Crucifixion Eclipse The Large Gizāh  Pyramid : Nostradamus’ Birthdate at Central Axis of Giza Pyramid :


  Welcome, Guest                        Michael Report  

[Contact, Search] World History - Yahoo! - Help

 : H O M E :  

 

 

 I N D E XBook of Life  Index  directory B I B L E Apocalypse Book of Revelationsdirectory W E B S> Internets  directory J O U R N A L  > Journal Directory directory G A L L E R Y >photo gallerydirectory W M D  > XLXXII  ARMAGEDON  directory G A M M A > gamma index 

Privacy  [Public]  

United States of America -- Qualified Democracy  & Democracy & The New Deal

[GUS03] By Michael Johnathan McDonald

The New American Way

Liberalism means to emancipate from something. Freedom means unrestricted action. Socialism means restricted freedom.  As understanding,  liberalism was used in U.S.A. in the 1930s of its history to imply an emancipation from freedom – Michael Johnathan McDonald -- 02, 19, 2008

7th January 2013 North Hollywood, Bookoflife.org: Population of the U.S.A.: let us take a mean of 320 million people.

What amount of tax dollars needed to be taken in to support subsidizing 320 million people?

 

First what is the poverty line for a single adult? It is about $14,000 per year and below is the single person amount need for a redistribution of wealth, equally to all U.S.A. people, citizens and non-citizens for a single year.

 

This comes to $4,480,000,000,000 ($4.48 quadrillion) dollars in tax revenue need to support 320 million at the poverty level, per year.

 

Strand Three: The Rise and Fall of the New Deal

F.D.R. New Deal, the American Way

          C – The Rise and Fall of the New Deal

        Social-democratic model

Prelude – The 1930s

           Collapse & Strivings for Security

           The Emergence of the New Deal State

           Forging a New Deal Coalition

           The Anti-New Deal Coalition

Economic Collapse & Strivings for Security

           Poverty amidst Plenty

           “The Forgotten Man”

           “Social Citizenship”

           “Freedom signifies liberation from material insecurity,” John Dewey, 1935

Emergence of the New Deal State

           The “American Plan”

           Social Security Act of 1935

The Forging of a New Deal Coalition

           FDR’s “Brain Trust”

           Urban/Immigrant Political Machines

           Solid South

           Liberal/Progressive West

           Labor/Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)

The Anti-New Deal Coalition

           The Liberty League & the “Wall Street Model”

           Martin Dies, House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), 1938

           Duck Hill, Mississippi, “Blowtorch Lynchings,” 1937

War At Home “The Global War”

           Military Keynesianism ( Distributing gov. money to people in need, F.D.R. opposed in protest of balanced budgets)

           Dr. New Deal –Dr. Win the War. 1943  ( F.D.R. abandons domestic reforms/ policies  for war politics)

           Economic Bill of Rights, 1944 ( Forgotten Man Bill of Rights, 1945, Second Bill of Rights)

           Rosie vs. Riveter ( Women serving in war-factories, return home to domestic life-model)

 

Qualified Democracy

How to understand Socialism in American history. Before the 1930s, the American tradition, as in general (excluding events of WWII) considered itself that is generally as isolationists, predicated upon an economy based upon laissez-faire economics, and practitioners of total freedom on the individual to which to direct their individualist destiny as absence of Government intrusion. Most of the U.S.A. populations were poor working class individuals, working for large corporations who controlled wages and large populations of agrarianisms.  The divide between rich and poor signified there were no classes considered middle-class. In order to correct this, imperialism, new government control predicated upon some level of Keynesian economics, and a change from isolationism to globalism – which produced, eventually, the middle class. Words introduced in the National discourse were “democracy” ( which ended representative republicanism) and Classical liberalism understood as traditional conservatives took on the meaning of Socialism and even semi-communism. After WW II, forbidden discourse resulting from brave individuals to declassify U.S.A. government documents learned of economic-imperialistic motives in a program to set up military bases around the world to conduct multi-purpose global operations of security, economic welfare and physical hegemony ( a.k.a. imperialism, often regarded as new imperialism) F.D.R.’s four freedom’s speech, his redactions, edition, made known to the public now illustrate the Globalist direction to ensure all of the citizens of the U.S.A. “freedom of fear of want.” The only way to achieve this was to dominate the world’s territory and to facilitate American foreign markets by physical and physiological threat. These foreign markets would be infiltrated to force economies that were beneficiaries of the U.S.A., in that they would work as producers, and be also receivers of mass-American production in which the U.S.A. would benefit as the profiteers. This was a perfect example of part of Marx’s pretheories of Capitalism. The U.S.A. would set of friendly democracies or friendly rulers and their indigenous people would produce at sub-costs for the U.S.A. while the U.S.A. would in turn dominate their import market while at the same time placing restriction on their imports. This theory can be explained in simple philosophy: we facilitate your economy, give you some jobs, but you purchase our goods at a more favorable return. Therefore, the imperialized country produces  for the U.S.A., gives the people a little capital, and then dominates their market in which New Imperialism results in a profit for Americans – which explains the rise of the middle class.

By blaming the Soviets and Chinese, the U.S.A. had an excuse to put up military bases all around the world – to safeguard shipping lanes, trade-routs, commerce domination – for the interest only  of the Democratic- socialist way.

Simply there was no difference to the Democrats in Government in and after WWII who changed the country to socialistic polices and started to dominate the world with these occupation-military-bases that controlled the economic zones of earth -- while at the same time talking of spreading democracy and keeping out the Soviet socialists, the Chinese socialists, etc…. Conservatives, that was the American tradition was changed by the Socialists New Dealers who understood to create the middle class the “freedom of fear of want” ( see F.D.R.’s Four Freedom Speech) new imperialism needed to be undertaken. Contradictory, the democrats paid the price for American freedom while many republicans blamed them for turning away from isolationism. Yet, after the benefits were seen to be working in economic terms, the Republicans and most pro-Americans lessened their opposition to these new policies of the New Deal. The New Deal was profoundly contradictory to moral, ethical and global equality. To placate this contradiction myths of democracy, liberalism, liberty, the American Way, the power of free-market and private ownership marked the epistemological arguments of the entire American class. The Ottoman Empire ran Adalet, the Tokugawans ran Jinsei, and most other civilizations ran their forms of myth-inducing social-justice programs. These programs help to run the society smoothly. The United States of America’s program was benevolent Empire. Democracy, as rhetorical U.S. neologism,  became the desired “mark” in the 1930s which was formally understood as  Federalist Representative Republic ( official name of the U.S. Government) and help to described a social equality of materialism based upon social-political – and economic laws that would help bring the world into U.S. modernity. From the 1870s to the 1930s, the world saw a rise in what has been called mass-men (better description mass-populations). The United States of America was a recipient of mass migration and world immigration and stood at a turning point in state-management. With so many ethnicities, even during the founding of the United States of America, the mass-populations needed viable civil representation. The call for the New Deal as massive federal intervention was being advocated even by republicans on university campuses in the later 1920s. Concurrently, the U.S. had already achieved its industrialization, and not it needed to foster an ideology of mass-population management – that was democracy – the rule of the common people. American history is a story of representation of all these different groups and individuals of the U.S.A. To sustain the materialism, and high standards of living that were being developed by mass-industrialization, the U.S. needed raw materials, social programs, sacrifice of labor and central control to manage the larger new populations. I argue that it does not matter if a state, country or nation – whatever they call it—runs capitalism or collectivism. When that entity wants to be world dominate on all levels of civilizations it seeks to its fruition that measures that make it so.

In socialist governments, money must come from somewhere else to pay for its survival – like a survival of the fittest. So as with Soviets, the U.S.A. socialists now controlled by the Democratic Party started to imperialize Middle , South America, Africa, South Asia, South Seas, South Korea, and Europe – so that all the socialist groups in the U.S.A. could have nice houses. The people in these small countries worked for cheap for the U.S.A. profit, while the U.S.A. flooded their small communities with U.S.A. mass-produced stuff ending their mom-and-pop jobs, so the middle class could be created. These military bases, no being reveled for the first time by the U.S.A. and British Govs. To the public speak about the Social dominance of the globe in economic terms – and to speak of spreading democracy. The people in power were the New Deal socialist Democrats.

The U.S.A. democrats understood to make life better for all groups living in the U.S.A., the military the foreign takeover of global markets needed to come amount – money does not grow from the soil – something T. Jefferson would understand. Imperialism defined the Democratic Party in mid-century ( 20th cent), and the U.S.A. ceased to be a conservative “representative republic” of limited to no central government power to a full blown socialist democratic hegemonic Imperialist state.

Democracy and the New Deal

Progressivism Resurgents. “In 1932 presidential election Hoover was easily defeated by the Democratic governor of New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s political program called for a vastly expanded role for the federal government. Under this “ New Deal” a broad array of modern liberal reforms [ liberal in this sense means emancipation from conservativism] – from government regulation of industries to social security for the elderly, young, and handicapped – were implemented. The ideas of these and other like-minded reforms was [sic] not wholly new to the American political landscape. The New Deal was the politics of progressivism resurgent. From 1900 until 1917 political progressives have galvanized American Politics.”[1] This could be explained in that Karl Marx’s writings were widely popular in Europe and filtered into American discourse. His predictions that the United States would fall to communism and the proletariats was predicted for around the 1920s. His theories, or pretheories on capitalism, his distain for its empirical effects of colonization, and the criticism on human justice spearheaded the intellectual thoughts at the end of the nineteenth century. Real liberation and real democracy lay at the heart of socialism and not freedom. Mankind could only achieve freedom, according to Marx, with a central proletariat governemtn directing the masses. Marx’s writings were taken seriously, and utilized as propositions for social change, social problem solving and social progress – thus progressive social government became the paradigmatic change that solved the social issues of the United States of America in the 1930s. “Progressivism had its heyday in 1912, when, under the banner of Franklin Roosevelt’s distant cousin Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party had placed second in the presidential election – behind Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats but ahead of incumbent president William Howard Taft and the Republicans. The Progressive Party platform had called for “a  system of social insurance” to be used “ against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age.” It also called for “a strong National regulation of interstate corporations,” for the prohibition of child labor, for progressive taxation, and for greater protection for unions. These and many other goals of the progressives were instantiated in the legislative framework of the New Deal. Indeed, it would not be fair to say that Franklin Roosevelt’s policies brought to completion the political project his cousin had begun a quarter century before.”[2]

Backdrop: During the closing centuries of the Middle Ages, agricultural science, the abetment of the middle aged plagues, the industrial revolution, and then finally the closure of the little Ice Age (1850s) revealed a spectacular population-growth in western civilization.  This gave rise to what social historians have termed the rise of mass-men or a better term for our modernity, mass-populations. European states once considered vast geographies suddenly became small – migration to the New World became an option, and facilitated new opportunities as well as new dilemmas – and populations began to cluster into cities creating civil friction in a fight for employment. The Great War of the early twentieth century sent markets into a deep decline, revolutions erupted all over Europe and mass-migration to the United States of America ( appx. 21,000,000) resulted in a traditionally small government taking on mass-populations. Fearing the same results that were happening in Europe, United States of America’s intellects rose to meet the challenges of managing large mass-populations – in hopes to escape the revolutionary spirit that enveloped Europe. Ultimately, this explains the New American Way.

