Showing posts with label Inside. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inside. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Carl Sferrazza Anthony: The Ex-President Inside and Out, Revealed by his Grandson

Far too many readers assume history is a quaintly irrelevant retelling of wars or migrations or depressions and far too many such books bear that out by forgetting that it is ultimately individual human beings who direct society's fate.

2010-11-23-GoingHometoGlorysmaller.jpg
Among the annual crop of presidential biography and history, it's been some time since a work as nuanced, instructive and fascinating as Going Home to Glory: A Memoir of Life with Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961-1969, has appeared. It's the culmination of a project begun some thirty years ago by author David Eisenhower, the only grandson of the legendary Commander of the Allied Forces of World War II and two-term President , known to millions around the world simply as "Ike."

David Eisenhower judiciously begins the book not with his post-war birth in 1948 or White House boyhood starting in 1953, but as Ike's retirement begins in 1961, giving the narrative a specific focus that moves it along with a clipped pace. In covering the period of his own high school and college years, part of which he also lived, literally and figuratively, close to the former President in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, he counterpoints his own maturing teenage independence of thought and action with the senior Eisenhower who is striving to keep current on rapid social changes and make sense of it all.
2010-11-23-Eisenhower_14.jpg


Anyone who loves politics, history or even the pop culture of the Sixties will be startled by the new perspective on Ike afforded by the genuinely intimate glimpses here. This is a layered work, its complexities encrypted into a flowing tale, its embarrassment of riches readily accessible on nearly each page. Going Home to Glory tells a surface story of how the elderly icon of the Fabulous Fifties navigated the Radical Sixties by using a traditional chronology where the events of the era unfold while drilling directly beneath them into the timeless values that made Ike do and say what he did in the Sixties.

It is this layer of rational common sense which offers a fresh relevance to contemporary politics.

The great seminal event which looms over the book is the Vietnam War and among Going Home to Glory's most fascinating perspectives is how the former Republican President is so closely aligned with incumbent Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, sometimes in support, sometimes questioning the wisdom of his decisions. More than anything it shows that, beyond the artificial pressures created by the media and the unrealistic expectations of an always-idealizing public, resolving crises such as war are often so complex that not even the greatest minds always get it right. As Going Home to Glory so well illustrates, it's an irony easily lost on everyone except ex-Presidents.

The book's most stirring revelations may be the new documented evidence of Eisenhower's depth of commitment to civil rights, most apparent in a private letter to President Kennedy since it is unemotional and unequivocal. Among several deeds done on behalf of civil rights as President, Ike had quietly laid the necessary judicial tracks that let the Kennedy and Johnson Administration's Justice Departments to debilitate racial segregation. What follows is his refusal to abandon his principals, putting the good of his nation above partisanship. The elderly ex-President had every right to just enjoy golf in the California desert. Instead, he defies the rising power of right-wing activists who sought to turn civil rights into a state's rights issue, lobbies Republicans to vote in favor of the civil right bill initiated by the Democratic White House and implores the 1964 convention, "Republicans should now take upon themselves a moral commitment to do their utmost to see this law is implemented not merely by the powers of legally constituted enforcement agencies, but by the hearts of a determined and free people." Without seeking credit of any kind for his actions, it is the very definition of political courage and genuine patriotism. Everyone from Nancy Pelosi to Mitch McConnell to Rand Paul should be made to read this book. It is not ancient history.

With the results of the 2010 election promising nothing but party intransience, the book's passages about the former President's efforts to combat a shift to either the right-wing Goldwater or the left-wing Rockefeller as his party's new leaders is especially instructive. As David writes, "Eisenhower strongly believed in the concept of a 'dynamic center' in national politics." To Ike this was a matter not just about winning elections or popularity polls, but accomplishing genuine work. He respected the power of words, making his public remarks carefully because he took responsibility for them. Capable of deftly twisting syntax when he wanted to obfuscate the meaning of his words, he long grasped unsuccessfully for an apt label to characterize those like himself who recognized the necessity of compromise to enact change. "Middle of the road was a poor term," the former President remarked with some frustration, "but moderation should govern human affairs."

Going Home to Glory also gives a sense of Ike's recognition that all political issues are essentially efforts to resolve human struggle. In a speech the ex-President gave to his Gettysburg church congregation, he offered clarity on the separation of church and state in a way that few national leaders have done since. He opposed "bringing religion into the curriculum" of public schools but favored instruction in the non-denominational democratic principals which were rooted in religious teachings. "There is no direct reference to the Deity Himself in the constitution," he remarked, while also pointing out, "The theory of the equality of man is religious in origin."

