Subscribe via RSS Feed

Author Page for Erik Loomis

rss feed

Visit Erik Loomis's Website

A Disaster Averted: John Nance Garner and the 1940 Presidential Election

[ 71 ] February 14, 2012 | Erik Loomis

When discussing the Flint sit-down strike of 1937 last weekend, I noted John Nance Garner’s support for using soldiers to bust the strike. It reminded of just how awful Garner was. And how close we were to a Garner presidency in 1940.

We remember that Franklin Roosevelt won an unprecedented third term in 1940, but we don’t pay much attention to what would have happened had he followed convention and stepped down. The almost certain Democratic nominee would have been John Nance Garner and given the nation’s repudiation of the Republican Party during the 1930s, he would probably have won the Oval Office as well.

Garner really wanted the job. I mean, he wanted it BAD. Garner was furious that FDR was going to run for a 3rd term and did everything in his power to outmaneuver Roosevelt. Most of what I know about this is from Robert Caro’s The Path to Power, about the early years of Lyndon Johnson. Essentially, LBJ catapulted himself up the Democratic Party power structure by selling his fellow Texans who had lined up behind Garner down the river, giving his support to Roosevelt and then taking over the running of Congressional elections around the county that fall, likely saving the House for the Democrats. That’s why Caro goes into such detail on Garner. At this point in his biographical sweep, Caro didn’t much care for Johnson, but he certainly preferred him to Garner. For good reason.

“Cactus Jack” Garner hated the New Deal. He was a Dixiecrat through and through. Garner was OK with the emergency measures of 1933, but began revolting against FDR by late 1934. Garner loathed government spending. He was however a loyal man and kept his complaining to private letters to FDR and close friends.

Garner hated one thing more than the New Deal: people of color. A man of west Texas (Uvalde, also the home of Dale Evans), Garner said about the Mexicans who worked his pecan plantations, “They are not troublesome people unless they become Americanized. The Sheriff can make them do anything.” When the Flint sit-down strike took place, Garner took this attitude toward labor and applied it to the GM workers. Essentially, he went bezerk. As Caro says, “To men accustomed to treating laborers like serfs, the very idea of unions was anathema (558).” Garner thought FDR told him he would come out against the sit-down strikes, but the consummate politician in the Oval Office only made Garner believe this. FDR did nothing of the sort. Garner and Roosevelt began arguing publicly. And when FDR introduced the court-packing bill, Garner essentially broke relations with the president. Rather than work with FDR, he left his post in the middle of the Congressional session (leaving the presiding seat empty) and went home to Uvalde.

By 1939, Garner was in open warfare with FDR over the third term. By this point, FDR and Garner hated each other and hated everything the other stood for. FDR hated Garner for being a reactionary, Garner hated FDR for being a big spending liberal. In truth, Garner was defeated by the Nazis as much as anything–the rise of the war in Europe made FDR seem indispensable and torpedoed his attempts to wrest the party leadership away from FDR.

But what would a Garner presidency had looked like? Horrible. A repeal of as much of the New Deal legislation as possible. A return to using the power of the state to crush labor. More than likely an ineptitude in preparing for war given Garner’s reticence in using the federal government’s power to build the economy.

John Nance Garner would have looked like a southern version of Grover Cleveland.

The nation is incredibly lucky that Roosevelt chose to run for a third term and held back the Garner challenge. I shudder to think what would have happened in the 1940s with John Nance Garner as our president.

Dear Republicans–Please Keep Focusing on Denying Birth Control to Women

[ 113 ] February 14, 2012 | Erik Loomis

The brilliance of the Republican strategy to go all in with the Catholic bishops on denying birth control to women is paying off major dividends. If you are a Democrat. A new poll shows absolutely no drop in support for Obama among Catholics after 2 weeks of birth control dominating the news. This doesn’t surprise me at all. The extremists within the Catholic Church who really care about denying contraception are the same people who are fanatical anti-abortion activists. Not only are they a relatively small minority among self-identifying Catholics, but they weren’t going to vote for Obama anyway.