The Great Depression

Today we talk about employment retention, the stability of the U.S economy, the loss of jobs oversees, the exporting of raw materials and the importing of finished products ( the reversal of classical First World status), and as general observation the U.S.A. citizens complain that life is terrible under our contemporary government. However, unemployment during the 1930s-1940s does not compare in relations to job insecurities of today. At various times, unemployment reached 29% of the total population during the Depression Years. At the heart of the matter, the U.S.A. government took steps to avoid empirically observed European reactionism to economic circumstances that revealed revolutions which had overturned governments and formed fascism in Italy, Germany and Russia. That is to say fascism as understood in the form of totalitarian systems (see my how to understand fascism and our world). As empirically observed at the time, unemployment, mass-group agency and potential society unrest resulted in governments being overthrown in Europe during the interwar period. As fear, the United States government, and intellectuals of this time, took to the necessity of mass-population problem-solving to advert such an event. Karl Marx had predicted that the United States of America would succumb to communism by the first quarter of the twentieth century. Partially correct, U.S. semi-socialism arose out of the necessity to overt European social-reactionism which saw a cacophony of federal assistant programs in which to regulate, to distribute, and to organize wealth into the hands of the mass-populous of the United States of America. After the Great War European immigrants flooded to the United States looking to escape the European masses, all who were looking for a better life and a steady job. As result, unemployment rose sharply in the United States of America. The population grew, the European market had not recovered, and wealth – a result of capitalism – retained its self into the hands of a few groups of Americans. In order to advert a civil revolution or at least mass-civil-unrest, the plan for federal assistance, federal counting, and federal oversight reinvented the American system from an unfettered free-market to a regulated free-market, predicated upon various but limited social programs – changing the American Way to that of quasi-Socialism. In this sense, Marx was half correct. American unionisms blocked his prediction from confirmation. Yet, as empirically observed by Marx, the capitalist system did not distribute wealth evenly or even nominally to the many, but illustrated the collection of wealth into the hands of the few. This all changed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the reactive- discursive warnings of a possible American mayhem, the dawning of a new “American Way.” This can be explained that the New Deal adverted (postponed) another possible civil war or even a revolution.  Many founding fathers secretly believed that the American system needed a periodic semi-civil revolution to keep its system honest and to keep a free-market operating.  This measure, however, changed that from happening and we became a semi-socialized country.

(In keeping with the socialized aspects of introduction to state’s agency, not long following these revolutionary measures, imperialism of the U.S.A. enhanced by this socialized understanding let to the rise of the U.S.A. to a superpower and global police force which is still in effect today).

Significance: “The Depression revealed in stark terms a great failing of the American system: an inequitable distribution of that wealth. In response, there were some wide varieties of ideas put forth to correct this imbalance.  Some proposals, like Huey Long’s “Share the Wealth” program, were revolutionary in consequence.”[3] The New Deal pacified the masses and gave them hope for a better future. As humanitarian, hope provided the new motivation to begin to recreate a unified state under the auspices of government oversight. Still at the end of the nineteenth century, and continuing into the early twentieth century, Karl Marx’s writings on the articulation of capitalism, as well as his focus of its negative affects, issues of distribution of resources to offset masses of populations – a particular peeve of Marx’s concern –sparked confirmation of a humans’ position within a state.

Republican Senator George W. Norris, a Republican Senator to Nebraska, delivered a speech on February 15, 1935, at the University of Nebraska, and was a long-time advocate of a progressive tax system. [4] In his speech “Redistribution of Wealth,” he spoke:

“In an official message to Congress, December 4, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt said:

“There is every reason why, when next our system of taxation is revised, the national government should impose a graduated inheritance tax, and, if possible, a graduated income tax. The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the state, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government [as government protects his worth with a promises of police protection and/or military assistance if necessary and to exist within safe boundaries to conduct business]. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the state gives him…”[5]

What was government oversight?

“In 1933, the federal government was small by contemporary standards. Nearly half of all government employees worked for the post office. The data-gathering capacity of the government was largely confined to the census bureau and congressional committees. The number of unemployed, for example, was an estimate. As the Roosevelt administration expanded its role, the absence of reliable information was a serious problem. Without good data, it was very difficult to assess need or evaluate the effectiveness of new programs.”[6]

To fill this void, information was gathered, analyzed, and stored at an unprecedented pace. In many cases, the work was done by the various work-relief programs. The Works Progress Administration (WPA), for example, employed out-of-work professionals on numerous studies that would help policy makers. College students employed by the National Youth Administration (NYA) were another resource at the disposal of the administration to perform such needed research and analysis of conditions.”[7]

“Harry Hopkins, assigned to head the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) in 1933, recognized that without reliable field reports, he could not hope to understand needs or assess programs effectiveness. As FERA primarily distributed funds to local agencies for the actual administration of relief programs, Hopkins was dependent on organization over which he had no direct authority to provide information. In Hopkins’ mind, this situation was unacceptable.”[8]

“Lacking the time, resources, or authority to implement more sophisticated programs that could provide him with reliable and consistent information, Hopkins sought outside help. He hired fifteen reporters, including Lorena Hickok, to travel the country and provide firsthand, unbiased feedback on the impact of the Depression on the average citizen and on the effectiveness of the various aid programs.”[9]

Significance: “Between 1933 and 1936, Hickok traveled thousands of miles, visited thirty-two states, and sent hundreds of letters to Hopkins. She talked to embattled miners in the Harlan County coalfields, Dust Bowl migrants in California, “hailed out” farmers in North Dakota and Tennessee, and hill folk on the impact on the Tennessee Valley Authority. Her letters to Hopkins contained some of the most insightful and descriptive observations on Depression conditions that can be found.”[10]

“One of her duties was to assess the effectiveness of the various relief agencies charged with the distribution of FERA funds. Hopkins was concerned not only with the efficiency of the relief efforts, but also with the impact local politics had in developing and implementing relief policy at the local level. The information Hickok and other reporters provided confirmed Hickok’s belief that these programs would be more effective under federal management. He successfully achieved the control in the creation of the short-lived Civil Works Administration and the more extensive WPA.”[11]

The Dust Bowl: “In some states during the 1930s over production was not the problem. Prolonged misuse of grasslands in parts of Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma led to one of the greatest environmental disasters’ in American history. For years farmers had torn off the grassy mantle of the Great Plains by overgrazing and over farming. By late 1933 – after a year and a half of drought – hundreds of square miles of parched topsoil were churned up by violent winds and swirled upward, creating huge dust storms. Fine dust filled the air and blackened the skies for miles. Scientists calculated that the worst of the dust storms carried 300 million tons of topsoil. By 1935, it was estimated, nine million acres of the Great Plains had been eroded. With crops destroyed and livestock dying, farmers of the Dust Bowl headed toward California seeking prosperity. The Taylor Grazing Act of June 1934, which set up a program to  limit grazing and thus prevent further wind erosion, could not help those who had already lost everything, nor could the Soil Conservation Service, established in 1935. In four short years more than three hundred thousand poor and disheartened farm families migrated to California. On the road to Oklahoma to California a seemly endless stream of old, overladen cars filled with gaunt, sallow-faced families made their way west. The new arrivals in California needed work. In desperation entire families turned to low-paying jobs picking crops and lived in one-room shacks. “When they need us they call us migrants,” said one forlorn farmer. “When we’ve picked their crops we’re bums and we’ve got to get out.”[12]

Franklin D. Roosevelt was born on January 30, 1882, at the family home, "Springwood ," in Hyde Park, New York.[13] As politician, Franklin Delano Roosevelt held the President Office for twelve-years, spearheaded U.S. decision making in World War Two, and redesigned the concept of U.S. liberalism in a set of domestic economic reforms known as the New Deal.  As accredited as the architect of the New Deal, a sequence of programs and promises he initiated between 1933 and 1938, his redesigning the role of the individual to the government placed collectivism at the forefront of U.S. domestic policy – and which still stands today. Argued as pros and cons by both economic academics and academic historians till this day, no consensuses of these programs have attained normative conclusions.

The New Deal consisted of increasing federal powers through a dozen created agencies nominally known as the “alphabet agencies ( or “alphabet soup” labeled by its detractors),” because of the use of acronyms allowing for easy classification and memorization processes. The first phase of the “New Deal” of 1933 aimed at short-term social-economic recovery programs. The Second phase resulted in the most radical redesign of the American Way. Previously American, Thomas Jefferson, although the first imperialist, struggled to foster isolationism, self-reliance, and an agrarian society – an absence of federalism—became the American Way. As opponent, Alexander Hamilton vied for the opposite societal structure of federalism, inclining central power to central banks and a standing army. Prior to the New Deal, most Americans especially in the South East were simple farmers and preferred the simple agrarian lifestyles (albeit, white-dominance-only). World War One had changed the consciousness of Europeans, and mass immigration and job opportunities plague what is considered to be understood as the rise of mass-men (large groups of individuals migrating, immigrating, and coalescing in towns and cities in large numbers). Subsequently, the United States of America suffered the same dilemma. The United States of America was flooded with artists, musicians, painters, writers, and all sorts of crafters who needed work. Workers made up the bulk of the needy in U.S.A. populations. This pool consisted of mainly unskilled labor; the masses of Forgotten Men (The Veterans of World War I), and market-instability – albeit globally due to market difficulties of devastated Europe. Hegelianists, Marxists, socialists, and generally intellects of the European theater began advocating against doing business with liberal democracies. As plutocracy, the United States of America took to the implication. As result, the March on Rome (1922), fascists rose to power under the masses of fascie ( Italian veterans of World War I), who had adopted the old Roman symbolism of tight-knit-community). Although a result of British reneging on pre-Great War promises, the United States of America confirmed its liberal roots in intellectual writings.   Italians focused on its own corporatism reforms, its own welfare state, and fostered belief in its own agency. The United States of America had already been viewed as an imperialist, and economic imperialist (i.e. New Imperialist) and Italians took their own measures into their own hands. The Leninist-Marxist refused to trade with the U.S. capitalists. The United States of American, then covering for this revelation, created rhetoric that they would not do business with a communist party. The French and the English, via the Versailles Treaty, cut off most capitalist business between Germany and the United States of America – although some notable cases appear to have been permitted. The United States of America, at this time disbanded its military, and remained a non-global military power. The case for economically dominating Europe led to the historical understanding of market-instability. There was no one to trade with, and the U.S. economy became saturated, as Karl Marx had predicted in one of his theories on Capitalism (he has many levels and theoretical threads on theories of Capitalism). Farms produced abundant crops, the U.S. domestic markets faltered. The Federal banks were not allowed, or were not forced to bail out the regional and local private banks, leading to patron insecurities.  Since there were no markets, the focus on the American wealthy elite took on new forms of aggravation, including the automobile industry and the steel industry.