Ike's call for such balance would make today's atheist absolutists and Christian fundamentalists allies. As David assessed Eisenhower's belief, "Only by accepting one's subordination in a transcendent order can a person work toward something truly good." Yet Ike made no reference to "Jesus" or "Christ," using instead, "Supreme Overlord." Perhaps Eisenhower's character is no where better revealed in Going Home to Glory than in David's observation of the manner in which his grandfather delivered the speech, "with a trace of wonder that he felt compelled to spell out ideas of such manifest logic and application."

Another universal issue tackled in Going Home to Glory is facing the inevitable vagaries of aging, especially dramatic here since Ike was one of those legendary figures who seemed to have been around so long that he would always be there. As his grandson observes the dying process endured by his grandfather, there comes a certain pause, taking in the magnitude of finality. With rigorous objectivity, David Eisenhower unblinkingly reviews all the privilege Ike commanded for state-of-the-art medical technology to artificially extend his life for a few months. The great General seems spooked under cold metal machines, haunted by the realization that even science could only do so much. Providing sensitive detail here, David Eisenhower refrains from passing judgment about such measures, instead respecting the reader to make up their own mind about when life ends.

2010-11-23-Eisenhower_15.jpg
Going Home to Glory is also spiked with comical, colorful anecdotes, the kind of personal, even mundane curiosities that humanize the mighty. In Eisenhower's case the revelations prove that his life with wife Mamie authentically mirrored the millions of middle-Americans they seemed to ideally represent. A telling episode is David's description of a nightly ritual with his grandparents on the back sunporch. They ate in their separate easy chairs off dinner trays in front of the television set. Ike commandeered that technological wonder of the age, the remote-control channel selector, and sniped with Mamie about what a young person like David wanted to watch on T.V. as he tried to steer clear of their testiness. Mamie sat near her solitaire table while Ike, "at an exact distance from the television screen to avoid radiation," would switch the remote back and forth between his and Mamie's favorite shows until she snapped, "Ike, make up your mind." Writes David, "Granddad would play deaf."

As a memoir it is also the coming-of-age story of not only the author but his partner in composing the book and in life, his wife Julie Nixon. 2010-11-23-DavidJulieEisenhowerCREDITAdrianaEchavarriasmaller.jpg
She was, as most know, the daughter of Ike's Vice President Richard Nixon, and her presence in the story gives the resonance of a second storyline that merges into the main one by the end. The book opens with Ike's feeling that Nixon's defeat in the 1960 election is a public repudiation of his own presidential achievements, and ends with him living long enough to see Nixon win in 1968. Towards the conclusion, the Eisenhower-Nixon political legacy culminates like clockwork with the pre-Inaugural wedding of David and Julie.

It would have been easy to let the many topics it covers swell rapidly, but Going Home to Glory is a modern publishing anomaly for its brevity and leanness without sacrificing incredible quality. The couple has been writing it carefully for some years, and the effort shows. Not only does the prose flow easily but the personal memoir aspects blend seamlessly with the political history. Important letters, memos, speech transcripts and published writings are inserted at key points enhancing rather than interrupting the narrative. Julie Nixon's skilled hand wrestled the challenge of this memoir/history's duality, much as she did with the well-wrought Pat Nixon (1986) about her mother.

In an age when news about a famous politician's child and their partner is deemed worthy when they dance on television and pose nude instead of going to college like Sarah Palin's daughter Bristol and her former boyfriend Levi Johnson have done, it's hard to believe that there were once 20-year old newlyweds like David and Julie. They managed intense public scrutiny, campaign schedules,and criticism from their peers while simultaneously working to earn their degrees from Amherst and Smith Colleges, respectively. While both were ultimately supportive of the Eisenhower-Nixon opinion to stay in Vietnam until "peace with honor" was achieved, Going Home to Glory suggests their views were distilled from a conscientious effort to understand why their peers overwhelmingly opposed it, rather than simply adopting their elders' views with willful blindness.

Eisenhower isn't remembered for a glamorous White House or heart-soaring speeches, but after reading Going Home to Glory in light of recent presidential candidates ranging from John Edwards to John McCain, one longs for an Ike, refusing to compromise the integrity with which they all seemed so promisingly to first commit to public service.

Finally, there is an almost eerie prescience to the Dwight D. Eisenhower we hear in Going Home to Glory, his spoken and written words offering a series of warnings against dangers that seem almost more directed to a United States fifty years after he left the White House than even in his own era.

