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Dep ression 7. ‘‘Great Depression Narratives,’’ Palo Alto College, San Antonio, Texas. http:// www.accd.edu/pac/history/hist1302/OralHistoryGD.htm 8. ‘‘Great Depression Narratives.’’ 9. Studs Terkel, Hard Times, New York: Avon Books, 1970, pp. 67–68. 10. ‘‘Bill Branch,’’ American Life Histories: Manuscripts from the Federal Writers’ Project, 1936–1940, Library of Congress. Enter ‘‘Great Depression’’ or ‘‘unemployment’’ in search for some fascinating materials. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/ D?wpa:1:./temp/~ammem_iHBY:: 11. Terkel, pp. 263, 485. 12. ‘‘The Bonus March,’’ MacArthur: The American Experience, pbs.org. http:// www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/peopleevents/pandeAMEX89.html 13. Robert E. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948, p. 66. 14. Terkel, p. 295. 15. Sherwood, pp. 81, 83. 16. Sherwood, pp. 20–21. 17. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, ‘‘Economic Inequality in the United States,’’ FRBSF Economic Letter, 97-03, January 31, 1997. http://www.frbsf.org/ econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-03.html 18. ‘‘2004 Gini Coefficients in Selected Countries,’’ Wikipedia.org. http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Development_of_Gini_coefficients_in_the_US_over_time 19. ‘‘Downward Mobility,’’ Now, October 24, 2003. http://www.pbs.org/now/ politics/executive2.html 20. Ibid. 21. Sherwood, p. 926. 22. Nicholas Johnson, Jennifer Schiess, and Joseph Llobrera, ‘‘State Revenues Have Fallen Dramatically: Tax Increases So Far Have Failed to Fill the Gap,’’ Center on Budget and Policy Studies, November 28, 2003. http://www.cbpp.org/10-2203sfp.htm

Chapter 11 1. Lewis Mumford, The City in History, New York: Harcourt, 1961, p. 494.

242 & Notes 2. John C. LaRue, Jr., ‘‘Three Church Growth Myths,’’ Leadership Journal.net, February 21, 2001. http://www.christianitytoday.com/leaders/newsletter/2001/cln 10221.html 3. Randall M. Miller and William Pencak, ed., Pennsylvania: A History of the Commonwealth, University Park: Penn State University Press, 2002. http://www .psupress.org/Justataste/samplechapters/justataste_miller-pencak6.html 4. Lisa McGirr, Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001, p. 21. 5. ‘‘Your Reliable Conservative Choice on Public Schools,’’ Citizens for Excellence in Education. http://www.nace-cee.org/ceehome.htm 6. Ann Bradley, ‘‘Requiem for a Reform,’’ Education Week, June 1, 1994. See also Regie Routman, ‘‘Littleton, Colorado: A Conflict in Beliefs and Values,’’ Literacy at the Crossroads, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1996. http://www.edweek.org/ew/arti cles/1994/06/01/36little.h13.html?querystring¼ann%20bradley%20Requiem%20for %20Reform 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. 9. Ibid. 10. Abby Weizltraub, ‘‘School for Stealth Candidates,’’ Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion. http://www.choicematters.org/95-summer/su95-11.html see also Mozzochi, Jonathan, Gillian Leichtling, and Steven Gardiner, ‘‘Stealth: The Christian Coalition Takes San Diego.’’ http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/FTR/stealth.html 11. ‘‘Your Reliable Conservative Choice on Public Schools.’’ 12. Bradley. 13. Routman, p. 29. 14. Ibid., p. 26. 15. Bradley. 16. Routman, p. 29. 17. Thomas Jefferson, ‘‘Letter to Richard Price, Paris, January 8, 1789,’’ Jefferson, Thomas, 1743–1826. Letters, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library. http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id¼JefLett.sgm&images¼images/modeng &data¼/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag¼public&part¼73&division¼div1 18. ‘‘Mission Statement,’’ Jerry Falwell Ministries. http://www.falwell.com/?a¼ about 19. Jerry Falwell, ‘‘How to Live a Successful Christian Life,’’ Falwell.com. http:// www.falwell.com/?a¼howto&chapter¼10 20. Ehsan, ‘‘Gnostic and Spiritual Aspects of Imam Khomeini,’’ AhlulBayt Discussion Forum, April 1, 2003. http://www.shiachat.com/forum/lofiversion/index .php/t7338.html 21. Falwell. 22. Ehsan. 23. ‘‘Joycelyn Elders and Jerry Falwell Debate Role of Schools, Parents in Sex Education on CNN’s ‘Crossfire,’ ’’ Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report,

Notes & 243 www.kff.org. http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/print_category.cfm?dr_ cat¼2&dr_DateTime¼04-25-01 24. Tom DeLay, ‘‘Why Kids Murder Kids,’’ GOPtoday.com, originally appeared in The Washington Post, March 27, 2000. http://www.gopwhip.org/html/news article1.cfm?news_id¼21 25. Charles Colson, ‘‘Why Tolerance Turns to Intolerance,’’ PCANews.com. http://new.crosswalk.com/news/1138342.html 26. ‘‘Real Education Reform: Strengthening Accountability and Empowering Parents,’’ 2000 Republican Platform, CNN.com. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/ 2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/#13 27. Council for American Private Education, ‘‘Private School Enrollment Continues to Climb,’’ Facts and Studies. http://www.capenet.org/facts.html 28. ‘‘About ACSI,’’ ACSI.org. http://www.acsi.org/web2003/default.aspx?ID¼ 1609 29. ‘‘State of Connecticut and the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, Plaintiffs v. Margaret Spellings, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of Education, Defendant,’’ npr.org. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId¼ 4810586 30. Diane Orson, ‘‘Connecticut Challenges ‘No Child Left Behind,’ ’’ npr.org. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId¼4810586 31. Ibid.

Chapter 12 1. Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, pp. 283–284. 2. ‘‘A Nation Apart,’’ The Economist, ‘‘Survey on American Exceptionalism,’’ The Economist, November 6, 2003. http://economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm? Story_id¼2172066 3. Lewis Mumford, The City in History, New York: Harcourt, 1961, p. 486. 4. Jackson, p. 233. 5. Ibid., p. 293. 6. Ibid., p. 215. See his chapter, ‘‘Federal Subsidy and the Suburban Dream,’’ for an excellent discussion of how government policy molded suburban growth. 7. Ibid., pp. 213–214. 8. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), ‘‘Predatory Lending in Arizona: The Exclusion of Low-Income and Minority Neighborhoods from the Economic Mainstream.’’ ACORN.org. http://www.acorn .org/index.php?id¼94 9. Ibid. 10. Ibid. 11. William Schneider, ‘‘The Suburban Century Begins,’’ The Atlantic Monthly, July 1992. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/schnsub.htm

244 & Notes 12. Schneider, pp. 36, 38. 13. ‘‘A Nation Apart.’’ 14. Jacob Weisberg, ‘‘Soccer Mom Nonsense,’’ slate, October 12, 1996. http:// slate.msn.com/id/2255/ 15. Ibid. 16. American Demographics, January 1989, p. 21. 17. ‘‘Cluster Analysis Examples,’’ Clustan. http://www.clustan.com/clustering _examples.html 18. David W. Stockburger, ‘‘Cluster Analysis,’’ Multivariate Statistics: Concepts, Models, and Applications. http://cheval.vet.gla.ac.uk/kvass/stats/InetPub/wwwroot/ MultiBook/mlt04m.html 19. Amy Kanerva, Kevin Keeker, Kirsten Risden, Eric Schuh, and Mary Czerwinski, ‘‘Web Usability Research at Microsoft Corporation,’’ research.micososft .com. http://research.microsoft.com/users/marycz/webchapter.html 20. QEV Analytics, ‘‘What Is . . . QEV?’’ qev.com. http://www.qev.com/what isqev.PDF 21. ‘‘Zip Code 55303,’’ MyBestSegments.com. http://www.clusterbigip1.claritas .com/MyBestSegments/Default.jsp 22. ‘‘Country Squires,’’ MyBestSegments.com. 23. Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg, ‘‘Old Labels Just Don’t Stick in 21st Century,’’ USATODAY.com, December 17, 2003. http://www.usatoday.com/news/ nation/2003-12-16-who-we-are_x.htm 24. Ibid. 25. Robert Scheer, ‘‘A New Low: Pandering to ‘Soccer Moms,’ ’’ The Los Angeles Times, October 8, 1996. http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/96_columns/ 100896.htm 26. ‘‘10 Who Made a Mark on Marketing,’’ Advertising Age, December 20, 2004. http://www.adage.com/paypoints/buyArticle.cms/login?articleId¼47124&auth¼ 27. ‘‘Dubious Democracy 2003–2004,’’ fairvote.org. http://www.fairvote.org/ dubdem/overview.htm 28. Dana Milbank and Helen Dewar, ‘‘Cheney Defends Use of Four-Letter Word,’’ washingtonpost.com, June 26, 2004, p. A04. http://www.washingtonpost .com/wp-dyn/articles/A6025-2004Jun25.html