Previously, the Democratic Party campaigned with promises never to get involved in deficit spending. The New Deal radically changed this promises into a variable causal decision. It was understood that monetary help from the federal banks could off-set the economic tensions already discussed.  At first, F.D.R. had no solution. The depression (1929 - ) had devastating effects in both the industrialized countries and those which exported raw materials. International trade declined sharply, as did personal incomes, tax revenues, prices and profits. America’s Great Depression lasted a decade longer than the rest of the world.

After the Stock Market Crash of October 29th, 1929, the economy slowly faltered reaching its low point in the summer of 1932. Economic indicators revel the low point in history remained at its nadir until Februarys 1933. One-third of the U.S. work force was out of work, an estimate of 13,000,000 persons unemployed. Migrant workers, especially the Latin (Mexican) communities witnessed an estimated one-half million immigrants return to their homelands in search of work.

The United States of American work force, its total economy, consisted of sectored one-third agriculture – which shipped food to other areas of the world. In Europe, with no purchasing power, the US economy faltered in light of European purchasing power European economic reform. During the Great Depression, the U.S. Military broke down, automobile companies faltered, and the result of the farming lands incapacitated, the phenomena of the “dust bowl” exasperated the migrations of many to the west to escape the dust storms. Dust was reported materializing as far away places as ships on the seas, and inland as far as three-hundred miles from the point of origin. Many migrants, absent the greed for gold, migrated to California to escape the dust bowls. This led to a phenomenon of “squatter camps.” Psychologically, fifteen million people believed the depression was their fault, resulting in the common confession that they believed they were not “good enough to work.”

If one worked in the factory, and lost their job, one would end up selling produce ( mainly associated to the apple street-vending). Although, starvation limited, malnutrition became rampant, and caused disease to skyrocket, including tuberculosis. Poor suffered the most. Yet many wealthy U.S. citizens did not understand there was a recession. Many lived through the depression not realizing it was happening. However, common to railroad stations, the rich became aware as the poor knocked upon their doors asking for food to eat. This helped spread the word – spread the news. Ultimately these events led to the “American Plan,” a.k.a. the Emergence of the New Deal. Understood that change in the “American Way” proceeded threats of violent social outbursts, the U.S. Government sought to relieve tension with a wave of new federal reforms by pacifying fears of economic collapse. As the largest scaled project then in American history, the New Deal stimulated Utopian illusions, and sparked hope for social structural change.

Economic indicators show the American economy reached nadir in summer 1932 to February 1933, then began recovering until the recession of 1937-1938.

Conservatism represented an “attitude,” while F.D.R’s legislation of domestic and economic reforms represented the United States of America’s first ideological identity. As Fascists (Italian), Later Stalinists, National Socialists, and Marxists in general, all identified their systems of rule with ideological conscriptions, and not prescriptive as in altitudes. The result garnered the New Left identification with socialists, communists, semi-communists, and/or semi-socialists. To some, it was a Policy for Power. As Hopkins denied, and the opponents intend the ideology for holding power under the New Deal reshaped the left to the most prominent political party, now in U.S.A. politics, and deliberated a secret tool: “Spend-Spend-Spend, Tax-Tax-Tax, Elect, Elect, Elect.” The opponents contend, the proverbial candy store, the give-away, the recourse, and then the re-power; while the proponents claim equality and human-justice through distribution of wealth. Yet, both systems had their benefits and their tribulations. When distributing too much wealth, the market-crashed or went stagnant. When running a free-market instability, created great prosperity and great recession periods. As Marx concluded, capitalist need ever expanding markets. The economy faltered until World War Two, and the forced infusion of billions of dollars into the workforce, and well the key factor of the economic recovering, a part of the fascist critical criteria for modernization, the  “volunteerism” witnessed in the monumental industrial output waged by the American people which saw industrialization increase twofold (highest in human history).  During World War Two, the Americans traversed the earth fighting for their cultures and their ways, and ascertained the rights to superpowerdom which changed the course of U.S.A. history since.  Its Military ranked sixteenth in the world, prior to the war, now summated the heights of world respectability. The British Empire had fallen from its perch.  The encircling of the hemispheres of earth with U.S. domination in military bases and population enclaves led to new market-opportunities (i.e. new imperialism) and fostered the spectacular growth of the 1950s-1980s. What the New Deal accomplished is still a debated issue today.

The story of the American way can also be seen in different perspectives. It was a time of great fluctuation, a time of renovation, a time of reinvention, and a time of excitement – the redistribution of democracy.

After World War I, The Symbol of the Forgotten Man

The forgotten man was a crisis that, in Washington, Hoover pointed out as the “Symbol of the Forgotten Man”—the veterans who returned home from World War I, who many were activist demanding that the U.S.A. government pay the promised service bonuses. Unlike today, the masses, the media, the journalists all cared about this issue, bringing it to the forefront of popular discourse. The forgotten man was a wide political issue, there were songs, dances, movies, and print media associated with veterans. The first half of the twentieth century, the soldier or military man was adored as an archetype, a model of masculinity. Bravery encompassed the perceived danger of the world.

March 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a.k.a. F.D.R., ( 32nd President of the United States of America, loved and hated by many) came to power. He was the only president to hold the office in four consecutive four-year terms.

F.D.R. was initially supported (and loved) by many of the middle to poorer classes because of tactful rhetoric. He showed no qualms about calling the economic elite in the U.S.A. society “Economic Royalists.” F.D.R. exhibited a new type of rhetoric toward the U.S.A. population, according to Postel. “He banked tradition and laws on the way […]”[14] He forged the “rudiments of the welfare state.” Out of F.D.R.’s revised rhetoric came an adapted new interpretation of “liberalism.” It addressed a wider and broader concern for the population. Postel intends that F.D.R. could adapt to change, which explains his popularity, at least amongst the working classes’ perspective. In effect, all F.D. R. did was mirror the European cultural ensconces [economies] that had already positioned its self within the foundations of the high-culture of Europe.  This included ‘fraternal societies’, mimicking the 1789 phenomena, the corporation structures that functioned the indusial capacity of Europe, and the socialist, or social platforms that had concerned the neo-Marxists of Europe (although they simply identified with ether title of Marxist or socialist). In the U.S.A. the communist parties were not, at this time, an issue as much as racism.  To solicit the economic poor, there appears ample evidence of ad campaigns by the community league(s) in the U.S.A. to address racism as a functioning concern of U.S.A. ethics. However, F.D.R. never resolved to place himself as an arbitrator of racism. The solid south continued to be the object of sever international criticism on race relations – as well as the propagation of knowledge of human torture and lynching in the Democratic south.[15] In 1937 approximately five million (5,000,000) people took to civil disobedience in the guise of refusing to work or show up for work. At least four-hundred thousand (400,000) took to protesting, as activism. This was part of the change in understanding Freedom of speech, and was connected to the Organization (CIO), and people saw it as practical. The CIO created the pluralist, meaning that race was attentively not an issue as far as the grand issue of economic determinism – the assumed right of economic right – a person’s freedom lay in their mindset as an inherent right of U.S.A. citizenship. Prior measures of employment lay with the employer who could hire or dismiss an employee based upon their local or national political affiliations –- without other reason. For example, situations of burning “think books” in San Francisco demonstrated the protest against such human rights of political choice absent of civil work environments. FDR commented that “economic slavery is not freedom.” This was a turning point in the defining notions of the concept of “liberalism” (known then as liberty), Postel intends. But since Blacks worked in backroom jobs, this view by Postel is profoundly contradicting. Freedom was conditional and qualified.

The progressive tax program cannot be rationalized as how Roosevelt set up the U.S. socio-economic system. The New Deal was part of three “Rs:” Recovery, Reform

Second phase of the New Deal (1935

1936)

  • The heart of the New Deal was Social Security (1935).

Social Security and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - the primary regulator of publicly traded U.S. firms.

An Alphabet Soup of Agencies

An Alphabet Soup of Agencies. “During the 1930s many economists argued that one of the ailing nation’s primary needs was an infusion of money into the economy to check the downward spiral of unemployment. The Roosevelt administration responded with such a wide array of agencies, administrations, and acts –  most of which were referred to by acronyms formed form the initial letters in their names – that some glibly referred to them as an “Alphabet Soup of Acts and Agencies.”

New Deal Epistemology

Behind the hidden discourse of the Term New Deal was an unconscious recognition of “please do not overthrow our/your own government – lets try to make this work.” Liberalism became the preferred term of the New Deal, as it meant to emancipate from Freedom and to adopt Socialism. To secure the anti-Freedom F.D.R. so worshipped, he stacked the courts with pro-Socialist persons. Now the government began to be the most powerful force in America, and not the people.  The Benches ruled and the president maneuvered to appoint his bench. As vicious reaction to the progression to non-freedom, many of the New Deal legislation had to be overturned. However, some of its ground breaking influences still are backbones of our present government and supported by both main political parties – till this day. Since the 1930s, the United States of America has been a semi-socialistic state, and was no longer a representative democracy with a free-market and small government that only focuses on national security. Now the government’s main job was (and is till this day) to manage the people, to regulate their life, to deem what is permissible or not, and to watch the population to restrain it from possibly freedoms.  Freedom proved dangerous to mass-populations, therefore the new term “liberalism” became the vanguard of separation from that freedom and to guard the dearly beloved alter of Socialism, as the term conservative now meant anyone who adhered too the old founding framework of freedom and was considered no longer a serious player in U.S.A. politics and world politics. Democracy can be socialist or communist state setting, but cannot exist as a freedom measure for a state setting. This can be explained in that the founders disliked or even more accurate hated the concept and word democracy that it is not in the founding arguments as the preferred government system. However, when Roosevelt changed the American Way, the concept of Democracy replaced the official name of the American government – Federal Representative Republic. When one refers to conservative values of the founders, that is to say the original founding concepts (even though they were disputed during the forming of the constitution), we refer never to Democracy. The United States of America was never born of a Democracy, although this myth has surely made its way into the records by haphazard scholarship. With Civil Rights expanding in 1964, monumentus steps toward a democracy for the United States of America had surely been conceived. However many argue The United States of America is still fighting for the elusive democratic promise, envisioned by the socialist method of including everyone as representatives in their supported government, today.

Freedom and democracy are dissimilar concepts. Freedomers tend to emulate (if they realize it or not) a Darwinian pathway, as compared to the prescriptive conception of equal representation of the common. In free-markets, equality has not been empirically observed. More or less just the opposite occurs. This is why liberalism and Democracy were argued by the socialists as the true “just” socials system for humankind. Its crowning glory of non-freedom(s) means a liberation of the individual from all that was unequal collectively – the main culprit – to freedom. (mjm 02, 19, 2008)

First Congressional Union Law of U.S.A.