The currency of Ike's popularity is today based on his presidential farewell address which famously warned the nation about a "military-industrial complex." Going Home to Glory broadens Ike's realization that massive amounts of federal funds fed to armament manufacturers would menace America not just by creating artificial incentives for increasingly nightmarish warfare but by also insidiously destabilizing the government budget and undermining the national economy.

Implied and explicit throughout Going Home to Glory is Ike's growing concern for the democratic process if it increasingly succumbed to cults of personality. This went beyond any admittedly parrtisan perspective he had on telegenic and popular successor John F. Kennedy to the increasingly adverserial dramas induced by the mass-media which profits by it. "Personalities - particularly personal animosities," he wrote in 1964, "are seemingly far more important than are issues, ideals and principals."

Twitter is doing for egotism what online shopping is doing for impatience, but then so did the Brownie camera and telephone a century ago. Society's resistance to recognizing what it has become hasn't changed either, but rousing itself to take measured responsbiity can sometimes be provoked by a reminder of how dangerous excess in either direction can be. Especially haunting in Going Home to Glory, is Ike's reaction to adults resorting to the impulsive extremism of lawless violence to protest national policy and crackdown. As David Eisenhower quotes from Ike's 1967 article, "We Should Be Ashamed" he was especially shocked to see it in a nation with "more opportunities, more resources, more talent and competence...more of the tangibly good things of this life than any other nation ever had."

Perhaps for an old man who had long before determined to escape what his grandson called "the wrong sides of the track" by pulling himself up from the proverbial bootstraps, the rage which sparked much of the Sixties rioting was incomprehensible. It might also appear to be another illustration of Ike's admittedly tough-love warning to stay centered and maintain balance. When he saw the human toll of a liberated Nazi concentration camp, he was as enraged by the end result of extremism as he was horrifed by the disregard for life, and made local citizens file by to comprehend what happens when society reacts too passively.. Though written in reference to America's urban violence in the Sixties, Ike's warning against excess in Going Home to Glory speaks to all extremes today: "This situation is unacceptable in a civilized society."

?

Follow Carl Sferrazza Anthony on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlSAnthony

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here

Friday, October 29, 2010

Midterm election 2010: An Inside Look At the group off spending surge energize the image group

Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 8782.
Error in deserializing body of reply message for operation 'Translate'. The maximum string content length quota (8192) has been exceeded while reading XML data. This quota may be increased by changing the MaxStringContentLength property on the XmlDictionaryReaderQuotas object used when creating the XML reader. Line 1, position 9173.

WASHINGTON — A year ago, two top Republican strategists sat down for lunch at the venerable Mayflower Hotel, five blocks from the White House, calculating how to exploit the voter anger they had seen erupt at Democratic town hall meetings that summer.

Today, the money-raising success of the GOP-allied attack led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Karl Rove-inspired American Crossroads has stunned opponents and even its own architects. It's one big slice of the estimated $3.5 billion expected to be spent on this year's campaigning, a record for a midterm election.

Financed to a great degree by undisclosed donors – and helped by a new Supreme Court ruling – the deep-pocketed groups have become a dominant part of this election's narrative. They have reversed past pre-eminence by Democratic outside groups. And they have become a prototype for elections to come.

Their effort has been a major factor in the $264 million in spending so far in this election by outside groups – organizations separate from the political parties and candidates.

Rove, who was President George W. Bush's top political adviser, and the two Mayflower lunch partners – former GOP Chairman Ed Gillespie and Steven Law, a veteran of Capitol Hill and the Chamber of Commerce – worried that the Republican Party alone would be no match for President Barack Obama's superb fundraising.

"Clearly there was a tremendous amount of grass-roots energy building – a grass-roots prairie fire that was building in intensity," Law, now the Crossroads president, said in an interview. "We felt that one of the things we could do was pour gasoline on that."

If voters seemed angry, so was corporate America. Obama led Congress into passing health care and financial regulation overhauls and pushed for climate legislation, all of which angered the business community.

In the end, the advantage held by the GOP outside groups helped neutralize the financial edge enjoyed by the Democratic Party over the Republican Party. Together, they all have contributed to an explosion of concentrated political advertising – perhaps $1 billion worth – that rivals the annual ad spending on cereal by Kellogg's or on drugs by Viagra maker Pfizer Inc.