Feb 14

[ 11 ] February 14, 2012 | Erik Loomis

I hope everyone enjoys America’s worst holiday.

Sexism in the National Humanities Medals

[ 50 ] February 13, 2012 | Erik Loomis

If there was one place where you would not expect to find sexism, it’s in the awarding of the National Humanities Medals. Given that the choices for these awards are sometimes on merit and sometimes political (seriously, during the Bush years, winners included Shelby Steele, Art Linkletter, the late-era conservative version of Elizabeth Fox Genovese, and Victor Davis Hanson. What, no award for Charles Murray?), one would expect a Democratic administration and a prize committee to be sure to include at least some women. It’s not like there’s not a lot of deserving female scholars out there. Moreover, even if they did so for purely cynical reasons, i.e., to stop people like me from pointing out the inherent sexism in the awards, it would still be progress of a certain kind.

But no. The new award winners include 8 men and 1 institution. It’s not like the men aren’t deserving. Robert Darnton is a great French historian. Kwame Anthony Appiah is an important writer of the African diaspora, among other subjects. Amartya Sen is a very important economist. Moreover, it’s not as if the search committee didn’t pay attention to race. The award winners are incredibly diverse except that they are all men.

What’s more, in 2010, 1 woman (Joyce Carol Oates) won in another male dominated group (including Philip Roth, Gordon Wood, Bernard Bailyn, and Wendell Berry).

And in 2009, 1 woman (the deserving Annette Gordon-Reed) and 7 men (including Robert Caro, David Levering Lewis, Ted Sorensen, and Elie Wiesel).

So during the Obama years, you have 16 men, 2 women, and 1 institution. What gives with that? Just as a few deserving women off the top of my head, the prize committee could name Judith Butler, Vandana Shiva (American citizenship is not required), Nell Irvin Painter, Alice Munro, Alice Walker, Natalie Zemon Davis, and so many more.

I don’t understand this complete gender blindness by the committee. It’s actually quite offensive.

Two Great Tastes That Taste Great Together

[ 25 ] February 13, 2012 | Erik Loomis

The New York Times’ Disunion series continues to be absolutely fantastic, even if it doesn’t get the publicity it did when the series started. And I’ve been reading Kevin Levin’s wonderful blog Civil War Memory for years. So it makes perfect sense that Levin would write a post in the series, on taking his high school students to a battlefield. Tell you the truth, I wish I had a guide like him when I visited battlefields:

I hope my students – their generation, as much as my own – will come to see themselves as part of a larger narrative, a larger community that continues to be shaped and defined by those who came before us. It is my responsibility as a teacher, and our responsibility as citizens, to understand the achievements and failures of the Civil War generation. In large part, white Americans rebuilt their lives. Through reunion ceremonies and monument dedications, former enemies put much of the hatred behind them. In doing so they helped forge a new nation.

But I also expect my students to deal with questions that, unfortunately, too few of us are willing to confront. While sitting in the Fredericksburg National Cemetery I have them consider what the war meant for African-Americans. Why did the local African-American community in Fredericksburg stop celebrating Memorial Day a few short years after Appomattox? What did the battle of Fredericksburg mean, for example, to Joseph Walker, who was born in Spotsylvania County, witnessed the bloody battle in May 1864 and went on to found the Fredericksburg Normal and Industrial Institute in 1905, at the height of Jim Crow? What stories did he share with his students about the war, stories that were lost in the broader movement of national reunion? Would Walker, White and other African-Americans have been welcomed to the battlefield reunions of their white former comrades and enemies? What meaning would they have found on those days if they had been?

Such questions aren’t easy, nor should they be. Battlefields are not simply places to visit for fun, retracing the movements of soldiers from point A to point B. We ought to feel uncomfortable when confronted with so much bloodshed and sacrifice. We can honor that sacrifice and ensure that “these dead shall not have died in vain” by acknowledging the legacy of emancipation and freedom that they helped to bring about — and, in doing so, continue their work of more fully embracing the founding ideals that we as Americans so dearly treasure.