June 1933, The First New Deal Efforts

1.       Unionization clauses,

2.       Restriction on Child Labor,

3.       Suspend antitrust laws,

4.       Set wages and set hours

The NIRA. “The first New Deal efforts to respond to corporate bankruptcies and the concomitant unemployment came in the form of omnibus legislation bill. The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was passed by Congress in mid June 1933. An extremely complex bill, the NIRA was intended to stop the crippling deflation that was running American industries. The NIRA suspended antitrust laws and allowed industries to collude in setting prices. The NIRA created the Public Works Administration (PWA), and in its now-famous section 7(a) allowed workers to organize into Unions with the assurance that they could not be “coerced, harassed, or intimidated” by their employers. The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was established under the NIRA to set codes for industrial compliance. Under the capable leadership of Hugh S. Johnson, the NRA instituted codes calling for minimum wages, maximum hours, and an end to child labor. Industries that complied with NRA codes were allowed to display a “Blue Eagle.”[16]

Securities Exchange Act of 1934

The stock market crash of 1929 and the growing uncertainties of the financial system of the United States of America prompted crucial examination of those systems. “Spurred by the collapse of three thousand banks between 1930 and 1932 and by the revelations of unscrupulous dealings by powerful financial leaders, greater regulatory control of the key institutions seemed necessary.” [17] Significance: “The primary objectives of the Securities and Exchange Acts were to prevent manipulation of stock prices by insiders, place the margins buying of stocks under tighter restrictions, and end misrepresentation of stock values by requiring full disclosure of information related to the securities sold on the stock exchanges. It gave the federal government regulatory responsibility over what had been known as laissez-faire economics. Laissez-faire, a French expression that means letting economic systems operate without government interference.”[18] This can be explained as unfettered free-market when the government does not interfere in free-market capitalism.

National Labor Relations Act (July 5, 1935, a.k.a. Wagner Act)

“In May 1935, the Supreme Court declared the NRA unconstitutional [National Industrial Recovery Act, a cornerstone of the early New Deal enacted in 1933, included a provision that guaranteed workers the right to collective bargaining. While Roosevelt was not strongly pro-union, he clearly recognized the need for workers to be able to offset the power of employers and the value of unions had in raising wages.[19]]. Senator Wagner quickly found the necessary support, including Franklin Roosevelt, for his bill.” [20] “On July 5, 1935, over the vehement opposition of business leaders and industrialists, the National Labor Relations Act (often called the Wagner Act) passed. This bill protected the rights of workers to form unions and set up guidelines to ensure that employers could not violate those rights. It also created the National Labor Relations Board for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the act. It has served in this capacity since that time.”[21]

Significance: “The Wagner Act was a turning point in American labor history. For the first time the authority of the federal government was clearly behind workers, supporting their right to collective bargaining and to form unions. It was the catalyst to increase labor agitating. Union members grew from 3.7 million (mostly skilled workers) in 1935 to 7.3 million in 1940. Most of this growth was among unskilled workers. By 1950, union membership was nearly 15 million.”[22]

“Success, however, did not come overnight. Despite the Wagner Act, employers continued to fight unionization efforts. In part, this reflected a confidence in their ability to “divide and conquer” workers as they had in the past. In part, it was in the belief that the Supreme Court would declare the Wagner Act unconstitutional.”[23]

The New Deal was initially sought to follow/emulate European Laws.

The New Deal is the title President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave to a sequence of programs and promises he initiated between 1933 and 1938 with the goal of giving reform to the people and economy of the United States during the Great Depression. Dozens of alphabet agencies (so named because of their acronyms, as with the SEC), were created as a result of the New Deal. Historians distinguish between the "First New Deal" of 1933, which had aimed at wide reaching reforms for all groups affected by the Depression, and the "Second New Deal" (1935–36), which aimed at reforms between business, unions and workers. The New Deal represented a significant shift in political and domestic policy in the U.S., with its more lasting changes being increased government control over the economy and money supply; intervention to control prices and agricultural production; the beginning of the federal welfare state, and the rise of trade union organizations.[24] Historians on the left have denounced the New Deal as a conservative phenomenon that let slip the opportunity to radically reform capitalism.[25]

Government role: balance labor, business and farming: Despite the dismal record in aiding marginal farmers and African Americans, among others—contrasted with its often frequent generosity toward certain business interests—the New Deal was to elevate and strengthen new interest groups so as to allow them to compete more effectively for the interests by having the federal government evolve into an arbitrator in competition among all elements and classes of society, acting as a force that could mediate when necessary to help some groups and limit the power of others. By the end of the 1930s, business found itself competing for influence with an increasingly powerful labor movement, one that was engaged in mass mobilization and sometimes militant action; with an organized agricultural economy, and occasionally with aroused consumers. The New Deal accomplished this by creating a series of state institutions that greatly, and permanently, expanded the role of the federal government in American life. The government was now committed to providing at least minimal assistance to the poor and unemployed; to protecting the rights of labor unions; to stabilizing the banking system; to building low-income housing; to regulating financial markets; to subsidizing agricultural production; and to doing many other things that had not previously been federal responsibilities.[26]

1)       “Two old words took on new meaning. "Liberal" no longer referred to classical liberalism but meant a supporter of the New Deal; conservative meant an opponent.”[27]

 The First Two Decades:

1)       GI Bill

2)       Unmatched Prosperity

New deal Liberalism:

3)       Victim: National Health Insurance

4)       Victim: Labor Unions

5)       Victim: Liberalism of conservativism.

6)       Language: poor, workers, better life.

Evolution: defense of groups rights.

Significance of New Deal: “Thus, perhaps the strongest legacy of the New Deal was to make the federal government a protector of interest groups and a supervisor of competition among them. As a result of the New Deal, political and economic life became politically more competitive than before, with workers, farmers, consumers, and others now able to press their demands upon the government in ways that in the past had been available only to the corporate world.”[28]

New Deal Opponents

Alternatives on the Left and Right. “American politics consists of interplays of individuals, interest groups, and their contending worldviews. The Politics of the 1930s were extraordinary dynamic. As the economy tumbled over more swiftly downhill in the early 1930s, Americans contemplated the social, economic, and political conditions that had – to a greater or lesser extent – ruled the United States since its founding. Some individuals began to question the free-market capitalism and constitutional republicanism (representative democracy) that had been the foundational tenets of American history. Though the gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States rose from $56 billion in 1933 to $72 billion in 1935, unemployment remained at more than 10 million workers. The optimism of Roosevelt’s first hundred days was increasingly replaced by frustration and anger. Voices of protest were heard form the Political Right and Left.” [29]

Share-Our-Wealth Societies. “The Greatest challenge to Roosevelt and the New Deal in the mid 1930s proved to be Sen. Huey P. Long of Louisiana, whose “Share-Our-Wealth” clubs, organized early in 1934, spread rapidly across the country. Millions of Americans supported Long’s proposals. Calling for redistributing the nation’s wealth through heavy taxation of the rich, Long’s plan guaranteed every American an annual income of twenty-five hundred dollars (a middle-class income in the 1930s) and a “homestead” allowance” of five thousand dollars. Critics considered the plan unworkable, and Roosevelt called Long “one of the two most dangerous men in America.” Nevertheless, a poll conducted in mid 1935 found that long would get 10 percent of the vote if he were to run for president. Soon after Long was assassinated in September 1935, the “Share-Our-Wealth” movement collapsed.”[30]

Communists. “The Political Left remained small during the 1930s, but it exercised influence on politics in proportions greater than its numbers. After the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936, more than 3000 American leftists traveled to Spain to fight for the democratically elected republican government against fascist troops of Gen. Francisco Franco. One the homefront Communists and other leftists pointed out that the economy collapse of 1929 occurred in an economy where wealth was not equally distributed. The richest fifth of the American population owned more than half the nation’s wealth, while the poorest 40 percent of American owned only about 10 percent of the wealth. Depression signaled [to the communists] the end of such an inequitable system, which would be replaced by communism. Communists organized a hunger march on Washington, D.C. (1931), organized black sharecroppers, and worked within unions to foment radical action against the industrial order. In 1932 William Z. Foster, the Communsit Party presidential candidate, received a scant 102,785 votes. In 1935 Foster, under direction from Moscow, reversed the Communists’ strategy of separation form other leftists and liberal political groups. Hailing a “popular Front” of all leftists to fight fascism, Foster declared, “Communism is twentieth-century Americanism.”The strategy produced poor results; in 1936 Communist presidential candidate Earl Browder one only 80, 869 votes. Throughout the 1930s the Communist Party in the United States kept close contact with and was often controlled by Joseph Stalin and Soviet Communists. In August 1939, after party leaders were ordered by Moscow to support the nonaggression pact signed by Stalin and Adolf Hitler, many party members resigned in disgust over the Soviets’ reversal of their policy toward fascism. ”[31]

CIO Unionization. “By 1936 the CIO was vigorously organizing steelworkers, textile workers, automobile assembly-line workers, and others across the nation amid much violence between management and labor. Bloody battles, started by either side, were not uncommon. In Seattle there was an abortive effort by workers to call a general strike. Perhaps the  most innovative forms of worker protests, however, were the sit-down strikes at mid-decade. Rather than leaving the plants and marching outside at the gates as in traditional strikes, the “sit-downers” elected to occupy the plants – until their demands were met. The best known sit-down strikes were launched just before Christmas 1936 by the automotive assembly-line workers. Supported by their wives and other on the outside, who organized food and blanket brigades to help them, the workers occupied automotive factories for weeks. In February 1937 General Motors agreed to their demands for recognition of their union and increased wages. Soon sit-down strikes were being waged by women clerks in Woolworth’s stores and elsewhere across the nation.” [32]  

The Midcentury American labor Movement

“The midcentury American labor movement embraced a wide range of political ideologies, form radical to reactionary, but the great bulk of working-class economic and electoral power remained invested in the reformist New Deal welfare state, its Kenysian growth liberalism, and its promise of security to workers in the core of the economy.” [33] 

Immigration Act (need this section)

The Four Freedoms

The Four Freedoms are goals famously articulated by United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the State of the Union Address he delivered to the 77th United States Congress on January 6, 1941. In an address also known as the Four Freedoms speech, Roosevelt enumerated four points as fundamental freedoms humans "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:[34]

·         Freedom of speech and expression

·         Freedom of every person to worship in his own way

·         Freedom from want

·         Freedom from fear

“The four freedoms were taken seriously,” Postel intends. F.D.R. was a globalist, in a modern sense, but addressed the international currents of that time.[35]

Key Significances:

1.       Rough draft editing of the term of nationalism to the term of the “world” in speech by F.D.R., commonly called the “The Four Freedoms’ Speech” (Jan. 6, 1941).

2.       The spreading of the United States of American system by force – over and throughout the world.

3.       The guiding ideal sates.

4.       Defining of the moral structures of the United States of American foreign policy to the world, and ultimately shaped the U.S.A. system from isolationism to globalism.