In the past few days, Democratic-leaning groups led by labor have begun to weigh in with their own money, anxious to match the GOP effort on the ground and on the air. Aided by more than $4 million from America's Families First Action Fund, a group gathering large donations to support House candidates, Democratic allies have managed to stay virtually even with Republican groups during the past six days, according to an Associated Press analysis of Federal Election Commission data.

The GOP plan Rove, Gillespie and Law designed was ambitious. It would require the various Republican constituencies to unite behind one economic message. The conservative movement's biggest donors would have to pony up for a midterm election with sums that would have to match or exceed their giving during presidential elections. And the groups would have to align their spending, selecting their targets and becoming almost a parallel Republican Party.

This election has emphasized the use of nonprofit, tax-exempt organizations in politics – a trend that is not new but has gained attention by the sheer size of the spending. The groups are not required to disclose their donors, adding an element of secrecy that Obama and Democrats have denounced.

The $264 million in outside group spending reported to the Federal Election Commission as of Tuesday already exceeds outside spending in the 2008 presidential year and is four times the outside spending seen for the 2006 midterms.

"It's a telltale sign that things have really shifted in a dramatic way this cycle," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign money.

Moreover, actual spending could be far higher because the reports cover only spending on communications. There is no accounting for get-out-the vote field operations by conservative and liberal groups.

The money comes amid a new landscape in campaign finance created when the Supreme Court, in a case known as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission earlier this year, opened the way for corporations and unions to spend money in elections. While that ruling and other court decisions have created a more freewheeling environment, the lack of disclosure makes it difficult to determine whether corporations have stepped up their giving.

What's more, the special Massachusetts Senate election this year, won by Republican Scott Brown, preceded the Citizens United decision and still attracted more than $5 million in spending by more than a dozen outside groups.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce relies on undisclosed corporate contributions and has seen its fundraising grow. Chamber President Thomas Donohue has aimed for a record goal of $75 million in political spending at the federal and state levels this election season.

Bruce Josten, top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber, said the business group saw Democratic-allied groups in 2008 pour vast sums of money into TV advertisements and achieve historic successes and decided to "take a page out of their book, learn a lesson."

"We've been able to do what we've done because people are angry," Josten said.

Money alone does not decide political contests. In 1994, the Democratic fundraising advantage could not stop a Republican tidal wave that switched control of Congress.

But it is one significant barometer of partisan fervor.

"Money does follow momentum," Josten said. "You saw that in '08, and you're seeing it now."

Republican-leaning groups have far outpaced liberal and Democratic-leaning organizations. American Crossroads and its affiliate, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, surpassed their $65 million fundraising goal on Monday and together have spent $30 million on 14 Senate and 18 House races. The Chamber of Commerce has spent $34 million in 58 races. The American Action Network, which occupies the same 12th floor office space in a Washington office building with American Crossroads, has spent $22.7 million.

With days to go, Democratic-allied groups are weighing in, too. They are relying primarily on labor unions that are spending directly in some battleground races or financing smaller versions of the GOP-allied model.

The National Education Association, through its advocacy fund, has pumped $2.4 million into four Senate races just in the past three days, including $1 million for ads opposing Republican Senate candidate Dino Rossi in Washington state. But labor's effort is diffuse. One of the biggest union spenders – the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees – has spent $90 million so far in this election, according to the union's political director, Larry Scanlon. But that money includes millions that it is spending on gubernatorial and state legislative races. Its direct spending on congressional contests as of Tuesday totaled $11.8 million.

Unions also are less likely to use television advertising to deliver their message, focusing instead on mailings and door-to-door canvassing.

In addition, the millionaire contributors that helped finance Democratic outside groups in the past have largely stayed away from politics this election, and the unions, their ranks diminished by the recession, have less money to spend. Donors like billionaire George Soros have put their money into policy causes such as health care and climate change. Last week, Soros gave $1 million to the liberal Media Matters for America, a group that routinely targets Fox News. On Tuesday, he contributed $1 million in support of a California referendum to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

Big corporate and labor money is not unusual in politics. Unions and companies used to give directly to the parties in unlimited amounts. That money was disclosed and had restricted uses. But Congress in 2002, banned such "soft money" contributions to the parties.

It didn't mean the source of the money went away from politics.

___

Associated Press writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed to this report.

Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter, Facebook, and Google?Buzz! Subscribe to the new HuffPost Hill newsletter!

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php
Five Filters featured article: Beyond Hiroshima - The Non-Reporting of Falluja's Cancer Catastrophe.


View the original article here