Chapter 13 1. Performance Research, ‘‘AT&T Win Official Race With Sprint,’’ performancere search.com. http://www.researchsponsorship.com/olympic_sponsorship_barcelona.htm 2. John Cleary, ‘‘If Christ Came to the Sidney Olympics . . . Part 4,’’ The Religion Report. Radio National. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s195324.htm 3. ‘‘Towns Ought to Pass on Vehicle Sponsorship Plan,’’ Blethen Maine Newspapers, July 16, 2003. http://www.centralmaine.com/view/editorials/030716wed_ clin.shtml

Notes & 245 4. Giselle Sotelo, ‘‘Welcome to Mojito, NJ—Buena Vista to Get $5K for Designation,’’ Vineland, NJ, Daily Journal, April 29, 2004. http://www.thedailyjournal .com/news/stories/20040429/localnews/315330.html; http://www.buenavistatowns hip.org/mojito.htm 5. Giles Coren, ‘‘Magazine’s Mutilated Winslet Is One for the Boys,’’ timesonline, January 11, 2003. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2645341. stm 6. John Long, ‘‘Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography,’’ nppa.org. http:// www.nppa.org/professional_development/self-training_resources/eadp_report/eadp txt.html 7. ‘‘Humor Is Dead Officially One Millionth Website to Feature Bush Head on Wrong Body Gag,’’ humorisdead.com. http://www.humorisdead.com/news/bush head.html 8. Jack Karp, ‘‘Worth a Thousand Lies,’’ TechTV. http://www.g4tv.com/tech tvvault/features/33784/Worth_a_Thousand_Lies.html 9. ‘‘Army Counters Statement on Saddam,’’ msnbc.com, October 14, 2003. http://www.msnbc.com/news/934483.asp?0si¼-&cp1¼1 10. ‘‘WTC Guy,’’ ‘‘America’s Mad as Hell Humor Page.’’ http://www.almosta proverb.com/wtcguy.html£wtcguy 11. ‘‘Photo Gallery,’’ snopes.com. http://www.snopes.com/photos/photos.asp 12. Ken Light, ‘‘The Real Fake,’’ The Digital Journalist.com, March 2004. http:// www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0403/dis_light.html 13. Bill Moyers, ‘‘Address to the National Conference on Media Reform in St. Louis, Missouri, May 15, 2005.’’ http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid¼05/ 05/16/1329245 14. Stephen Labaton, ‘‘Broadcast Chief Violated Laws, Inquiry Finds,’’ The New York Times, November 16, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/politics/ 16broadcast.html?pagewanted¼all 15. Jonah Goldberg, ‘‘Goldberg Variations,’’ The National Review Online, December 3, 2001. http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg120301.shtml 16. Tom Shales, ‘‘Ex-newsman’s Case Full of Holes.’’ http://www.totalobscurity .com/mind/news/2002/bias-bashing.htm 17. Greg Toppo, ‘‘Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law,’’ USA Today, January 17, 2005. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06williams-whitehouse_x.htm 18. Mark Memmott and Jim Drinkard, ‘‘Election Ad Battle Smashes Record in 2004,’’ USA Today, November 24, 2004. http://medialit.med.sc.edu/election_ad_ battle_smashes_record.htm 19. Ibid. 20. Martin Kaplan, Ken Goldstein, and Mathew Hale, Local News Coverage of the 2004 Campaigns: An Analysis of Nightly Broadcasts in 11 Markets, Los Angeles: Lear Center Local News Archive, 2005, pp. 19, 10. http://www.learcenter.org/ html/projects/?cm¼news

246 & Notes 21. Martin Kaplan, ‘‘Opening Statement, Lear Center Local News Archive,’’ February 15, 2005. http://www.learcenter.org/pdf/Kaplan021505.pdf 22. Seth Borenstein, ‘‘Alaska Called ‘The Melting Tip of the Iceberg’ GLOBAL WARNING: State’s Rising Temperatures Are Only a Taste of What’s Coming,’’ Anchorage Daily News, August 30, 2003. http://climateark.org/articles/reader .asp?linkid¼25313 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid.

Chapter 14 1. ADCIRC Development Group, ‘‘Example: Hypothetical Hurricane Pam.’’ http://www.nd.edu/~adcirc/pam.htm 2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), ‘‘Hurricane Pam Exercise Concludes,’’ FEMA Region 6. http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id¼ 13051 3. Louisiana Homeland Security and Preparedness, ‘‘In Case of Emergency.’’ http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/newsrelated/incaseofemrgencyexercise.htm 4. ‘‘Hurricane Pam Exercise Concludes.’’ 5. Joel K. Bourne, Jr., ‘‘Gone with the Water,’’ National Geographic, October 2004. http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/ 6. David R. Baker, ‘‘Thousands Dead, 1 Million Evacuated. Katrina? No, Pam,’’ SouthCoastToday.com, September 12, 2005. http://www.southcoasttoday.com/ daily/09-05/09-12-05/a03wn719.htm 7. Ibid. 8. ‘‘In Case of Emergency.’’ 9. Justine Redman, ‘‘Agencies Drilled for ‘Worst-Case Scenario,’ ’’ CNN.com, September 2, 2005. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/02/hurricane.drill/ 10. Lawrence Jacobs, chair, American Political Science Association Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy, American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality: Summary Report, p. 4. http://www.apsanet.org/section_256.cfm 11. Ibid., p. 1. 12. Ibid., p. 3. 13. Howard Kurtz, ‘‘Wiped Off the Map, and Belatedly Put Back on It,’’ washingtonpost.com, September 19, 2005, p. CO1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/18/AR2005091801265.html 14. Cecil Picard, ‘‘District Composite Report 2003–2004: Orleans Parish,’’ Louisiana Department of Education, April 2005. http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/ pair/1613.html 15. Kurtz. 16. Bernard-Henri Le´vy, ‘‘In the Footsteps of Tocqueville (Part V),’’ The Atlantic Monthly, November 2005. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/bhl-road-trip 17. ‘‘Hurricane Katrina,’’ CNN Special, September 2, 2005.

Notes & 247 18. Jacobs, pp. 6, 7, 8, 14. 19. ‘‘U.S. PRESIDENT/NATIONAL/EXIT POLL,’’ Election Results 2004. http:// www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html 20. Ibid. 21. Jacobs, p. 13. 22. Ibid., p. 15. 23. Robert Putnam, ‘‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital,’’ University of Virginia Xroads. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/ bowling.html 24. Eileen Loh Harrist, ‘‘Silver Ballot,’’ Gambit Weekly, August 10, 2004. http:// www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2004-08-10/news_feat.html 25. ‘‘New Orleans Beset with Voting Snafus,’’ FoxNews.com, November 3, 2004. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137443,00.html 26. ‘‘Parish by Parish List of Voter Machine Problems Called in by Viewers,’’ WWLTV, November 2, 2004, 10:27 A.M. http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/ wwl110204electionmishap.18e9b314.html 27. ‘‘Election 2004: Shoplifting the Presidency?’’ Democracy Now!, November 3, 2004. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid¼04/11/03/1520249 28. Gary Ashwill and Chris Kromm, ‘‘Who Counts the Votes?’’ southern studies.org. http://www.southernstudies.org/reports/votingmachines-new.htm 29. Harrist. 30. Jacobs, p. 13. 31. The quotes are taken from CNN coverage on Friday, September 2, 2005. 32. ‘‘The O’Reilly Factor,’’ broadcast September 7, 2005. 33. ‘‘Limbaugh Linked New Orleans Humanitarian Disaster to ‘the Welfare and Entitlement Thinking of Government,’ ’’ Media Matters for America, September 6, 2005. http://mediamatters.org/items/200509060008 34. ‘‘Limbaugh Blames Katrina Victims,’’ Blogcritics.org, September 4, 2005. http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/04/175733.php 35. David Carr, ‘‘More Horrible Than Truth: News Reports,’’ NYTimes.com, September 19, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/business/media/19carr.html? pagewanted¼all 36. Susannah Rosenblatt and James Rainey, ‘‘Katrina Takes a Toll on Truth, News Accuracy,’’ latimes.com, September 27, 2005. http://www.latimes.com/news/ nationworld/nation/la-na-rumors27sep27,0,5492806,full.story?coll¼la-home-head lines. The snopes.com urban legends site has over fifty ‘‘urban legends’’ about Katrina. 37. Carr. 38. Rosenblatt and Rainey. 39. ‘‘President’s Hurricane Recovery Plan Includes Help for Private School Families,’’ CAPE.org, September 15, 2005. http://www.capenet.org/new.html 40. Kandace Power Graves, ‘‘Educated Choices,’’ Gambit Weekly, September 30, 2003. http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2003-09-30/feat.html

248 & Notes 41. ‘‘Orleans County Private Schools,’’ Private School Review. http://www .privateschoolreview.com/county_high_schools/stateid/LA/county/22071 42. Kevin McGill, ‘‘New Orleans Schools Open as Private Firm Tries to Tame the Tumult,’’ A & M in the News, August 18, 2005. http://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/ en/in-the-news.asp?id¼712 43. Picard. 44. Louisiana Department of Education, ‘‘2003–2004 Attendance and Dropout Rates, Indexes, and Points for 2004–2005 School Accountability,’’ ATTDROP0304 .xls. http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/pair/2198.asp 45. Picard. 46. ‘‘Religious Conservatives Claim Katrina Was God’s Omen, Punishment for the United States,’’ Media Matters for America, September 13, 2005. http://media matters.org/items/200509130004 47. David Foster Wallace, ‘‘Host,’’ The Atlantic, April 2005. http://www.the atlantic.com/doc/prem/200504/wallace 48. Laura Bush, ‘‘Mrs. Bush’s Remarks after a Visit to St. Bernard Unified School,’’ First Lady’s Home Page. http://www.whitehouse.gov/firstlady/ 49. ‘‘Oil Storm Synopsis,’’ fxnetwork.com. http://www.fxnetwork.com/shows/ originals/oilstorm/main.html 50. Paul Wellstone, The Conscience of a Liberal, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001, p. 29. 51. Winona LaDuke, ‘‘Namewag,’’ Recovering the Sacred, Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2005, p. 228.