I’ve always found the battlefields leave me a bit cold. I think that’s because of the emphasis in traditional Civil War studies on troop movements, which I profoundly do not care about. It’s not that spaces of violence don’t touch me at all. I find sites of white massacres of Native Americans tremendously moving and disturbing. My interaction with battlefield sites has particular relevance this morning as I am off to visit the Saratoga battlefield, site of the nation’s most important victory during the American Revolution.

All this said, I can understand why Civil War battlefields are places of tremendous power. I laud Levin both for his teaching and his public outreach on these matters. He’s one of the great historical prophets on the internet and his blog is consistently excellent.

Birther Precedents

[ 37 ] February 12, 2012 | Erik Loomis

I was doing some rather pointless research on Chester A. Arthur this morning. On his Wikipedia page, I found this:

William Arthur’s frequent moves would later form the basis for accusations that Chester Arthur was not a native-born citizen of the United States. After Arthur was nominated for Vice President in 1880, his political opponents suggested that he might be constitutionally ineligible to hold that office. A New York attorney, Arthur P. Hinman, apparently hired by his opponents, explored rumors of Arthur’s foreign birth. Hinman initially alleged that Arthur was born in Ireland and did not come to the United States until he was fourteen years old, which would make him ineligible for the Vice Presidency under the United States Constitution’s natural-born citizen clause. When that story did not take root, Hinman spread a new rumor that Arthur was born in Canada, but this claim also failed to gain credence.

Who knew the nation had a birther controversy before Obama’s implacable opponents made false claims about him being born in Kenya. And to say in 1880 that a Republican was born in Ireland was not something to take lightly, given the Know-Nothing immersion into the Republican Party wasn’t that old and the strong anti-Irish sentiment in the nation at that time.

So I became curious about whether our current birthers looked back to the Arthur controversy for inspiration. Turns out the answer is yes indeed. Here’s a birther lawyer’s site titled “Natural Born Citizen” which explored Arthur’s history for angles to fight Obama, a post not coincidentally written in December 2008. The claims against Arthur are about as absurd as they are against Obama. Here’s a similar crazy person.

Sean Hannity used the Arthur controversy against Obama as late as last March (If Arthur produced a birth certificate, why can’t Obama!). Even The View weighed in on the ability of the lamb-chopped one to serve in the Oval Office.

This is probably as relevant as Chester Arthur has been since he left office in 1885. I don’t know how I didn’t catch this hilarity before. But I’m glad today Orly Taitz’s can look back to luminaries of the past for inspiration. I next expect someone to use the “Warren Harding is black” controversy against Obama in some way.

Signs of Impending Environmental Apocalypse

[ 25 ] February 12, 2012 | Erik Loomis

This ain’t good:

A few years ago, hog farmers throughout the Midwest noticed foam building on top of their manure pits. Soon after, barns began exploding, killing thousands of hogs while farmers lost millions of dollars.

And you thought Santorum was gross.

But seriously, what gives? First, it helps to have an idea of how manure is handled at industrial hog facilities. In his classic 2005 Rolling Stone exposé of the industrial pork giant Smithfield, Jeff Tietz provided a vivid description:

The floors are slatted to allow excrement to fall into a catchment pit under the pens, but many things besides excrement can wind up in the pits: afterbirths, piglets accidentally crushed by their mothers, old batteries, broken bottles of insecticide, antibiotic syringes, stillborn pigs—anything small enough to fit through the foot-wide pipes that drain the pits. The pipes remain closed until enough sewage accumulates in the pits to create good expulsion pressure; then the pipes are opened and everything bursts out into a large holding pond.

The manure itself is pretty nasty, too. Pigs on factory farms are given daily doses of antibiotics and growth-promoting additives like ractopamine, much of which ends up in their waste. So what you get in those cesspools, the ones now exploding in the Midwest, is kind of a stew of bacteria, antibacterial agents, and novel antibiotic-resistant bacteria strains, all mixed with the random detritus described by Tietz.

Flammable feces foam that can cause entire hog houses to explode. It’s really hard to see any problems with our system of factory farming…..