5.       FDR’s manifesto against the New World Order, understandably communism/totalitarianism/socialism.

6.       U.S. supremacy as political doctrine.

7.       FDR’s manifesto of U.S.A. global supremacy.

8.       The continuation of F.D.R.’s Globalism ( see his rough draft, Jan. 6, 1941, speech, a.k.a. “The Four Freedoms’ Speech.”) redefined the United States of American’s role as facilitator of global democracy  by force, influence, and global military power.[36]

Suburban America or a Consumer Republic?

  • What drove prosperity?
  • Why the racial Divide?

From 1945-1965 illustrated a period of multiple transformations, unprecedented prosperity, unfettered growth, emergence of the American middle class ( No longer divided by rich and poor) and represented a period of transformation of space. Most importance aspect of social group-agency pertained to the rise of the suburb (like the TV show, Leave it to Beaver). As philosophy, all men were kings of their suburban capitals, and women were queens of their castles, and all the children were above average in intelligence, as folklore – the golden age of the 1940s-1950s represented something unique in United States of America.

Of course, this was qualified social grouping, understood as social development of enclaves of ethnocentrism; suburbs represented the grand community of Europeans. But all this does not add up: All children were not equal, a growing gap in racial divide revealed the limitations of free-market, giving rise to the explanation of a qualified democracy.  Under freedom of speech, under freedom of market value, and unrestricted populism—the ethnicities conjugated into separate spheres of spatial influence. What emerged in the United States of American society aptly defined a notion of “qualified democracy” (a type of legal-social Darwinism).

Sociospatial Formations

Suburbanization: “Homeowners stood as the core of political identification, and small property owners emerged as the most important social class and political constituency. Capital mobility, national economic restructuring, and the extraorfinary growth of California’s population during and after the war [WWII] propelled the process of suburban formation in the East Bay, but homeowner expectations were the glue that help the new cities together.”[37]

Prosperity by three great New Deal reforms:

1930s-1940s--so affective and power.

#1) 1935 Social Security ACT: (Provide unemployment insurance – a certain security—tide one over to the next uptake in econ; Opportunity to plan for retirements. Postel calls this the heart of the New Deal ( or others first, as far as I know).  

#2 ) National Labor Relations Act: Fair labor act of 1938 ( Workers joined Unions, gave rise to stability of wages, tenure, ability to plan for future, unprecedented (4.2 union million labor union members in this period.

#3) GI Bill of (date)

1948. The GI Bill consisted a 15% share of federal budget, the model of the welfare system. It was a federal system of planning, a system of funds that followed a social pathway downwards into all reaches of economic classes; it was massive as social welfare. Today we apply the term welfare to poor of people who receive services because of absence of opportunities that the government offers to its U.S. public, but in 1950s-1950s we applied the term welfare to people who serviced our state. These were subsidies, like federal home ownership. Subsidized like Farmers, we so not call it welfare (so think of GI bills as massive welfare program) Bill Clinton called the GI Bill the best government program of all time in American history.

U.S.A. persons went to college, over 200,000 had started businesses from VA loans, 5,000,000 new homes were created and there was a price cap on interest rates, the down payments were lower and affordable to more populations of U.S. citizens then ever before, and the payments were spread out for decades – Postel a great engine (50% new home by gov.) of American prosperity. It was the cornerstone of the consumer republic. This cornerstone became the public ideal – it was mass consumption -- mass consumption became the barometer of good government. As socially projected, everyone (would have) owned a car, TV, dishwashers, and job. Nixon, as Vice Pres, told the Soviets of all these achievements from statistics.  (was it white) Nixon said it was classless society. Postel said, the Soviets had their system of prosperity, and the U.S. had their system of prosperity.

What did this plan look like in space?

In Canadian cities the poor (as well as European city models during the Industrial Revolution) the poor, the farmers, the small business owners tended to live in the suburban belts in the countryside. The transformation of the countryside in relations to the city represented something unique, something different . The rich moved to the suburban area(s) and the poor resettled into the downtowns sections of new American suburbia, Postel intends. (mjm --  Roman History – same spatial model existed in relations to cities of poor and urban elite). Contemporarily, cites were seen as dangerous areas at night and the urban areas were viewed as sanctuaries, called in part garden-cities (or industrial gardens). 

Suburbs:

Federal Freeway construction

Federal Housing Administration & Veterans Administration Loans.

Betty Friedan, Feminine Mystique (1963), “the problem that has no name.” The suburban housewife trapped in the suburban domain, -- she was not happy – she was part of U.C. Berkeley.

Postel: Celebration of American power after the bombs on Japan, it was enthusiasm of American power – it was blatantly racist – the atom was to unlock all problems, so Americans believed. The key to better future illustrated photographs of farming techniques of pumping radiation into the ground to grow larger food. Then something happened, the Russians figured out how to make a bomb. The Americans were surprised, but it did not create a war. The Americans ( some citizens thought about it)  believed that behind the Russians were a vast Asian power – the Koreans. Fear gripped American society. Identification badges sold to families so that parents can find their children after an atomic blast by the enemy illustrated the power of the unknown.

A great consumer item of this era represented the bomb shelter.  Some bomb shelters reflected the American dream. They were very elaborate and maintained the “consumer republic” underground, Postel intends.[38] One of the forces shaping the post- war effort was….white people strikes (No blacks), as reveled in the San Francisco department store strikes in Robert O. Self’s work, “American Babylon” (2003).In 1946, the strike of – to extend union power to women in downtown San Francisco department stores – represented a critical part of New Deal liberal order.

We want housing in Oakland, we want rights too – Self 00 part of the story, these people become part of the coalition (I guess he talks about the blacks)

…Suburban track housing, the democracy of goods, the suburb planning all looking the same – the model of the future - -the new space, the new shape of postwar America. Civil defense, dispersal is better, but that dims when people figure out that there will be so much radiation --- but more important, the suburb was a bumper of security for white Americas and some minorities – an important selling point for buyers – it was an insecure time and the suburbs advertised a bumper to insecurities of the city.

Why the Racial Divide?

Desegregation of Armed services, 1948.

States’ Right Party, 1948.

Lyndon Johnson, “Great Soviet,” 1964

Racial Dimensions of New Deal

--Social security act

--labor

--GI Bill

1964 LbJ. matriculated to Howard University, failure of New Deal to Negros.  To end the white supremacy of white domination – wanted to end. As racial dimensions of the New Deal, the southerners did not want to intermix with minorities in all aspects of life. Southerners remained committed to their old ways until Lyndon B. Johnson rose to prominence politically establishing a divide among the southern white unity.  Lyndon B. Johnson, “Great Society,” I’m a Texan and have a southern constituency. As result, many Democrats from the south began long migration to Republicans.[39] 

Cold War Dimensions of Civil Rights ( Very important Postel says)

Army was a sociological laboratory, and with 100,000 troops stationed around the world, in racial experiments of NAZI Germany and Japan – white U.S. dominance – Postel.

Truman, “proposed Fair Bill,” an anti lynching enforcement and maintain a system for federal employment for Black, southern democrats were outraged, and split. Split: The States’ Rights Party (1948) Key platform we stand for segregations. It carried fiver southern state, such as Jessie Helms, threatened to Strong Thurman ( Dixcrats) – became pillars of conservative revivals of 1980s-1990s.

Two trajectories, the trained white supremacy, the states right they go to the republican the other shift is the LBJ, and he moves toward the civil rights section and passes the most civil rights leg.

Other group: LBJ: The split, some followed lbj to end black poverty, Johnson was a southern Democrat, would sign more “civil rights acts” then anytime except the Civil War. LBJ< as the embodiment of the New Deal, would not talk about why the minorities were left behind? It was the south that had veto powers in the Senate, key ingredient was tenure, they controlled the New Deal – nothing could pass that threaten racial order. Social control was at all voting patterns. The New Deal, stipulvaed with social control.”

Social Security Act, entire populations (farm-labor or domestic help, and 75% of the black workforce in the South, and 60% nationally – historians call this policy-apartheid. It was all left ot administrations of local programs in the south. In Mississippi, black s received only 1% of federal social funds. This was not democracy. Georgia, as well was a gap in the New Deal. Then there was Unions, and by 1948, some leftist unions like long shoremen on the west coast, but the most unions like the teamsters and others refused to have blacks and/or maintained they could only have the lowest jobs. Most telling is the GI bill, it is by stature it is race blind, all veterans were equally (Backs were 10% population and 10% of the troops). In practice, the GI bill was crafted to give the least amount to blacks, it was crafted by a southern racist, and it was decided to be government by white administrators. 100,000 people in college and less than 1% of these were blacks. It was pattern, the whites expanded, for white veterans, for white institutions, only a black could spend their benefits in black colleges, and the colleges for blacks had little to no funding – so it was not equal --- markers were statistics ( black libraries did not have books) – all were a part of state policy and organized by whites.

So backs believed they had encouragement to buy homes and have lives, but this was not the case, this lead up to the black protests and data of inequality in statistics. Was this really a democracy (--mjm)?

Housing Apartheid.

Home Owners’ Loan Corporation ( not published information)

Residential Security Maps

Redlining

“Restrictive Covenants”

William Levitt

Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma, 1944.

 

Nuts and bolts are the home loans to whites only – Postel – a unique footprint on this country’s vast white suburbia American democracy,  and impoverished inner cities illustrated the model reversed from Europe, according to Postel ( not fact, but at least in his general quick note in lect.).

Redlining: loans to whites and not blacks.

In downtown Oakland and San Leandro before the war one would see signs  illustrating “no service” to Negros – after the war White shop owners  took down the signs, but still practiced the “no service” unwritten policy.

75, 000, 000 ( 1940s) livable buildings in S.F., and  less than 1% were open to African American families. Since the 1920s, if you wanted to buy a home, one had to sign a covenant, so no blacks or Jews, and later courts ruled “covenants” were unconstitutional.

William levitt’s racial vision, in 1980s, 646 race people lived in the Levitt town ( whites were less than 10% in this model city).

1964-1965 the immigration cap, was on Asians, so this is why, as Postel claims, we talk about blacks as the minority ( he does not cover Latins or other minorities)

Where a loan had (this was a part of the consumer’s republic) least risk, the lowest interest rates (…). For example, up until recent times, Car Insurance in California was based upon one’s zip code, the prospect of how dangerous one’s local mattered – so homes were “devalued” which led to desegregation.  This is how it was understood in the East and South Bay housing Market study by Self. Regardless of complexities of self-preservation on value and wroth, the effect self-protectionism in the white suburb housing market let to segregation predicated upon economic advantage. Education, better schools, more federal monies earmarked for cities, but controlled by white electorates ensured white homeowners received the bulk of home funding in self-created enclaves separated only by city limits, city ordinances, and city privilege.