Select Bibliography

Given the breadth of this study a complete bibliography would considerably lengthen the book. Since this work is not intended as a scholarly study, I have chosen only sources referred to in the text. For the Internet I have tried to list links that have proved the most stable and also the most accessible.

PRINT Bagdikian, Ben. The New Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon, 2004. Banister, Robert. William Graham Sumner, On Liberty, Society, and Politics: The Essential Essays of William Graham Sumner. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992. Barlett, Donald L., and James B. Steele. America: What Went Wrong? Kansas City, MO: Andrews and McMeel, 1992. Black, Earl, and Merle Black. The Rise of Southern Republicans. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2002. Borjas, George J. ‘‘The Economics of Immigration.’’ Economic Literature, December 1994, pp. 1667–1717. Byron, Christopher. Martha Inc.: The Incredible Story of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. New York: Wiley, 2002. Cash, W. J. The Mind of the South. New York: Vintage, 1991. Dangerfield, George. The Strange Death of Liberal England. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997. Dionne, E. J., Jr., and William Kristol, eds. Bush v. Gore. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001. Easton, Nina J. Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Crusade. New York: Touchstone, 2000.

250 & Select Bibliography The Economist Survey on American Exceptionalism, The Economist, November 6, 2003. Ehrenreich, Barbara. Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class. New York: Pantheon, 1989. ———. Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. New York: Holt, 2001. Fallows, James. Breaking the News: How the Media Undermine American Democracy. New York: Vintage, 1996. Ferrell, Robert. Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman. New York: Harper, 1980. Frank, Thomas. What’s the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. New York: Holt, 2004. Frederickson, Kari. The Dixiecrat Revolt and the End of the Solid South, 1932– 1968. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Gitlin, Todd. The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage. New York: Bantam, 1987. Greenwald, Robert, and Alexandra Kitty. Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism. New York: Disinformation, 2005. Hamer, Fannie Lou. To Praise Our Bridges. Jackson, MS: KIPCO, 1967. Harris, Beverly. Black Box Voting. Renton, WA: Talion, 2004. Hofstader, Richard. Social Darwinism in American Thought. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992. Humphrey, Hubert. The Education of a Public Man. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Jackson, Kenneth T. Crabgrass Frontier. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Kaplan, Esther. With God on Their Side: How Christian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy, and Democracy in George W. Bush’s White House. New York: The New Press, 2004. Krainz, Thomas. Delivering Aid: Implementing Progressive Era Social Welfare in the American West. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005. LaDuke, Winona. The Winona LaDuke Reader. Stillwater, MN: Voyageur Press, 2002. ———. Recovering the Sacred. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2005. Lee, Chana Kai. For Freedom’s Sake: The Life of Fannie Lou Hamer. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Marx, Leo. The Machine in the Garden. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Mason, Mary Ann. The Equality Trap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications, 2001. Mathews, T. J., Dr. Fay Menacker, and Marian F. McDorman. ‘‘Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2002 Period Linked by Birth/Infant Death Data Set.’’ National Vital Statistics Reports. Volume 53, Number 10. November 24, 2004, pp. 1, 4. McChesney, Robert. Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. New York: The New Press, 2000.

Select Bibliography & 251 McGirr, Lisa. Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001. Meadows, Donella. Global Citizen. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1991. Mills, Kay. This Little Light of Mine: The Life of Fannie Lou Hamer. New York: Dutton, 1993. Mumford, Lewis. The City in History. New York: Harcourt, 1961. Palast, Greg. The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. New York: Penguin, 2003. Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000. Ramos, Jorge. The Latino Wave: How Hispanics Are Transforming Politics in America. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. Routman, Regie. Literacy at the Crossroads. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1996. Sherwood, Robert E. Roosevelt and Hopkins: An Intimate History. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948. The Southern Manifesto. Congressional Record, 84th Congress Second Session. Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956). Washington, DC: Governmental Printing Office, 1956, 4459–4460. Spring, Joel. Political Agendas for Education from the Christian Coalition to the Green Party. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997. Sullivan, Teresa A., Elizabeth Warren, and Jay Westbrook. The Fragile Middle Class: Americans in Debt. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001. Teixeira, Ruy, and Joel Rodgers. America’s Forgotten Majority. New York: Basic, 2000. Terkel, Studs. Hard Times. New York: Avon Books, 1970. Thurmond, Strom. The Faith We Have Not Kept. San Diego, CA: Viewpoint, 1968. Vizenor, Gerald. anishinabe adisokan. Minneapolis: Nodin Press, 1970. Wellstone, Paul. The Conscience of a Liberal. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001. Williams, Juan. Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary. New York: Random House, 1998. Woodward, C. Vann. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford, 1966.

INTERNET General The Center for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/c.biJRJ 8OVF/b.8473/ Democracy for America. http://www.democracyforamerica.com/ Inequality.org. http://www.inequality.org/index.html PBS Now (best general resource on the decline of Liberal America, includes extensive bibliographies and references). http://www.pbs.org/now snopes.com (urban legends debunking site. If you’re not sure it’s true, go here first). http://www.snopes.com/

252 & Select Bibliography Wellstone Action (excellent links to other sites plus ideas on organizing). http:// www.wellstone.org/ Wikipedia. http://www.wikipedia.org/

Part One Adelstein, Jonathan. ‘‘Citizen Kane for the 21st Century? The Defining Moment for Media Ownership,’’ DOC-234045A1.pdf. http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/ Daily_Digest/2003/dd030502.html Adelstein, Jonathan. ‘‘Big Macs and Big Media: The Decision to Supersize.’’ http:// www.mediainstitute.org/Speeches/adelstein_speech.html The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php Americans for Tax Reform. http://www.atr.org/index.html Americans United for Separation of Church and State. http://www.au.org/site/Page Server Black Box Voting. http://www.blackboxvoting.org/ The Brookings Institution. ‘‘Bush v. Gore Commentary.’’ http://www.brookings.edu/ dybdocroot/press/companion/bushvgore/other/excerpts.htm Bush, George W. ‘‘The State of The Union 2003.’’ whitehouse.gov. http://www .whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html Clear Channel Communications, Inc. http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/cor porate_ktf.aspx A ‘‘Contract with the Family’’ (includes related information on the Contract with the American Family). http://www.24hourscholar.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_ n18_v112/ai_16997239#continue Democrats.com. http://democrats.com/ ‘‘A Divided Nation: Background.’’ Newshour, November 6, 2003. http://www.pbs .org/newshour/bb/politics/July-dec03/divided_bg_11-06.html ‘‘Evolution Revolution.’’ Evolution: Religion, PBS.org. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ evolution/religion/revolution/1990.html FCC Releases Text of Report and Order Setting Limits on Media Concentration. http://www.fcc.gov/ownership/documents.html Gigot, Paul. ‘‘Miami Heat.’’ WSJ.com, November 23, 2000. http://opinionjournal .com/columnists/pgigot/?id¼65000673 ‘‘Independent Ads: The National Security Political Action Committee ‘Willie Horton.’ ’’ http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/independentads.html Internal Revenue Service Political Organizations Filing and Disclosure. http:// www.irs.gov/charities/political/article/0,,id¼109644,00.html Lantigua, John. ‘‘Miami’s Rent-a-Riot.’’ salon.com, November 28, 2000. http//archive .salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/28/miami/ ‘‘The Long March of Newt Gingrich.’’ Frontline. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/ frontline/newt/ ‘‘The McLaughlin Group.’’ http://www.mclaughlin.com/

Select Bibliography & 253 Meserve, Jeanne, Bruce Morton, and Matt Smith. ‘‘Longtime Senator Left LargerThan-Life Mark on South, Congress.’’ CNN.com Special Report. http://edition .cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/special.strom.thurmond/stories/bio/ ‘‘Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War.’’ The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll. http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf NEWT.ORG. http://newt.org/index.php Parry, Robert. ‘‘Bush’s Conspiracy to Riot.’’ consortiumnews.com. http://www .consortiumnews.com/2002/080502a.html The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. ‘‘News Audiences Increasingly Politicized.’’ http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID¼215 Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission. Supreme Court of the United States, 395 U.S. 367. http://www.epic.org/free_speech/ red_lion.html ‘‘Republican Contract with America.’’ http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/ CONTRACT.html The Republican Platform 2000. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/ republican/features/platform.00/ The Republican Platform 2004. www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf ‘‘Rights Commission’s Report on Florida Election.’’ http://www.washingtonpost .com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/ccrdraft060401.htm The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ The Southern Baptist Convention. http://www.sbc.net/default.asp The Strom Thurmond Institute of Government and Public Affairs. http://www .strom.clemson.edu/strom/manifesto.html Sumner, William Graham. ‘‘On a New Philosophy: That Poverty Is the Best Policy.’’ What Social Classes Owe to Each Other, University of Virginia Xroads. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR/sumner1.html The Sword of the Lord Publishers. http://www.swordofthelord.com/ United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/ paramountdoc_1948supreme.htm United States Supreme Court. ‘‘The Florida Election Cases.’’ http://www.supreme courtus.gov/florida.html The Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive. http://www.pkarchive.org/ verifiedvotingfoundation.org. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/index.php The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ WomenMatter. http://www.womenmatter.net/index.shtml