And while not on the level of modified pig manure, when squirrels are turning purple, it’s unlikely humans aren’t at fault.

Scientists don’t know how a squirrel could turn purple. While I have no doubt our lovely environmental skeptics will come up with some kind of dissembling quasi-explanation, you’d have to go a long way to convince me humans aren’t somehow responsible for this.

It Was Strictly a Tuba Raid

[ 37 ] February 12, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Read about the new crime wave sweeping America’s tubas:

BELL, Calif. — When thieves broke into the high school music room here this week, they cut through the bolts on all the storage lockers and ripped two doors off their frames. But they didn’t touch the computer or the projector or even the trumpets.

“It was strictly a tuba raid,” said Rolph Janssen, an assistant principal.

Bell High School is only the most recent victim in a string of tuba thefts from music departments. In the last few months, dozens of brass sousaphones — tubas often used in marching bands — were taken from schools in Southern California.

Though the police have not made any arrests, music teachers say the thefts are motivated by the growing popularity of banda, a traditional Mexican music form in which tubas play a dominant role.

I don’t want to make light of crime, particularly the theft of valuable instruments from schools that cannot afford replacements.

On the other hand, there is something refreshing about an instrument like the tuba becoming so valued to perform music in this nation that people will resort to crime to acquire one. Could a wave of oboe-based crime be next?

This Day in Labor History: February 11, 1937

[ 48 ] February 11, 2012 | Erik Loomis

On this date in 1937, the Flint Sit-Down strike ended after General Motors recognized the United Auto Workers at the bargaining agent for GM employees. This titanic victory legitimized the AFL and the CIO more broadly, ushering in the nation’s great period of industrial unionism.

Flint, a city of 150,000 was an auto industry town. Auto companies employed 80% of the city’s workers directly. The largest, General Motors, effectively owned the city. The police force did its beck and call and outsiders were closely watched, lest they be agitators ready to unionize the auto workers. The auto industry was vociferously open shop; along with steel, big auto resisted unionization with all its might. The UAW had sought to unionize GM plants, but its numbers rose and fell depending on the campaign. Its inability to win a union contract made its future tenuous. To raise the stakes, UAW organizers in Flint and Cleveland decided to shut the industry down in January 1937. But workers in Cleveland walked out on a wildcat strike in late December, causing the UAW to speed up its plans. On December 29, 1936, the UAW shut down the Fisher Body plant. Fisher Body supplied bodies for Buick, one of the most profitable GM brands. In the Fisher Body plant, militants sat down on the job and refused to leave until GM agreed to a union contract. At this time, the UAW only had about a 10% unionization rate among the city’s GM plants, which employed 47,000 workers. Most of the workers had migrated from the rural Midwest and Appalachia, not areas with strong unionization rates. The UAW’s militant organizers had to teach unionism to workers at the same time that they battled the auto companies.

Strikers inside the Fisher Body plant.

The sit-down strike put the company in a tricky position. Violence against the strikers threatened the capital of the plant itself, making a forceful eviction potentially costly. However, the success of the Fisher Body occupiers in galvanizing attention led to a huge wave of workers signing up for UAW membership and spawned radical actions throughout the GM system. In response, on January 11, GM ordered the city’s compliant police force to attack the occupiers. But the workers inside began spraying fire hoses and hurling metal objects onto the police below, quickly convincing GM that a frontal assault was not a good idea.

GM also hoped to convince the state or federal government to crack down, in the style of what corporations might soon call “the good old days.” Vice-President John Nance Garner wanted to send in the military to crush the strikers (side note, how disastrous would a Garner presidency have been had FDR not run for the 3rd term in 1940? Horrible). GM attempted to use an injunction to declare the sit-down strike illegal. A judge complied but UAW officials discovered he owned $200,000 in GM stock, which disqualified him from ruling on GM-related cases. More importantly, Frank Murphy took over as governor of Michigan. A committed New Dealer, Murphy has previously been the pro-working class mayor Detroit. He would later serve as Attorney General for Roosevelt and Supreme Court justice, where he dissented strongly in Korematsu v. U.S. In fact, the UAW had originally hoped to time the sit-in to coincide with Murphy taking office. Finally, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt rejected federal intervention out of hand, despite the desires of his Dixiecrat Vice-President.