Ronald Reagan stood, if people said I do not want blacks to buy a home near me, it is there freedom, their right, Postel intends.[40]

Myrdal: wrote a book, in 1944, an immediate best seller, 25 printing,, 100,000 copies, most read it with optimism, U.S. citizens generally claimed. Citizens believed the U.S.A. racial system was “about to “fall like Hitler’s Germany (National Socialism)—it was fair play. What would have American looked like if government provided Blacks with same opportunities as whites? These are the questions one should keep in mind when one reads R. O. Self’s work “American Babylon” (2003). In the first three chapters, issues of East Bay minority agency, urbanization, city apartheid, represent a tableau of U.S.A. west coast politics during of post-war prosperity. A hardening of apartheid in multiple plans and policies, led to a construction of an all white industrial gardens in the South Bay. The East Bay area of the United States of America stood as a representation of poor blacks congregating to the flatlands, living in the cities while the white communities represented freedom of choice to live in suburbs – away from the minorities, arguing depreciation, and sanctuary from violence.

Black Activism

“The most successful dimension of this push in the immediate postwar years had its roots in the black railroad culture and African American professional and middle-class circles. The East Bay Democratic Club, the Bay Area’s most important African American political organization, based in Oakland and Berkeley, joined with liberals within the Berkeley Democratic Party to run a candidate for the California Assembly. “[41]

Black Politics: Coalition Building in the Flatlands

“In the 1940s African American Oakland’s three leadership poles—trade unionists, ministers, and professionals – pursued various kinds of reform in creative, and sometimes anxious tension.”[42]  Black voters were recruited into the coalition through CIO and Popular Front institutions --- [a socialist institution, mjm – note the minority favored the socialist institutions because it had the power for regulate freedom, a freedom that led to apartheid] the Political Action Committee, the Negro Labor Council, and the Civil Rights Congress --- and through the United Negro Labor Committee, a group comprised of black CIO and AFL unionists.” [43] As agency, “The Double-V campaign—victory over racism abroad and at home – had come to symbolize the fusion of national duty and criticism of national hypocrisy within the 1940s black politics.” [44]

West Coast Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters ( black equality movement ~ 30 years[45]) (p. 77) “C. L. Dellums was the cities most prominent black leader and one of the most important civil rights figures in California. A dapper sophisticate who never backed off the struggle for black equality, he led the West Coast Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters for thirty years and , like his friend and mentor A. Philip Randolph, transcended the confines of trade unionism. In addition to Dellums, other officials of the Brotherhood and the Dining Car Cooks and Waiters Union—crucial figures in the black working-class railroad culture—gave Oakland’s labor-civil rights coalitions strong support. IN the CIO, the heavily African American and racially progressive ILWU and MCSU took solid civil right stands.”[46] “[…] C. L. Dellums shaped a labor-civil rights coalition in the 1950s to push for a fair employment law in the state legislature and, he hoped, to transform the place of black Americans in California. His long association with A. Philip Randolph had convinced Dellums that a commitment to both civil rights and trade unions was essential to the social and economic progress of African American workers.“[47] “In 1950, 29 percent of black men between the ages of twenty and twenty-four were jobless, twice the rate for men between forty and forty-nine.” [48]

“D. G. Gibson may very well by the father of all of us who are now active in the black political arena,” a former California Assembly leader and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown observed in the 1970s.” [49] 

Milpetus (was a drop in the ocean, Postel)

San Leandro

02122008 notes American Babylon

Oakland is a horizontal city.

Working-class lived in the flatlands.

Urbanization

Urbanization begun approximately 1929 (embedded in the later liberal modernism of the New deal that promised the end to urban tensions in the 1930s.)

MOAP

Metropolitan Oakland Area Program ( MOAP). “In the decades between 1945 and 1955, the Oakland Chamber of Commerce married boosterism to regional planning in its Metropolitan Oakland Area Program (MOAP).[50]

MOAP stood for something quite important in midcentury Oakland: an employer and property-owners’ vision of how to develop and sell an entire region to outside owners of capital [to bring investments into the east bay area]” (p. 33) MOAP signaled the dedication of Oakland’s business class to the territorial expansion of industry and residence along the greater East Bay corridor, but it did not advocate abandoning Oakland proper in favor of suburban development

Arsenal of Democracy: “Oakland and the East Bay occupied a crucial niche in California’s industrial “ arsenal of democracy.” [51]  ( mjm— Arsenal of imperialism, all large states are imperialistic)

Garden-city models: “The Chamber’s imagery celebrated a garden-city model of neighborhood development and industrialization. Homes were literally gardens in which factories while accessible by automobile, did not intrude.” [52]  What had changed from the Wild-Wild West frontier into a secure future and stability transformed into a garden-state. MOAP’s goals to invoke industrial gardens as “a gendered social order that would have a familiar and comfortable” [53]  environment to investors, led to segregation between the blacks, the poor and affluent and/or privileged whites. “[…] American cultural ideas about capital, class, gender, and space. And it anticipated how the home—as property, as a site of consumption, and as a political identity—would come to dominate post-war politics and urbanization.“[54] After the war, there was a “decentralization of industry and residence in discrete units within a balanced metropolitan area. Industrial and residential districts were distinct form one another, but there close proximity was an intentional and definitive element of suburbanization”[in the bay area]. [55]

“Both government and private developers way the ownership of property as the key to ensuring a long-term bourgeois ideological consensus. In this sense planners and boosters understood geography as more than a backdrop to social relations.” ( p. 31)

Creating the Housing Market

“Hoover argued that a housing market more accessible to large numbers of working-class Americans could became an economic engine on a par with the automobile industry, one recently revolutionized by Henry Ford. By 1934, when Congress passed the first of several New Deal hosing bills, it was widely believed that reconstructing the housing industry would stimulate production by encouraging a home-centered consumption – of building materials, but also of home appliances, electric energy, and the financial production pioneers like William Levitt, Henry Kaiser, and Fritz Burns had begun to build vast subdivisions of affordable` homes, homeownership was understood to promote class consensus, political stability, and economic growth – an ideological formation of enormous consequences for both postwar government policy and metropolitan political economy.”[56]

Local 560’s Vision racial democracy

Robert O. Self American Babylon

Robert O. Self, in Chapter three discusses three Bay cities

Competing Versions of Democracy

#1) San Landro

#2) Sunnyhill

#3) Fremont

East Bay

Three sets:  issues…

“In the postwar decades, three primary sets of interest came together to shape suburbanization and the kinds of suburban markets celebrated by [Fred]Cox: the federal state, local city-builders, and white homeowners. Each brought an ideological and material investment in the process of market creation.”[57]“”During the last half of the twentieth century carefully selected property will increase to prices that would now seem fabulous,” Fred Cox, president of the Southern Alameda Country Real Estate Board told an audience in 1950.” [58]

“East Bay was a set of expectations and ideologies that could be mobilized politically. Three key elements lay at the core of those expectations. First, homeowners came to expect, and later demand, low property taxes. Second, they came to expect and rationalize racial segregation. Finally, they came to accept as natural the conflation of whiteness and property ownership with upward social mobility. None of these expectations emerged in a linear fashion form a single source, nor were they unchallenged.” [59] “[…] homeowners expectations were the glue that held the new cities together.” [60]

First, postwar homeownership developed with the assistance of massive state subsides.

The federal government dramatically democratized the housing market for whites while simultaneously enforcing a racial segregation that resembled apartheid.” [61] As Black activism, labor unions, and growing socialist populations, as result in “1958 pushed Republicans further to the right and toward Los Angeles, southern California. “[62]

“The New Deal together stymied progressive reform; In Oakland post war liberals were unable—because of both liberalism’s own limitations and its extraordinary opposition – to define a universalist vision of the Oakland politics, where Knowland returned in 1958 to run the Tribune [anti-union], the at-large election system discouraged political reform, and a small circle of downtown property holders, attorneys, and business people shaped the political climate.” [63]

1930s:

The Tribune demanded, city vote and represent anti-labor. (Republican Dominated) “Alameda boasted a Democratic electoral majority; after 1936 Democrats never accounted for less than 56 percent of registered voters. “[64] “Because of its at-large electoral system, Oakland politics were newspaper-advertising –dependent and expensive; […]”[65]

Labor Unions: Migration to West Coast

Labor Unions: “Old South survived in the anti-union crusade of right-to-work advocates in California.” [66] ”Labor officials spoke for a broad notion of community in which the unions defended high wages and middle-class California living standards.”[67]

Redlining

“Proposition 18’s most vocal advocate was U.S. Senator Bill Knowland, republican gubernatorial candidate and Oakland native.” [68] Knowland sough to mobilize the conservative wing of the party using his father’s old strategy of baiting and vilifying labor, a formula that proved disastrous in the late 1950s.” “Everything in 1958 election hinged on Proposition 18. Knowland did not endorse the measure.” [69]

“Cold war change Communist Part tactics, the tribune Attack blacks “Americanism,” called “red baiting.” [70]

San Leandro

American Apartheid in San Leandro, California

Key terms: “A close door” policy (apartheid), a closed door to blacks in San Leandro. “ San Leandro’s zealous pursuit of racial homogeny and rising property values in the late 1940s and into the 1950s, as well as its policy of racial restriction, occurred under no pressure from actual African American mobility. African American could not purchase homes anywhere in East Oakland until 1950 because of policies enforced by the real estate industry in Oakland. During 1947 and 1948, Friel’s [M.C. Friel and Associates, a Hayward (CA) real estate firm with expertise in racial covenants, became East Bay’s leading consultants on shoring up segregation[71]] most active period in San Leandro, no black homebuyers could purchase property within miles of the city. Yet its residents pursued restrictions with fervent determination. As parts of East Oakland opened to black families in the 1950s and the 1960s, San Leandro remained firmly closed, halting African Americans’ pursuit of homeownership at Oakland’s southern boundary and sealing off large portions of southern Alameda County. During those same decades, San Leandro’s industrial growth and its obvious prosperity contrasted sharply with East Oakland’s deindustrialization ( including the closing of two automobile factories) and the emergence there of the city’s poorest African American neighborhoods. Such consequences were not the product of white “backlash.” They were the product of an assertive, aggressive segregating policy pursued by the federal state and supported by local white consensus before African Americans had even arrived in nearby neighborhoods.”[72]

 “The forces driving suburban development in the East Bay, especially the real estate industry, would make every effort to crush this incipient integration.”[73] San Leandro was in competition with Sunnyhills in “investment in segregation.”[74] “In the 1950s, before changes in federal housing policy and Civil Rights Act of 1968, desegregation threatened the financial foundation of home building.”[75]

Housing Apartheid

Post War Home Ownership Apartheid

Three Agents in Housing

First: “Postwar homeownership developed with the assistance of massive state subsidies. The Federal Government dramatically democratized the housing market for whites while simultaneously enforcing a racial segregation that resembles apartheid.” [76]

Second: “The second archetype of suburbanization, local city-builders, came in the East Bay from a broad, diffused entrepreneurial political class that managed municipal incorporation campaigns between Oakland and San Jose.” [77]

Third: “The Third Agent of suburban city building, white homeowners, was also the most diverse group. Homeowners were first-time buyers from West Oakland, families of World War II veterans purchasing property with the assistance of the VA. Homeowners were migrants from Iowa and Okalahoma, coming to California for new Jobs…Homeowners were an occupational varied lot: factory workers, public employees, carpenters, nurses, office workers, attorneys, merchants, home workers and engineers.” [78]

Keep Mississippi out of California

“In the middle of the 1958 campaign, the San Francisco and Los Angeles offices of the NAACP issued a pamphlet entitled “Keep Mississippi Out of California,” On the cover, an employer in white shirt and black tie whips a kneeling “California Worker with a “Right to Work” lash. A Nazi insignia and the states “Tennessee,” “Arkansas,” “Texas,” “Alabama,” “Georgia,” and others from the South leap from the whip.” [79]

“Restrictive Covenants”

Supreme Court’s ruling against covenant enforcement: 1948 (Shelley v. Kraemer) slowed but did not halt the process of “covenant enforcement.”[80] Restricted Covenants were a result of populism, argued by Homeowners in San Leandro, according to Self, “a way to maintain low property taxes and high property values.”[81] The results were segregation.