Part Two American Indian Movement. http://www.aimovement.org/ Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Indian Education Programs. http://www.oiep.bia.edu/ Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of the Census. Current Population Survey. http://www.bls.census.gov/cps/cpsmain.htm

254 & Select Bibliography Democratic Platform 2000. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/ dem-platform1.html Eagle Forum (Phyllis Schlafly). http://www.eagleforum.org/ Ellis Island. http://www.ellisisland.com/ English First. http://www.englishfirst.org/ The Fannie Lou Hamer Project (excellent links). http://www.flhp.org Hispanic Center for Economic Research. http://www.hacer.org/index.php HispanicVista.com. http://www.hispanicvista.com/html/..%5Cindex.asp The Internet Movie Database. http://us/imdb.com/ ‘‘An Interview with Rose von Thater-Braan: Nourishing a Science for the 21st Century,’’ Leverage Points, October 28, 2005. http://www.pegasuscom.com/ levpoints/RvTBint.html JOY Center of Learning. http://www.joycenter.on.ca/menujs.html?schools.htm The Kerry-Edwards Plan for America. http://www.johnkerry.com/plan/ LaDuke, Winona. ‘‘Indigenous Mind.’’ resurgence.org. http://www.resurgence.org/ resurgence/articles/laduke.htm League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). http://www.lulac.org Marketing y Medios (Marketing to U.S. Hispanics and Latin America). http:// www.marketingymedios.com/marketingymedios/index.jsp Martha Stewart. http://www.marthastewart.com/ McMillen, Neil. ‘‘An Oral History with Fannie Lou Hamer.’’ http://www.lib.usm .edu/~spcol/crda/oh/hamertrans.htm Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission. http://www.mdah.state.ms.us/arlib/arc hives.html Multicultural Associates. http://www.mculture.net/ National Center for Educational Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/ National Council of La Raza. http://www.nclr.org/ ‘‘National Educational Statistics and Other Equity Indicators.’’ The Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium. http://www.maec.org/natstats.html National Indian Education Association. http://www.niea.org/ SaveMartha!.com. http://www.savemartha.com/ Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). http://www.ibiblio.org/ sncc/ Texas Redistricting Map. http://www.comdig2.de/test/images/planC01151_MAP 1928356439before.jpg ‘‘United States v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic, Defendants.’’ http://www .cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/stewart060404.pdf The White Earth Land Recovery Project. http://www.nativeharvest.com/

Part Three ADCIRC Development Group. ‘‘Example: Hypothetical Hurricane Pam.’’ http:// www.nd.edu/~adcirc/pam.htm

Select Bibliography & 255 America from the Great Depression to World War II: Photographs from the FSAOWI: 1935–1945. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsowhome.html American Life Histories: Manuscripts from the Federal Writers’ Project, 1936– 1940. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/wpaintro/wpahome.html Association of Christian Schools International. http://www.acsi.org/web2003/de fault.aspx?ID¼1609 Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). http:// www.acorn.org/ Borenstein, Seth. ‘‘Alaska Called ‘The Melting Tip of the Iceberg’ GLOBAL WARNING: State’s Rising Temperatures Are Only a Taste of What’s Coming.’’ http://climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid¼25313 Bourne, Joel K., Jr. ‘‘Gone with the Water.’’ National Geographic, October, 2004. http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/ Bradley, Ann. ‘‘Requiem for a Reform.’’ Education Week, June 1, 1994. http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1994/06/01/36little.h13.html?querystring¼ann %20bradley%20Requiem%20for%20Reform Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/ The Center for Voting and Democracy (fairvote.org). http://www.fairvote.org/ ?page¼1 Citizens for Excellence in Education. http://www.nace-cee.org/ceehome.htm Claritas (Cluster Site). MyBestSegments.com. http://www.clusterbigip1.claritas.com/ MyBestSegments/Default.jsp Council for American Private Education. http://www.capenet.org/ DeLay, Tom. ‘‘Why Kids Murder Kids.’’ GOPtoday.com. http://www.gopwhip.org/ html/newsarticle1.cfm?news_id¼21 Ehsan. ‘‘Gnostic and Spiritual Aspects of Imam Khomeini.’’ AhlulBayt Discussion Forum, April 1, 2003. http://www.shiachat.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/ t7338.html ‘‘Election 2004.’’ CNN.com. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/ states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html The Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ‘‘Hurricane Pam Exercise Concludes.’’ FEMA Region 6. http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id ¼13051 Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. ‘‘Economic Inequality in the United States.’’ FRBSF Economic Letter, 97-03, January 31, 1997. http://www.frbsf.org/ econrsrch/wklyltr/el97-03.html ‘‘Great Depression Narratives.’’ Palo Alto College. San Antonio, Texas. http:// www.accd.edu/pac/history/hist1302/OralHistoryGD.htm Jacobs, Lawrence, chair. American Political Science Association Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy. American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality: Summary Report. http://www.apsanet.org/section_256.cfm Jerry Falwell Ministries. http://www.falwell.com

256 & Select Bibliography Johnson, Nicholas, Jennifer Schiess, and Joseph Llobrera. ‘‘State Revenues Have Fallen Dramatically: Tax Increases So Far Have Failed to Fill the Gap.’’ Center on Budget and Policy Studies, November 28, 2003. http://www.cbpp .org/10-22-03sfp.htm Karp, Jack. ‘‘Worth a Thousand Lies.’’ TechTV. http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/ features/33784/Worth_a_Thousand_Lies.html Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law. http://www.lawyerscomm.org/ Light, Ken. ‘‘The Real Fake.’’ The Digital Journalist.com, March 2004. http://www .digitaljournalist.org/issue0403/dis_light.html Long, John. ‘‘Ethics in the Age of Digital Photography.’’ nppa.org. http://www.nppa .org/professional_development/self-training_resources/eadp_report/ eadptxt.html Louisiana Homeland Security and Preparedness. ‘‘In Case of Emergency.’’ http:// www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/newsrelated/incaseofemrgencyexercise.htm Media Matters for America. http://mediamatters.org/ O’Reilly.com. http://www.billoreilly.com/ Picard, Cecil. ‘‘District Composite Report 2003–2004: Orleans Parish,’’ Louisiana Department of Education, April 2005. http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/pair/ 1613.html Schneider, William. ‘‘The Suburban Century Begins.’’ The Atlantic Monthly, July 1992. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ecbig/schnsub.htm ‘‘State of Connecticut and the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, Plaintiffs v. Margaret Spellings, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of Education, Defendant.’’ npr.org. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st oryId¼4810586 ‘‘U.S. PRESIDENT/NATIONAL/EXIT POLL,’’ Election Results 2004. http://www .cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

Index

AARP, 8 Abramoff, Jack, 33 Abrams, Charles, 176 ACORN. See Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) Adams, Henry, 158 Adams, John Quincy, 46 Adelstein, Jonathan, 67, 68, 69, 71 Advertising, 189–90, 190–91, 193–94, 198. See also Marketing techniques, political campaigns and Advertising Age, 186 African Americans: Democratic Party and, 97–98; economic forces and, 81–82; education and, 102–3; housing discrimination and, 176; Hurricane Katrina and, 209–10; income disparity and, 82; suburbs and, 183; voting rights and, 53–54, 110–11, 114–24, 212 Agriculture, global warming and, 201 Ailes, Roger, 64, 66, 73 Alaska, global warming and, 200–201 All-American Boys, 27

Alliance for Better Campaigns, 198 All the President’s Men (film), 40 Al-Qaeda, 195 Alvarez, R. Michael, 57 Alvarez and Marsal (A&M) Company, 217 Amateur WebMaster Association, 195 America Can Be Saved! (Falwell), 42 American Democracy in an Age of Rising Inequality (APSA), 208 American Demographics magazine, 180 American Dream, the, 1–2 American Enterprise Institute, 39 American exceptionalism, 43, 173 American Indian Movement, 81 American Indians. See Native Americans American Political Science Association (APSA), 208, 211–12 American Prospect, 48 Americans for Tax Reform, 33, 35 America’s Forgotten Majority (Teixeira and Rogers), 97 America: What Went Wrong (Barlett and Steele), 25