The strike worked because it galvanized the community. While workers might have feared for their jobs by joining the UAW in 1936, after the strike started, it unleashed enormous pent-up desires for justice, decent wages, and good working conditions within the people of Flint. The UAW did an outstanding job of tapping into the community. An women’s auxiliary quickly formed to support the workers inside, bringing them food, clean clothing, newspapers, and other items to wile away the long days of boredom inside the plant. While the whole idea of a women’s auxiliary reinforces the male-dominated single-income family, it was 1937 so it was a good strategy at the time. The workers both inside and outside the plant also showed a tremendous amount of discipline. Conditions inside the plant could have deteriorated quickly, giving the police a clear reason to evict the strikers. Strong leadership within the UAW and first-rate organizers worked closely with the workers and community to stay on message, keep the pressure on GM, and not allow frustrations to boil over in counter-productive ways. Today, In a world where a return to street-based organizing is giving anarchist-fringe groups room to hijack movements and engage in personally satisfying violence at the expense of larger movements, the actions of the UAW in 1937 should provide a lesson on how to organize. Self-discipline and community-discipline are both key tenets of successful organizing campaigns.

Another key lesson of the GM strike is the absolutely vital role state and federal governments play in deciding labor battles. Labor had been routinely crushed by the state before 1933. During the GM strike it was the neutral and even pro-labor attitudes of Murphy and Roosevelt that allowed the UAW to win. Recently, in a comment to one of my labor posts, a libertarian linked to a piece arguing that the state actually prevents unions from succeeding when it gets involved in labor disputes. This was patently absurd because the effect of the state depends entirely on which side it takes in the conflict. Traditionally, the American state had oppressed workers. The Roosevelt years saw a marked change in this attitude. Not surprisingly, millions of Americans joined unions. This seems self-evident, yet people seem to misunderstand this basic equation.

March in support of Flint sit-down strikers, Cadillac Square, Detroit

GM obtained a second injunction on February 1. The UAW not only ignored it, but occupied another GM plant in Flint on February 4. CIO leader John L. Lewis arrived to lend his considerable weight and seriously furrowed eyebrows to the negotiations. GM leaders refused to sit in the same room with UAW members, but Governor Murphy then stepped in, sending in the National Guard, not to serve as GM’s private army, but to protect the striking workers from strikebreakers. Murphy’s move was the last straw for GM. On February 11, GM agreed to a 1 page union contract recognizing the UAW as the bargaining agent for all union members in its plants, not only in Flint but throughout the nation. The workers left the Fisher Body plant in a state of jubilation.

The UAW quickly signed 100,000 new workers to membership cards at GM plants around the country. The UAW would build off this victory to organize the other auto plants over the next few years and the other major CIO members unions would use similar tactics to unionize the steel and rubber plants of the Great Lakes states, turning America into a union nation, however briefly.

Remembering the Flint sit-down strike.

The Flint sit-down strike is arguably the most important moment in the history of American labor. After a century of struggling, failing, and dying for the right to form a union, workers’ own militancy coincided with a new attitude from the government to create the greatest period for American workers in the nation’s history. Sadly, the CIO never could turn the overall tide of this nation against suspicion of labor and over the decades, the gains labor made in the mid-20th century faded under withering corporate and government attacks. But we have much to learn from the success of Flint for our reorganization of the nation’s workforce.

For more information, here’s a great audio archive of the strike full of oral histories and all sorts of information.

Skip Bayless: Sage

[ 50 ] February 11, 2012 | Erik Loomis

How does a guy like Skip Bayless keep working? Actually, I guess I know. He combines pugnacity with a complete lack of shame. I guess that makes good TV for a company like ESPN that has no interest in accountability or intelligence. In a related question, how does Stephen A. Smith also have a job?