San Leandro was first discovered on March 20, 1772 by Spanish soldier Captain […]. Wall Street Journal (1966), San Leandro was communicated as a city of a national model [of white power], low taxes and model of an industrial-garden. “San Leandro residents realized one version of suburbanization: dynamic industrial job growth and pastoral neighborhood enclosed behind the exclusionary walls of apartheid.”[82]  “Tax reform was the first major issue to damage Oakland’s liberal coalition. Public housing was the second. Together they proved fatal.” [83]

William Levitt

Protest

On Labor Day of 1947, tens of thousands of AFL and CIO unionists massed in downtown Oakland for a march celebrating the OVL’s success, especially the symbolism defeat of Knowland and the Tribune. “[84]

Popular Front: OUC, OVL…”activists from the left participated fully in both the OVL and UOC campaigns, though in neither did they win nor were they allowed to dominant voice. The Alameda County Communist Part (CP) was one of many radical groups active in the OVL campaign, and numerous CIO leaders moved back and forth between unions (especially the ILWU), the CIO-PAC, and the CP during the 1930s and early 1940s, building the bridges of the Popular Front.” [85]

Sunnyhills

SunnyHills as the Bay Area’s “neighborhood where democracy lives.” Welcoming buyers from all backgrounds.  Sunny hills challenged questions of race and property.

“By 1962 Sunnyhills had a 15 percent African American occupancy rate, but it never climbed much higher, even as Ford’s workforce grew.” [86] “ In a nation in which less than 1 percent of new housing built between 1935 and 1952 went to nonwhite families, Sunnyhills was, as the union boasted, a unique, much needed beacon of hope and a compelling liberal vision of the transformative possibilities of open housing. But it could not by itself remap the racial segregation produced in the East Bay in the 1950s.” [87]  1935-’52, 1% of blacks owned housing. (?) In 1960s, Sunnyhill went white-suburban.

Populism definition in American Babylon: “They crafted a populism, which, like it nineteenth-century counterpart, embraced both the possibility of an inclusive progressive politics of the “little guy” and an exclusionary racism mobilized against blacks.” [88]“For San Leandro’s real estate brokers and homeowners, racial restriction was rationalized as a way to maintain low property taxes and federal government had promoted white-only suburbanization since the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), whose Underwritten Manual in 1930s, first through the Home Owner Loan Corporation, then through in 1938 maintained that “it is necessary that properties shall continue to  be occupied by the same social and racial groups.” [89]  “African Americans could not purchase homes where in East Oakland until 1950 because of policies enforced by the real estate industry in Oakland.” [90] East Oakland’s deindustrialization (White industry grew, East-black industry declined) [91]

Meritocracy is diametrically opposed to racial equality in that social conditioning is contingent upon social engineering at the elementary to middle school and on up till the college level.

Blacks are not taught their history, but mainly white’s history. The same can be said about the other non-European races. But at the beginning of the U.S. blacks made up 20% of the total population and today make up about 12% of the total population. Yet, In American history the white perspective is dominated as topic, either positive or negative which reinforces stereotypes and social conditioning. Why would the blacks be motivated to assimilate? Agency is an underestimated human predicament. People want to be associated with their past. Only a fraction of any population in history have strewed toward total assimilation erasing their identity as race beings.

  • George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton were both predisposed to Meritocracy.

With a Welsh background, Thomas Jefferson was promoting egalitarian farm collectivism, and based his American thesis on multiracial equality. Yet, Jefferson in his will never releases his slaves after his death; as Washington stipulated in his will. Hamilton began the first African American underground slave emancipation movement in history. Hamilton was a federalist-centrist, who advocated a national army as opposed to Jefferson’s non-military stance and state’s rights. The contradictions in freedom and liberty ideology were complex at the beginning of American history and this complexity leads to continual political arguments of who is a racist and who is not. But we must keep in mind that these three founders are white humans of white European backgrounds and form the basis of elementary American history. As history is not taught toward the minorities, the fact that racism still exists is not wonderment. The United States had fewer whites before 1870s, and has increased width in white population by immigration from Europe to overtake all ethnicities by 2000. Yet, in the twentieth century Asians and Hispanics have made monumentus strides in the plurality of American culture and as a political force (to some extend Native Americans as well) force complexities to the blacks who were a major contributor to U.S. colonialism’s economy and industrialization. The produce black slaves provided the debt payments to the British who had invested capital to the New Word.  Sinse blacks produced America, they need more than monetary thanksgivings, but I believe they need power sharing positions in our “federal” government.

Cold War A myth, It was two white states after the hearts and minds of the world’s under developed countries to form solidarity for each of its ideologies.

Westad “ Empire of Liberty: The U.S.

 

1.       Liberty for its citizens separated them from “others.” The backlash beginning in the late 1970s is for the “others” to begin to separate from the U.S.A. in all socio-political and economic categories to the best of their possibility.

2.       Outside the United States the essence of non-liberty consisted of being controlled by others.

3.       Liberty could not exist without private property

4.       Central to the American ideology was its anticollectivism – the independent individual can be a republican.

5.       Collectivism symbolized the fears of eighteenth-century revolutionaries.

6.       Most Americans of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century shared a reluctance to accept centralized political power.

7.       American republic centered on ways of avoiding a strong state.

8.       Science as the progenitor of “rational action” underpinned American faith in the new state’s universal significance from the very beginning.

9.       American philosophy: The only way of becoming modern would be to emulate the American example. (to liberate productivity and innovation from the ancient  (later “traditional”) cultures and ideologies.)

10.   In the creation of the state in the nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries, “theory” and “tastes” competed for primacy. Theory as Tomas Jefferson’s 1785 praised principle of an America concentrated on perfecting freedom at home, and later stating also to avoid war.

11.   Dichotomy: William Jennings Bryan’s view: “ a struggle between Republican preoccupation with liberty and the Republicans’ preoccupation with money and interests – a contest that the later decisively won (Westad intends, p. 8) This was in response to William Jennings Bryan castigation of American colonialism of the Philippines, claiming that such policies undermined the essence of Republicanism. Taste” is therefore capitalism and the expansion of it into “other” worlds.

12.   Issue of Control: The framework for dealing with countries that could not accept the gift of liberty ( free market and its responsibilities with technologies – science as “rational action”) needed to be controlled. Sometimes it needed to exterminate (native Americans) all the nations that had settled in what became the United States before the seventeenth century.

13.   The issue of control of those not yet worthy of the levels of liberty accorded to white Americans [ Westad does not mention the Muslims who were technologically advanced and were a part of colonial America] was also crucial for the treatment of the internal African colony that had come with the Europeans. While at lest in the nineteenth century slavery was increasingly abhorrent to most Americans, blacks still had to be controlled for fear that their lack of “rational action” could disturb the progress of America. After the reconstruction era, Southern racism and Northern plans for “betterment” effectively disenfranchised the black population up to the late twentieth century, delivering as we shall see, both techniques of control to be employed abroad and, eventually, an ideological challenge to American concepts of liberty. [ Westad confuses himself, p. 13, many blacks embraced both science and free market, and private property, so how could it challenge the concepts of liberty, or if this is an erudite way to say America was intent on white people only that could “possess” liberty – a fallacy argument. )

14.   Late nineteenth century, the United States embraced a transoceanic imperialist policy of power—the first emerged according to Westad. [ this is wrong, it was mid-nineteenth century, Mathew Perry, and the Harrison Treaty in Japan, he mentions this intervention but contradicts this passage on this page – leaves the reader confused.]

15.   1890s Significant Change in U.S. policy – to control the “others” and take up “the white man’s burden”( as Kipling had put it): McKinley and Roosevelt had taken political responsibility for the overseas peoples under the U.S. control (WWI, & WWII). It was an aberration, it was formed because the U.S. became meddled in other European global politics. With the U.S intervening, it became embroiled within the context of European colonialist wars.

16.   Immigration: 1870-to-1920 the United States received “26 million new immigrants, racial and ethnic stereotyping came to determine their initial “placing” in American society, and , in some cases who should rather be kept out.” (Westad p. 14) The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first in a series of laws, campaigned by interest groups ( such as Immigration Restriction League). [ The problem with Westad is that he just framed “all whites” as racists in keeping out other races and ethnicities, then contradicts himself that these actions were from special interest groups.  This is why many see his work as “erudite.” He needs to make up his mind, or take a writing class to learn how to delineate his thoughts on paper.]

New Deal: Why does it fall?

What is the New Deal?: Like U.S. Cold War Intervention –to control foreign lands and markets by the U.S. military might—the domestic intervention was to control the U.S. population by the Federal government might. Like foreign intervention, it was argued ideologically as good for all. Freedom was exchanged for ideas of stability, of assurance, and of paternalship. The U.S. government now took on the parent’s role and the child’s role was now the citizen. The U.S. government argued that forming a family was politically expedient to solving social instability and risk factors – for a future. It was feudalism all over again, but this time a different modernity of technology and certain mobility. In democratic terms, the voices of the children echoed the programs of the parents. However, not all children were satisfied, and this caused the anti-New Deal coalition, in government and from the citizens. All together this was a type of democracy, voices heard, at least the dominant ethnicities, and each voice collectively made up the entwined and embittered whole: One side would be happy, and then the other side would fight back, and then the other side would get the upper hand, and in turn the losing side would fight back to recapture the position of the upper hand.

What was Roosevelt’s Administration’s vision? He packed his administration with reformers of the American way and change it.  They aspired to forge all elements of society into a cooperative (proletariat-communism) unit (a reaction to the worldwide specter of business labor “class struggle.”). Its ideology was fair and equality through cooperation among producers. It was the U.S version of a Marxist agenda. Roosevelt just did not use the Marxist rhetoric out of fear of intense backlash of Europeans states taking away personal property and regulating their societies to forms of Fascist-Marxism ( called Fascism, National Socialism or Marxist-Leninism ( Roosevelt actually liked Nazis before 1939, and exchanged letters with Hitler and praised his efforts at social reform) .