258 & Index Amish people, 29 Amoss, Jim, 215 Anchorage Daily News, The, 200–201 Anishinaabeg people, 94 Annenberg School of Communications, 68 Anti-government rhetoric, 18 Armey, Dick, 37 Armstrong, Louis, 66, 67 Arnwine, Barbara, 212 Ashcroft, John, 132 Asian Americans, 183 Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, 152 Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), 168 Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), 176, 213 Atwal, Sandeep S., 57 Austin, Gail, 62 Bacanovic, Peter, 132, 135 Bacardi Corporation, 193 Bagdikian, Ben, 69 Bait and Switch (Ehrenreich), 25 Ball, Lucille, 177 ‘‘Bandits in Black Robes’’ (Raskin), 46 Bankhead, Lee, 114 Banks, 176, 216–17 Banks, Dennis, 81 Baptist Church, 30–32, 40, 41–42 Barkley, Charles, 191 Barlett, Donald, 25 Barone, Michael, 50 Barrett, Wayne, 62 Baseball, 77–80, 83 Beaulieu, David, 102 Begich-Boggs visitor center, 201 Bellecourt, Clyde, 81 Beriwal, Madhu, 206 Bias, in the media, 64, 65–66, 69–70, 196–98

Bias (Goldberg), 197 ‘‘Big government,’’ 18 Bilbo, Theodore, 122 Bilingual education, 85–87, 90 Bin Laden, Osama, 195, 203 Birth control, 43 Birth of A Nation, The (film), 19 Black, Earl, 18 Black, Merle, 18 Black colleges, 112 Blank, Arthur, 142 Blodget, Henry, 138 Blues music, 109, 124 Boarding schools, Native Americans and, 101–2 ‘‘Boiled Frog Parable,’’ 44 Bonfire of the Vanities, 42 Bonus March, 151–52 Borenstein, Seth, 200–201 Borjas, George J., 85 Born-again experiences, 164–65 Boulet, Jim, Jr., 87 Bowling Alone (Putnam), 212 Boxer, Barbara, 66 Bradbury, Stephen, 213 Bradley, Ann, 160, 162 Branch, Bill, 151 Brethren in Christ, 29 Breyer, Stephen G., 49 Brinkley, Alan, 48 Broder, David, 8 Brooks, Rosa, 209 ‘‘Brooks Brothers Riot,’’ 49–52, 59 Brown, Aaron, 211, 213–14 Brown, Michael, 206 Brown, Michael L., 206 Brown, Tina, 133 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954), 20–21, 216 Bryan, William Jennings, 21, 30 Bryant, Kobe, 132 Bubba the Love Sponge, 63 Buckley v. Valeo (1976), 34, 36

Index & 259 Budget deficits, 146–47 Bugliosi, Vincent, 46 Burke, Edmund, 26 Bush, Barbara, 220, 221 Bush, Ed, 215 Bush, George H. W., 17 Bush, George W.: bilingual education and, 86; Hispanic Americans and, 90; Hurricane Katrina and, 210; Religious Right and, 33, 40; religious views of, 3; Strom Thurmond and, 18; taxes and, 146–47 Bush, Jeb, 54 Bush Cheney Recount Fund, 50–51 Bush (George W.) administration, 82, 102, 197, 198 Bush v. Gore (2000). See 2000 election Business ownership, 63–64, 66, 80, 126, 127, 142. See also Corporations Byron, Christopher, 126 Calhoun, John C., 20 Campaign financing, 34, 133, 211 Capitalism, government regulation and, 22–23 Carnegie, Andrew, 26, 66 Carr, David, 215 Carr, Woodley, 112 Carter, Jimmy, 18, 32 Cash, W. J., 24 Castleman, Ron, 206 Castro, Estefana, 148–49 CBS network, 67, 195 Censorship, 67 Census data, 181 Center for Voting and Democracy, The, 186 Centers for Disease Control, 82 Chaney, James, 114, 117 Charge to Keep, A (Bush), 40 Chavez, Cesar, 81 Chavez, Cile, 160, 161, 161–62 Cheney, Dick, 187

Chiarello, Chuck, 193 Chicago Tribune, 154 Chick flicks, 130 Children, suburbs and, 157–58 Chippewa people. See Anishinaabeg people ‘‘Christ-Centered Curriculum,’’ 106–7 Christian Coalition, 32, 33, 35, 39, 161 Christian education, 31 Christian fundamentalists. See Religious Right ChronWatch organization, 89 Church and state, separation of, 39 Citizens for Excellence in Education (CEE), 160 Civil liberties, 203 Civil Rights Act (1957), 15 Civil Rights Commission, 54, 110 Civil rights movement: communism and, 113–14; decline of, 120–21; Democratic Party and, 15, 123; education and, 81; elections and, 118–20; Religious Right and, 41–42; Southern Strategy and, 16–17; voter registration and, 110–11 Civil War, 19 Claritas Corp., 180, 183 Class warfare, 155 Clay, Henry, 36, 46 Clear Channel Communications, 62–63, 67, 68 Clinton, Bill, 90, 133, 184, 210 Clinton, Hillary, 89, 126, 133 Clinton administration, 82 Cluster analysis, 180–86 Cohen, Andrew, 133 Cohn, Cindy, 212 Colmer, William, 120 Colson, Charles, 218 Columbine High School shootings, 41 Communism, civil rights movement and, 113–14 Community service, 212, 221

260 & Index Computer Age, 145 Computer imaging, 193–94 Confessore, Nicholas, 48 Congress, U.S., 72–73, 119–20, 186–87, 213. See also Elections Coniff, Harry, 209 Connecticut, No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and, 169, 170 Conscience of a Liberal, The (Wellstone), 222 Conservatism, 153–54, 214–15. See also Republican Party Construction industry, 145 Contract with America (Gingrich), 36–37, 180 Contract with the American Family (Reed), 37, 40 Cooper, Rory, 49 Copps, Michael, 63, 67, 69, 71 Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 196–97 Corporations: Clear Channel Communications and, 62–63; corporate sponsorship and, 190–92, 202; education and, 170; laissez faire economics and, 22–23; war profiteering and, 203 Cosey, Mildred C., 115 Coulter, Ann, 70, 133–34, 197 Council for American Private School Education (CAPE), 168 Crabgrass Frontier ( Jackson), 143, 175, 176 Creationism. See Evolution, teaching of Crime, Hurricane Katrina and, 215 Cuban-Americans, 51, 52 Cultural identity, Native Americans and, 101–2 Dalponte Farms, 193 Darrow, Clarence, 30, 40 Daschle, Tom, 67

Davis, Eric, 91 Debates, presidential, 96 DeLay, Tom: ‘‘Brooks Brothers Riot’’ and, 49; education and, 164, 172; lobbyists and, 38–39; redistricting and, 88, 186; religious views of, 41, 166, 219 Delivering Aid: Implementing Progressive Era Social Welfare in the American West (Krainz), 2 DeMint, Jim, 49 Democratic Party: 2000 election and, 46, 95–96, 97; African Americans and, 97–98; campaign financing and, 34–35, 133; changing demographics and, 187; civil rights movement and, 15, 115–16; education and, 103, 171–72; environmentalism and, 200; Hispanic Americans and, 90–91; labor movement and, 145; Newt Gingrich and, 36–37; platform of, 89–90, 90–91; political ideology of, 97, 106, 202–3, 210–11, 220; redistricting and, 88; southern states and, 122–23; taxes and, 147–48 Demographic data, market research and, 181–82, 183–84 Dent, Harry, 17 Deregulation, media and, 69 Devine, Annie, 117, 119, 122 Deyhle, Donna, 103 Diebold company, 57 DiFranco, Ani, 63 Digital artists, 194 Dill, David, 56 Diller, Barry, 68 Dionne, E. J., 55 Dispensationalism, 39 Distant Mirror, A (Tuchman), 14 Diversity, 83–84, 104–6 Diversity, of viewpoints. See Opposing viewpoints, media and ‘‘Diversity Index,’’ FCC, 70–71

Index & 261 Dixie Chicks (band), 61–62, 63, 73, 74 Dixiecrats, 14, 15, 21 Dole, Robert, 120, 184 Dorgan, Byron, 65, 72–73 Douglas, William O., 66, 69, 70 Dover, Pennsylvania, 29, 41, 42–43 Drug use, 144 ‘‘Dubious Democracy 2003–2004’’ (The Center for Voting and Democracy), 186 Du Pont, Pete, 179 Dust Bowl, the, 149 Eagle Forum, 73 Eastland, James, 113 Easton, Nina J., 33 ‘‘Economics of Immigration, The’’ (Borjas), 85 Economist, The, 8–9, 43, 126, 173 Economy, the: Democratic Party and, 90; free-market fundamentalism, 22–24; Great Depression and, 148–52; Home Depot and, 141–42, 155–56; immigration and, 84–85; income disparity, 25–26, 80–83, 155, 208, 209, 211, 221; labor movement, 142, 144, 145, 187; liberalism and, 5; middle class and, 97, 147; Republican Party and, 82; roles of women and, 128; suburbs and, 143–45, 154–55 Edgefield Country, South Carolina, 13 Education: bilingual education, 85–87; corporate sponsorship and, 191–92, 202; Democratic Party and, 171–72; diversity in, 104–6; evolution and, 29–30, 34, 40–41, 42–43; Hurricane Katrina and, 216–18; liberalism and, 6; Littleton, Colorado schools, 159–62; Native Americans and, 100–104, 107; No Child Left Behind Act (2001), 168–69, 170–71; private