Anyway, here’s one example of Bayless’ genius from 2001:

Two or three years from now you’ll look back and think: How could [Michael] Jordan have not taken DeSagana Diop No. 1? Diop is the one athletic freak in this draft. Diop is the only man alive age 18 or above with the potential to be better than Shaquille O’Neal.

Yeah, that’s definitely a question I’ve been asking for the past decade.

Summers

[ 48 ] February 10, 2012 | Erik Loomis

It would be challenging to find a Democratic Party figure I loathe more than Larry Summers. There are so many reasons. Here’s one more:

Prior to joining the Obama administration as the director of the White House National Economic Council, Larry Summers faced a barrage of criticism after it was exposed that he received hundreds of thousands of dollars from major banks for a series of speeches he gave in in 2008. Despite this conflict of interest, the administration expressed full confidence in Summers’ role as a chief economic adviser to President Obama, telling the public that he was primarily interested in crafting economic policies that help “families across America.”

Summers has since left the administration, and is once again on the corporate speaking circuit. Last June, he appeared at the 2011 World BPO/ITO (Business Process Outsourcing/Information Technology Outsourcing) Forum, which took place in Jersey City, New Jersey. The Forum featured participation, attendance, and/or lectures from executives from many of the world’s top corporations — including AT&T, Pfizer, Coca Cola, Home Depot, and Morgan Stanley — in a number of meetings and presentations about outsourcing labor services.

….

With the unemployment rate at 9.4 percent, Summers compared critics of the outsourcing of American jobs to “luddites who took axes to machinery early in England’s industrial revolution.” Unfortunately, the full of text of Summers’ remarks is mysteriously missing from the website — particularly odd given the fact that most of the other keynotes are posted online.

Of course, Summers doesn’t understand what the Luddites actually believed in any more than the average person on the street, but that’s hardly surprising. Equally unsurprising is his pompous dismissal of the United States’ millions of unemployed people who might hesitate at a global labor policy that has enriched the world’s 0.1% at the expense of the rest of us.

But I’ll tell you, it sure is inspiring to have a man with views so sympathetic to working-class people as the head of President Obama’s White House National Economic Council. If Summers does get appointed to head the World Bank, well, for working-class Americans happy days are here again! And the world too, since this is a man who once signed a memo saying “I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.” Your 2012 Democratic Party!!!!

How Blue-Green Alliances Are Made

[ 7 ] February 9, 2012 | Erik Loomis

Over the past two weeks, port truck drivers in Seattle have refused to work for many reasons, ranging from very low pay to terrible working conditions. The Sierra Club has issued a press release in support of the strikers, noting:

“The Sierra Club stands in solidarity with these brave individuals and in support of the Coalition for Clean and Safe Ports, an alliance among national and local environmental organizations, truckers, labor unions, and faith leaders promoting economic and environmental justice for our ports.

“The 400 truck drivers of Seattle and Tacoma are among the 150,000 port truckers around the country who struggle daily to make a livelihood for themselves and their families. Port truckers are classified as ‘self-employed’ which leaves them – rather than the corporations they work for – responsible for their aging and deteriorating trucks. These trucks are not only a hazard for those that are driving them, but they are also a significant source of air pollution and have created a pollution ‘hot spot’ in South Seattle, putting the entire community at risk.

In the 1970s, many unions worked closely with environmental groups over issues of workplace safety. Sick ecosystems lead to sick people. So-called blue-green alliances made a lot of headway. That became strained in the 80s with organized labor’s decline and the counterculture taking over much of the environmental movement, creating scenes like the Pacific Northwest forests, with a formerly invigorated blue-green alliance in tatters, with radical environmentalists like EarthFirst! both showing complete indifference to workers’ lives and their forcing mainstream environmental groups to shore up their wilderness bonafides to hold off the upstarts.

You may say that a press release doesn’t mean a lot, but to the workers it does have meaning. A major organization is offering support and the chances of the Sierra Club staying involved in the situation and lending support to drivers improving the environment of the workplace is high. There is no down side to the Sierra Club getting involved here. I am very glad to see it.

  • Switch to our mobile site