schools, 167–68; public schools, 221; public schools and, 163–64, 165–67; Religious Right and, 31, 37–38, 105–7, 158–59, 165–66; sharecropping and, 110; southern states and, 25; student languages and, 83 Education Week, 160 Ehrenreich, Barbara, 25 Einstein, Albert, 85 Elections: 2000 election, 46–59, 94, 95–96, 123, 124; campaign financing and, 34–35; civil rights movement and, 117–18, 118–20; Hispanic Americans and, 87, 90; landslide elections, 186–87, 211; New Orleans, Louisiana and, 212–13; presidential, 15, 16–17, 18, 57, 118, 184; school boards, 160–61, 167; stealth candidates, 161. See also Voting rights Electronic Frontier Foundation, 212 Ellis Island, 84 El Nasser, Haya, 183 Emergency communications, 68 Employment, 141–42, 142–43, 144–45 English First, 87 English-only movements, 85–86, 87 Enron Corporation, 33, 51, 132 Environmentalism, 100, 199–202 Ephrata Cloister, 29 Equality Trap, The (Mason), 128 Era of Bad Feelings. See Incivility, in public life Erie and Lackawanna RR, The (Inness), 189 Ethnicities, 83–84 Europe, Religious Right and, 43 Evangelical Christians, 159, 168. See also Religious Right Evers, Medgar, 111 Evolution, teaching of, 29–30, 34, 40–41, 42–43

262 & Index Exit polling, 47 Extreme sports, 80 Fairness Doctrine, 6, 35–36 Faith-based initiatives, 39, 40 Fallows, James, 64 Falwell, Jerry, 32, 35, 42, 164, 165, 166 Family life, 31, 88, 97, 101–2 Faneuil, Robert, 135, 136 Farm Holiday movement, 151 FCC. See Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Fear of Falling (Ehrenreich), 25 Federal Communications Commission (FCC): Clear Channel Communications and, 63; Fairness Doctrine and, 35–36; Martha Stewart and, 138; media ownership and, 67–68, 70–71, 72–73, 74, 197; Religious Right and, 34; Roger Ailes and, 64 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 205–6, 210 Federal Housing Administration (FHA), 175, 176, 187 Federal Writer’s Project, 148, 151 Felons, voting rights and, 55 Fiction, suburbs and, 177 Filibusters, 15–16 ‘‘5 Myths of Immigration’’ (website), 85 Flanagan, Caitlin, 128 ‘‘Flawed Goddess’’ (Vuillamy), 126 Fonda, Jane, 196 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 132 Ford, Gerald, 120 Ford, John, 189, 190 Foreign policy, Religious Right and, 39, 43 Forrest, Nathan Bedford, 19 Fortas, Abe, 15 Fort Pillow massacre, 19 Fox News, 64–65, 67, 214, 216

Frederickson, Kari, 21 Freedom Ballots, 117–18 Freedom Farms, 121 Freedom Summer of 1964, 114, 115, 117 Free-market fundamentalism, 22–24 Free Martha (website), 127 Frontier, the, 174 Funding, for schools, 168, 169, 216–17 Gang of Five: Leaders at the Center of the Conservative Crusade (Easton), 33 Gangs of New York (film), 83–84 Geller, Joe, 51 Gerrymandering. See Redistricting GI Bill, 175 Gibson, Duane, 49 Gibson, John, 216 Gigot, Paul, 51 Gilbert, Cass, 45, 58 Gingrich, Newt, 14, 36–37, 37–38, 87 Gini index, 155 Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 49 Gitlin, Todd, 123 Glaciers, 200, 201 Globalization, immigration and, 85 Global warming, 200–201 Goals 2000, 37, 161 Goldberg, Bernard, 197 Goldberg, Jonah, 197 Goldwater, Barry, 16, 118 Gonzalez, Elian, 51 Goodman, Amy, 63 Goodman, Andrew, 114, 117 Gore, Al, 46, 48, 90, 96, 97, 123, 133. See also 2000 election Gould, Jay, 35 Government: anti-government rhetoric, 18; bureaucracy and, 145–46; capitalism and, 22–23; corporate sponsorship and, 192–93, 202; the New Deal and, 152–53, 154; public assistance and, 2; public opinion and,

Index & 263 211–12, 221–22; role of, 4, 5, 7–8, 21, 26, 208, 214–15, 221; suburbs and, 174–75 GQ magazine, 194 Gramm, Phil, 37 Grapes of Wrath, The (film), 150 Gray, Victoria, 117, 119, 122 Great Depression, 4, 5, 148–52 Green Party, 94, 95–96 Griffith, D. W., 19 Gross domestic product (GDP), 85 Guillen, Ozzie, 78 Guthrie, Woody, 148, 149, 152 Hamer, Fannie Lou, 109–24, 187 Hannity, Sean, 64 Hard Times (Terkel), 148 Hargis, Billy James, 35 Harris, Bev, 56–57 Harris, Katherine, 54 Harrison, Patricia, 197 Hayworth, Rita, 136 Health care, 25, 82 Hearst, William Randolph, 65 Henry, Aaron, 117–18, 122 Hickman, Breuse, 62 Higher education, 163 Hightower, Jim, 96 Highway construction, 175 Hispanic Americans: baseball and, 83; Bush, George W. and, 90; education and, 103; income disparity and, 82; political parties and, 87, 88, 90–91, 187; suburbs and, 183 HispanicVista.com (website), 90 Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 23 Holocaust in Historical Context, The (Katz), 131 Home Depot, 141–43, 144–45 Home-improvement projects, 141–42, 143–45, 221 Homeland Security, Department of, 88 Home loans, 175

Hoover, Herbert, 214 Hoover, J. Edgar, 113 Hoovervilles, 149–50 Hopkins, Harry, 152, 153, 154, 156, 222 Houses, mass-produced, 143–44 How to Live a Successful Christian Life (Falwell), 164 Hudson Institute, 179 Human rights, 203 Hume, Brit, 64 Humphrey, Hubert, 4, 15, 17, 116, 118 Hurricane Katrina, 206–7, 208–10; aid for victims of, 221–22; education and, 216–18; media, the and, 213–16 Hurricane Pam exercise, 205–6 Hussein, Saddam, 64, 195, 203 Hymns, Christian, 40 ImClone, Inc., 132 Immigration, 83–85 Imperialism, 203 Inactive voters, 213 Incivility, in public life, 7–9, 79–80 Income disparity, 25–26, 80–83, 155, 208, 209, 211, 221 Indian Reorganization Act (1934), 102 Individualism, liberalism and, 177–78 Industrialization, attitudes toward, 189–90 Industrial Revolution, 84 Infant mortality, 82 Infernalpress.com website, 57 Inherit the Wind (film), 29–30, 40 Inness, George, 189 Innovative Emergency Management, Inc., 206 Inquisition, the, 131–32 Insider trading, 132, 134–37 Intelligent design, 34, 40, 42–43, 161 Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 34, 50–51 Internet, the, 175, 196; altered photographs and, 194–95; incivility and, 9; Martha Stewart and, 127

264 & Index Intimidation, political, 52–53 Iraq War, 64–65, 203 IRS. See Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Israel, Religious Right and, 39 Izaguirre, Rau´l, 91 Jackson, Kenneth, 143, 175 Jackson, Phil, 61 Jefferson, Thomas, 7, 84, 163, 172 ‘‘Jesus Christ’’ (Guthrie), 152 Joan of Arc, 131 Johannessen, Bob, 215 Johnson, Lyndon B., 16, 17, 115, 116, 118 Johnson, Magic, 191 Johnson, Robert, 109 Johnson-O’Malley Act (1934), 102 Jordan, Michael, 191 Juday, Glenn, 201 Kahn, Roger, 78 Kaplan, Martin, 198 Karlan, Pamela S., 58 Karp, Jack, 195 Katz, Stephen, 131 Keller, Louis, Sr., 212 Kennedy, John F., 3, 17, 41 Kerry, John, 90, 91, 169, 196 King, Martin Luther, Jr., 26, 81, 123 Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District (2005), 42–43 Klingon language, 87 Knott, Tom, 89 Kohut, Andrew, 8 Konz, Kenneth, 197 Kostyra, Martha. See Stewart, Martha Krainz, Thomas, 2 Kramer, Stanley, 29, 30, 40 Kristol, William, 48, 64 Krugman, Paul, 25, 38 Ku Klux Klan, 19 Kurtz, Howard, 209

Kuttner, Robert, 96 Kyoto Treaty, 200 Labor movement, 142, 144, 145, 187 Labor Statistics, Bureau of, 144, 145 LaDuke, Winona: Democratic Party and, 187; education and, 103–5, 106, 172; Green Party and, 94, 95; Native Americans and, 121; political optimism of, 107, 222; poverty and, 98; voters and, 97, 212; White Earth Land Recovery Project (WELRP) and, 99–100 Laissez faire economics, 22–23 Land, Richard, 32–33, 34 Land ownership, Native Americans and, 94, 99–100 Landslide elections, 186–87 Language, fairness and, 77–78 Languages, 83, 85–87, 90–91 Lantigua, John, 51 Latino Wave, The (Ramos), 90 Law enforcement, 111, 112, 132, 133 Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under Law, 212 Lay, Ken, 132 Leahy, Patrick J., 187 Lear, Norman, 68 Lear Center, 198 Lee, Robert E., 19 Left Behind series (LaHaye and Jenkins), 218 Legal Realism, 58 Le´vy, Bernard-Henri, 210–11 Lewis, John L., 145 Liberalism: environmentalism and, 200; future of, 222–23; Hurricane Katrina and, 207; ideals of, 2–6, 121, 122, 137, 219; the media and, 197; Strom Thurmond and, 14. See also Democratic Party Light, Ken, 196 Lighthouse Baptist Church, 41, 42

Index & 265 Limbaugh, Rush, 62, 64, 68, 70, 146, 214–15 Lincoln, Abraham, 7 Lindsay, John, 120, 122 Lindsey, Hal, 218 Listening skills, politics and, 95, 107 Literacy laws, 110 Littleton, Colorado schools, 159–62 Lobbyists. See Political action committees (PACs) Lochner v. New York (1905), 23 Logos, corporate, 190–91 Lord of the Rings (films), 195, 199 Los Angeles Times, 39, 209, 215 Lott, Trent, 17, 51, 72 Lotteries, 81 Louisiana State University, 206 Lynching, 15 Lypchuck, Donna, 127 Maceri, Domenico, 90 Machine in the Garden, The (Marx), 189 Magical Mystery Tour, 67–68, 73, 137 Maines, Natalie, 61–62 Malphrus, Garry, 49, 51, 52 Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The (film), 163 Maps, cluster analysis and, 183 Marcus, Bernie, 142 Marketing techniques, political campaigns and, 180–86 Markey, Edward J., 72–73 Marsalis, Wynton, 124 Marshall, Thurgood, 15 Martinez, Pedro, 77–78, 91 Martin Luther King Day, 123 Marx, Leo, 189–90, 199, 202 Mason, Mary Ann, 128 Matrix, The (film), 195, 199 McCain, John, 18, 63, 72, 102 McGirr, Lisa, 159 McGwire, Mark, 79

McMillen, Neil, 109 Meadows, Donella, 105 Means, Russell, 81 Media, the: 2000 election and, 47–48, 50; advertising and, 186, 189–94; altered photographs and, 194–95; bias in, 64, 65–66, 69–70, 196–98; diversity of viewpoints and, 61–64; Hurricane Katrina and, 213–14, 213–16; Iraq War and, 203; liberalism and, 6; Martha Stewart and, 125–30, 132–38; media ownership and, 67–74, 137, 197; movies and, 130–31; political campaigns and, 198–99; poverty and, 208–9; television and, 127, 177, 178 Media Monopoly, The (Bagdikian), 69 Media ownership, 67–68, 69, 70–71, 72, 73, 74, 137; Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and, 197 Methamphetamines, 144 ‘‘Miami Heat’’ (Gigot), 51 ‘‘Miami’s Rent-a-Riot’’ (Lantigua), 51 Middle class, the: Democratic Party and, 90; the economy and, 81, 154–55; government aid for, 175; income disparity and, 25–26; roles of women and, 128; taxes and, 146, 147 Minot, North Dakota, 61, 68, 73 Mississippi Election Commission, 117, 119 Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP), 114–15, 117, 122 Mississippi Sovereignty Commission, 111–12, 114–15, 118–19, 121 Mondale, Walter, 34 Monopolies, business, 66 Monument Valley, 189, 190 Moore, Micki, 129 Moral Majority, 32 Moral values, 53 Mortgage insurance, 175

266 & Index Mortgage loans, 176 Morvillo, Robert, 134–35, 135–36 Movies, 130–31 Moyers, Bill, 25, 196, 197 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (film), 16 MSNBC network, 216 Mt. Rushmore, 192 Mumford, Lewis, 158, 173–74 Murdoch, Rupert, 63–64, 65–66, 73, 138 Nader, Ralph, 94, 95, 96 Nagin, Ray, 216 National Association of Christian Educators, 160 National Center for Education Statistics, 103 National Conference on Media Reform, 196 National Council de La Raza, 91 National Farmers Union, 151 National Geographic magazine, 206 National Indian Education Association (NIEA), 102 National Organization for Women (NOW), 73, 81 National Press Photographers Association, 194 National Public Radio (NPR), 65 National Review, The, 197 National Rifle Association (NRA), 68, 73 ‘‘National Shame, A’’ (Newsweek), 214 Nation at Risk, A, 170 Native American Academy, 105 Native Americans, 82, 93–95, 121; education and, 100–104, 107; global warming and, 201; land ownership and, 99–100; poverty and, 98–99 Natural resources, 199–202 Nazi Party, 52, 53 Nelson, Don, 83

New Deal, the, 5, 14, 15, 148, 151–54, 221 ‘‘New Low: Pandering to ‘Soccer Moms,’ A’’ (Scheer), 184 New Orleans, Louisiana, 208–10, 212–14, 215–17 New Orleans Times-Picayune, 213, 215 New Republic, 48 News Corp., 67 Newsweek magazine, 8, 214 New York Times, 48, 58, 72, 215 New York Yankees, 80 Nickel and Dimed (Ehrenreich), 25 Nike Corporation, 191 Nixon, Richard, 5, 16–17, 46 No Child Left Behind Act (2001), 102, 168–69, 170–71, 198 ‘‘None Dare Call It Treason’’ (Bugliosi), 46 Norman, Geoffrey, 89 Norquist, Grover, 33, 35 North, Oliver, 133 Novelli, William, 8 Now (TV series), 25, 155 Obey, David, 72 O’Connor, Sandra Day, 8 ‘‘Oil Storm’’ (TV show), 206 Ojibway people. See Anishinaabeg people ‘‘Old Labels Just Don’t Stick in 21st Century’’ (USA Today), 183 Olympic Games, 190–91 Opposing viewpoints, media and, 61–62, 65, 68, 69, 70–71 Oral traditions, 94, 95 O’Reilly, Bill, 64, 214 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OCED), 155 Ornstein, Norman, 39 Outcome-Based Education, 100–101, 160, 170

Index & 267 Outfoxed (Greenwald and Kitty), 64 Overberg, Paul, 183 PACs. See Political action committees (PACs) Paige, Rod, 86, 198 Palast, Greg, 55 Panetta, Leon, 17 Parks, Rosa, 81 Patriot Act (2001), 88 PBS. See Public Broadcasting System (PBS) Pearl Jam, 68 Peltier, Layna McConkey, 50 Pena, Zacarias, 150 Permafrost, 201 Petty, Tom, 68 Pew Research Center, 8, 65 Phillips. Sam, 66 Photographs, altered, 194–95, 196 Photo ID, voting rights and, 213 Plan for America (Kerry and Edwards), 90 Political action committees (PACs), 34–35, 39, 64 Political Agendas for Education: From the Christian Coalition to the Green Party (Spring), 34 Political campaigns, 34, 133, 182, 184–87, 198, 211 Political ideology, 179–80, 200. See also Conservatism; Liberalism Political parties, 8–9, 21, 97. See also Democratic Party; Republican Party Political polarization, 8, 65 Political rallies, 49–52, 59, 63 Poll taxes, 15 Popular culture, 126, 127, 128–29, 130–31, 137–38 Pornography, 194–95 Portage Glacier, 201 Potential Rating Index for Zip Markets (PRIZM), 180

Poverty: Great Depression and, 148–51; Hurricane Katrina and, 208–10; Native Americans and, 98–99; voters and, 211 Powell, Michael, 67, 70 Presley, Elvis, 66, 67 Private schools, 34, 167–68, 216–17. See also Education Privatization, 192, 217 PRIZM. See Potential Rating Index for Zip Markets (PRIZM) Profiteering, Iraq War and, 203 Program on International Policy (PIP), 64–65 Protests, 46, 49–52, 59 Public affairs, knowledge of, 64–65 Public assistance, 2 Public Broadcasting System (PBS), 25, 40–41, 65, 155, 196–97 Public hearings, media ownership and, 67–68 Public opinion: community service and, 220; Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and, 73; of government, 211–12, 221–22; liberalism and, 98 Public schools. See Education Public services, taxes and, 155 Putnam, Robert, 212 Pyle, Tom, 49, 51 Race, education and, 216–17 ‘‘Race records,’’ 66 Racial discrimination, in housing, 176–77, 187 Racism: English-only movements and, 86; ‘‘playing the race card’’ and, 89; social Darwinism and, 23; Strom Thurmond and, 14–15 Radicalism, Great Depression and, 151 Radio stations, 62–63, 67, 68 Rainey, James, 215, 216 ‘‘Rally for America’’ events, 63

268 & Index Ramos, Jorge, 90 Rankin, Jeanette, 2 Raskin, Jamin, 46 Rather, Dan, 197 Rauch, Jonathan, 48 Reagan, Ronald, 17, 18, 32, 34, 36 Reagan administration, 102 Reality TV, 70, 178–79 Reconstruction Era, 19–20, 120, 207 Recount, of Florida ballots, 50. See also 2000 election Redistricting, 38, 88, 186 Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (1969), 35, 69, 70 Red state/blue state analogy, 179–80, 183–84 Reebok Corporation, 191 Reed, Ralph, 33–34, 35, 36, 37 Rehnquist, William, 49 Reinking, Bernadette, 43 Religion, 26, 30–32, 152 Religious Right, 30–43; education and, 86, 104, 105–7, 158–59, 160–62, 165–66; Hispanic Americans and, 88; Hurricane Katrina and, 218; political ideology of, 218–19; theology of, 164–65 Religious schools. See Private schools ‘‘Report on American Exceptionalism,’’ 173 Republican Party: 2000 election and, 21, 46, 50–52, 53; bilingual education and, 86–87; campaign financing and, 34–35; cluster analysis and, 185–86; economic forces and, 82; Fox News and, 65; individualism and, 177–78; political ideology of, 202; redistricting and, 88; Religious Right and, 34, 36, 40; role of government and, 18, 26; southern states and, 20–25, 122; Southern Strategy and, 16–17, 167, 176–77; suburbs and, 179; taxes and, 145–47; traditional

conservatives and, 220. See also Bush, George W.; DeLay, Tom; Thurmond, Strom Rhodes, Tom, 51 Rice, John R., 41, 42 Richards, Ann, 194 Richland, New Jersey, 193 Rise of Southern Republicans, The (Black and Black), 18 Road rage, 7–8 Robertson, Pat, 33, 35, 36 Robinson, Jackie, 78, 115–16 Rockefeller, John D., 22–23, 35, 66 Rodriguez, Alex, 80 Rogers, Adrian, 31, 42 Rogers, Joel, 97 Roosevelt, Eleanor, 152 Roosevelt, Franklin D., 151, 152–53, 154–55 Roosevelt, James, 120 Roosevelt, Theodore, 21 Rosenblatt, Susannah, 215, 216 Ross, Elizabeth, 51 Rove, Karl, 51, 185–86 Royal, Chuck, 49 Russell, Jan Jarboe, 39 Rustin, Bayard, 116 Ruth, Babe, 78 Ryan, William Fitts, 119 Safire, William, 72 Salon.com (website), 51 Sanchez, Carl, 195 Sanders, Bernie, 46 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (1886), 23 Santorum, Rick, 43 SaveMartha!.com (website), 132–33 Savonarola, Girolamo, 42 Sawyer, Diane, 62 Scalia, Antonin, 49 Scheer, Robert, 184 Schlafly, Phyllis, 87, 100–101, 160

Index & 269 Schlapp, Matt, 49, 51, 52 Schneider, William, 179 School budgets, 167 School choice, 37, 40, 167 School prayer, 34, 167 Schulte, Elizabeth, 96 Schwerner, Michael, 114, 117 Schwerner, Rita, 112 Science, Native Americans and, 105 Scientific American magazine, 57 Scranton, William, 43 Segregation, 24, 34 Selker, Ted, 57 Service economy, Home Depot and, 144–45 Sex education, 161 Seymour, Karen Patton, 134 Shagrin, Ceril, 91 Shales, Tom, 197 Sharecropping, 109–10 Sheppard-Towner Bill (1921), 2 Shock jocks, 63 Silicon Graphics, 194 Simmons, Ira, 89 Simpson, John, 151 Simpson, O. J., 195 Sitcoms, 177, 178–79 Skilled labor, 141–42, 142–43, 144–45 Slate magazine, 48 Smith, Adam, 22 Snopes.com (website), 195 Soccer moms, 179–80 ‘‘Social Agenda,’’ of the Religious Right, 33 Social Darwinism, 22–23 Socialism, 154 Social programs, 23, 25, 26 Sosa, Sammy, 77, 79, 80, 89 Southern Baptist Convention, 30–32 Southern Manifesto, 20–21, 23–24, 26, 27, 176–77 Southern states: Democratic Party and, 116–17, 122–23; education and, 167;

Republican Party and, 20–25, 122; Strom Thurmond and, 13–19 Southern Strategy, the, 16–17, 176–77, 216 Spanish-language television, 91 Spencer, Herbert, 22 Sports, 77–80, 83, 190–92 Spring, Joel, 34 Standardized testing, 163, 170 Stanford University, 68 States, budget cuts and, 155 States’ rights, 21, 24 States Rights Party. See Dixiecrats Stealth candidates, 161 Steele, James, 25 Steinem, Gloria, 81 Stennis, John, 113 Stern, Howard, 63 Sternberg, Betty, 170 Steroid use, baseball and, 79 Stevens, John Paul, 46, 49 Stewart, James, 16 Stewart, Martha, 89, 125–38, 143 Stock prices, insider trading and, 132 Stopnader.com (website), 96 Stouse, Dennis, 62 Strict constructionism, 58 Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), 81, 110, 111, 114 Suarez, Ray, 8, 38 ‘‘Suburban Century Begins, The’’ (Schneider), 179 Suburban Warriors (McGirr), 159 Suburbs: children and, 157–58; cluster analysis and, 180–86; economic stability and, 154–55; education and, 159; the environment and, 199–200; government policy and, 174–75; housing discrimination and, 176–77; labor and, 143, 145; Lewis Mumford on, 173–74; political ideology and, 179–80

270 & Index Sumner, William Graham, 22, 214 Sunday Times (London), 51 Superdome, New Orleans, 206, 209–10, 214, 215 Supreme Court: 2000 election and, 46, 49, 57–58; building, 45; laissez faire economics and, 23; monopolies and, 66; nominations to, 15; Southern Manifesto and, 20–21; Strom Thurmond and, 17 SUVs, 189–90 Sweeney, John, 51 Swing voters, 184–85 Sword of the Lord organization, 41–42 System dynamics, 105 Tate, Randy, 39 Taxes: Great Depression and, 152; Hurricane Katrina and, 210; immigration and, 85; the middle class and, 155; Republican Party and, 145–47 Tax Increment Financing, 175 Teixeira, Ruy, 97 Televangelists, 35 Television, 127, 177, 178, 189–90, 193–94 Terkel, Studs, 148 Terry, Peggy, 150 Texas Monthly magazine, 194 Thater-Braan, Rose von, 105, 106, 107 ‘‘The Great Divide’’ (ACORN), 176 Theology, Christian, 164–65 Thomas, Clarence, 17, 49 Thompson, Ruth, 67 Thoreau, Henry David, 202 Thurmond, Strom, 13–19, 21, 26–27, 176–77 Tomlinson, Ken, 196, 197 Touch-screen voting machines, 56–57 Treaties, Native Americans and, 99 Trickle-down economics, 146 Truman, Harry S., 15, 21–22

Tuchman, Barbara, 14 Turner, Frederick Jackson, 174 Turner, Ted, 68 Turow, Scott, 58 Twain, Mark, 192 2000 election, 46–59, 94, 95–96, 123, 124 Ueberoth, Peter, 191 Unemployment, 82, 148 Unfunded mandates, 169, 221 United Farmworkers, 81 United States v. Paramount (1948), 66, 70 University of Idaho, 195 University of Wisconsin, 195 Unz, Ron, 85–86 UPN network, 67 USA Today, 183 Vermont, 45–46 Vetter, David, 212 Viacom, Inc., 67 Vila, Bob, 142, 143 Violence, racial, 111, 114 Vizenor, Gerald, 94, 95 Volunteering, 212, 220, 222 Voting rights: cluster analysis and, 180–86; Democratic Party and, 115–17, 118–21, 122–23, 187–88; discouraging voters and, 54–55, 211–13; liberalism and, 6; Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP), 114–15, 117–18; political parties and, 97; redistricting and, 88; Republican Party and, 53–54; voter registration, 110–11, 117, 212; voting machines, 54, 55–57, 59, 212–13. See also Elections Voting Rights Act (1965), 6, 55, 119, 122 Voucher programs. See School choice Vuillamy, Ed, 126

Index & 271 Wade, Don, 91 Wages, 128. See also Income disparity Waksal, Sam, 132 Wallace, George, 17 Wall Street Journal, 48, 51 Walters, Barbara, 133 Warren, Earl, 15 Washington Post, 52 Washington Times, 89 Wealthy, the, 146–47, 211, 212 Websites. See Internet, the Welfare benefits, 2, 85, 146 Welles, Orson, 136 Wellstone, Paul, 4–5, 10, 96–97, 222 Weyrich, Paul, 34 White Earth Land Recovery Project (WELRP), 99–100 White Earth Reservation, 93, 94, 99

White flight, 167 Whitten, Jamie, 117, 120 Whittle, Chris, 191–92 Widows’ pensions, 2 Wiesberg, Jacob, 180 Williams, Armstrong, 198 Wilson, Woodrow, 21 Winfrey, Oprah, 126 Winn, Jeffrey, 215 Winslet, Kate, 194 Witchcraft, 131–32 Women, roles of, 126, 127, 128, 129–30, 131–32 WomenMatter website, 53 Works Progress Administration, 153 Wright, Frank Lloyd, 200 Ziegler, John, 219

About the Author RALPH BRAUER is Executive Director of the Transforming Schools Consortium, a national group of school districts dedicated to public education, one of the liberal ‘‘four cornerstones’’ that make up the meat of his analysis in this book. He has also worked as a consultant, designing leadership programs for legislators, and with the American Association of Higher Education, among other organizations. An award-winning writer, he has seen his work published in the New York Times Magazine, the Nation, Newsweek, and other periodicals.