The term "New Deal" is also used to describe the liberal New Deal Coalition that Roosevelt created to support his programs, including the Democratic party, big city machines, labor unions, Catholic and Jewish minorities, African Americans, farmers, and most Southern whites. Although Roosevelt did not want to give African American full rights or allow immigration to increase in the U.S. he saw a coalition against the free-market business class as a way to gain a foothold on the Federal government through the U.S. electoral system.

The New Deal had three components: direct relief, economic recovery, and financial reform. These goals were also called the "Three Rs."

·         Relief was the immediate effort to help the one-third of the population most affected by the depression.

·         Recovery was the effort in many programs to restore normal economic health.

·         Reform was based on the idea that the Great Depression was caused by market instability and that government intervention was necessary to balance the interests of farmers, business and labor.

The New Deal replaced two words: Two old words took on new meaning. "Liberal" no longer referred to classical liberalism but meant a supporter of the New Deal; conservative meant an opponent.

New Deal Coalition: The term "New Deal" is also used to describe the liberal New Deal Coalition that Roosevelt created to support his programs, including the Democratic party, big city machines, labor unions, Catholic and Jewish minorities, African Americans, farmers, and most Southern whites.

1933-4: First of Business is too take care of poverty of the farmers. To do so, kill animals and destroy crops to drive up the prices.

National Recovery Act, March 15, 193?: A part of the NRA, The “blanket code” was an parent intervention into the economy of the child. A stopgap was placed on wages between 20 to 40 cents per hours and the maximum workweek was restricted to 35 to 40 hours (child labor was abolished, not because of ethical but because of economic factors). This measure was argued to increase the purchasing power and increase unemployment.

  • How so? New Dealers argued: Less working hours means more workers can hold jobs, and fewer wage means that employers can hire more workers.
  • What happened in the 1970s? Union kept the belief that business must pay them more and more money, when in fact their standard of living was like kings in castles compared to the prewar era children. They became selfish and blamed the capitalists, when in fact the global economy began to rise from colonialism ( decolonialism, 1945-) and started to make inroads on economic agency, slowing down the U.S. economy. New Dealers now believed in entitlement, not sacrifice of the Roosevelt Era. The Oil production peeked in the 1970s, and the U.S consumed 20 billions of gallons per year and only produced 8 billion gallons, thus importation raised industrialization prices which affected the progressive increase in wages, that was seen by leftists as entitlement to their dangerous jobs –they argued that were human right violations. In the 1950s, the U.S. in general, exported 50% of domestic oil production to the world; it had excessive amounts to make profits, in which the federal government if it chose too has those businesses spur-on the economy. While leftists decried the U.S. role in subjugating the under developed countries, when their union wages were reduced they blamed the U.S. government – who were now starting to respect decolonization and foreign agency demands. This is why the right-wing labeled the leftists as entitlers. They expected their government to be moral and ethical and at the same time raise their standard of living and life securities. It was a paradox, and to keep this paradox going, the dumbing-down in the school system needed to be achieved. In order to do that the paradox needed to be understood that at the same time big government can solve all the domestic problems but it also was unethical and destroyed international foreign states – and therefore it was viewed that big government could not solve the world’s problems. The dumbing-down acted as confusion – so the family would say: “what do I support?” Big government or Big government?  The leftists Intellects in the elite Universities with help across the world’s academia centers would make this contradiction into a unified pedagogical theory of everything United States related.

1935: Second New Deal: Out cries that the first New Deal legislation was not effective enough, a second set of laws were more radical than the first. They were anti-business, pro-labor, and established collective working forces that had power to force the business to bargain in their advantage.

Human Rights Watch:

·         Official Creed: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association . . . Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. Both undercurrents are economic agency*.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

·         U.S. Government Secret Creed: U.S. Covert Cold War ideology had the same ideas – The U.S. as Everyone has the right to freedom to control others for the protection of their interests in the name of liberty. Both undercurrents are economic agency*.

·         Protection of interests were mainly fought as militant activism to get the business to come up to the level of the union’s demands. Peaceful association is not in reality. The Taft- Hadley Act (1947- and the 100s of other anti-unionist, anti-New Deal legislation) is one response to this paradox.

·         1947 Taft-Hartley amendments to the Wagner Act. Under Section 2 of the NLRA as it now reads, "The term 'employee' . . . shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at hishome,[sic] . . . or any individual having the status of an independent contractor, or any individual employed as a supervisor. . Under these clauses and related court decisions, workers in all walks of life are excluded from labor law protection. Their employers can fire them with impunity for engaging in concerted activity, including trying to form a union, to bargain collectively, or to strike. They have no labor board or unfair labor practice mechanism they can turn to for redress. These workers include many or all farm workers, household employees, taxi drivers, college professors, delivery truck drivers, engineers, product sellers and distributors, doctors, nurses, newspaper employees, Indian casino employees, employees labeled "supervisors" and "managers" who may have minimal supervisory or managerial responsibility, and others. ( SourceJ)

·         “Most European countries have developed special labor law regimes for domestic workers addressing their right of association and providing ways to standardize pay and working conditions through collective representation. But the United States clings to the exclusion of domestic workers from protection of the right to act in association with one another.”

·         “In many U.S. states public employees are denied the right to bargain collectively… between any state, county or municipal agency and any organization of governmental employees.” (exceptions per state, see each state’s laws).

·         What is wanted: “the right to freedom of association-the right to organize, the right to bargain collectively, and the right to strike.”

·         Why was this not allowed in general, or fought so hardly against? Because as witnessed, there was endless fights, civil disturbances, state and federal intervention to keep the peace and irrational demands by the labor force. The labor force was ignorant, and often the business were run by intellects --  so it worked both ways. The industries when things were going well, they could trick the labor force to keep working at the same level of wages and not increase them, but when things got bad, the labor force, mainly uneducated could not understand difficult geopolitical economic circumstances that led to price reduction, and less demand for products and work—they demanded the same level of wages and guarantees and sometime accused the businesses of profit hording – which in many cases was not true ( but some, which made a bad example) . It was a two –way street. This is the battle between the concepts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). The battle between labor and business. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights argues solely for labor and anti-government and at the same time proposes more government will solve the problems. The government can only solve the problem with legislation and a police force and expensive judiciary apparatus to back up its legal measures which needs increased and progressive taxes to make it function. When the economy hits a skid, then there are no funds to administer justice. Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not propose issues of fluctuating economies – it simply does not care about this issue. It believes that money grows on trees, so to speak.

·         Old Right ( c. New Deal 1933-4): Feared and had a basic mistrust of politicians and deeply feared that government spending always involved a degree of clientelism and patronage and resulted in corruption.

·         What is racism and power-sharing? Why are these important concepts?

·         New Deal solutions for long term – Rural communism ( Consumer co-ops) – Some politicians argued the agriculture zones would realize long-term solutions to the U.S. economy by collectivizing farms and forming co-ops as a counter-weight to big business.

End of the New Deal: what did it mean?

Philps Dodge Cooper Mine (Barbara Kingslover (2nd ed1996) “Holding the Line”), It is a common story in the 1980s, the company forced their employer strike the 1981 ( Flying aviation),and brought in replacement workers, the Regan model, notice the shift. No other countries allowed strikes to break with industries. No US companies breaking strikes with workers, it just wasn’t done till Regan Era. Historian during this strike put up pickets, in copper strike a court looking back to the  Taft-Hartley Act, restricted – the court injunction barred men from taking part in solidarity strikes, and this drove women into action. It is mainly these Chicano women trying to protect their jobs. Read carefully who are the winners and losers and what did the end of the New Deal mean? When the company banned the picket lines, they did not want them near plants—so they dumped dirt – the roads of full of dirt to prevent them from gathering them – these mound of dirt. Sherriff comes to drive them away – baseball bat –conformational and bitter strike, tear gas. Also worker strikes for Poland communists, and the comparison. Many far away towns, away from the TV and Newspaper, -- were virtual wars that lasted months. So really this is a story of strikes all over the US. ( para, Charles Postel)

Mjm---

·         The underdeveloped nations began to organize industry and labor movements; the U. S hit its peak on domestic oil production, and international markets dried up. This led to an excuse to end unions in the U.S.A. Even with replacement workers, the mines could not survive the changing world market, but the union families framed the companies that they had spent so much money and purposely lost money to end unionism – and this is why the corporations shut down (Actually false, they were bitter that more hungry people would work for less.).

·         Women learned the survival value of collective action. The held the line because of each other.

·         Men could lose their union jobs if they striked, so their wives and girlfriends took to striking for them. According to the Taft-Hartley Act (1947), the protest could not block the entrances, or harass replacement workers, and could not be close to the buildings or entrance.

·         Women became literate and connected with underrepresented labor movements across the planet (Poland labor movements).

·         They learned their Constitutional Rights.

·         In dispute toward replacement workers: The told their compatriots who were starving and wanted to break the line, “ Either you are with us or against us.”

·         There is no compassion for the starving ‘scab” workers, the women were fighting for dignity of their middle-class lives. Their lives were dangerous and difficult and they blamed the industry.

·         They championed the poor in the underdeveloped world, but attacked poor Hispanics that wanted day labor to eat. They simply paid lip-service to the poor laborers in other countries.

·         1970s: ( minimum wages, according one striker was about $8 dollars in the 1970s and dropped to $3.50 in the early 1980s.

·         Gloria Armijo surmised, “The way I see it, the plan is not to reduce costs but to get rid of unions.”(p. 125)

1960s New Liberalism

1960s New Liberalism: J. F. Kennedy recognized the Keynesian argument for government spending as a vehicle for recovery. One of its manifestations was military Keynesian. These were to amp up the U.S. Rocket industry and produce more rockets which will lead to an arms race. Robert McNamara, his secretary of Defense will later advice the Concept of MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction.

1962, Michigan, Port Huron, a meeting with Tom Haden to reform the Students for a Democratic Society ( SDS) and he wrote the Port Huron Statement, the New Left’s manifesto. This was a major anti- Vietnam war movement that in the later years of the 1960s helped to end the Vietnam war.

Civil Rights, New Liberalism was black agency,

Women Rights were a part of the New Liberalism and the Rights Revolution of the 1960s-1970s.

New Liberalism Foreign Policy

Modernization, Technology,  and American globalism

How to Explain Odd Arne Westad’s Empire of Liberty ideology. To form underdeveloped sates in the image of the U.S.A. This was done by a myriad of efforts. Under Kennedy and Johnson, the Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress were intended to stimulate political as well as economic development in under developed states.  By 1965, and its beginnings, 13,000 Americans worked as volunteers in underdeveloped nations (Westad uses the term third world, but I do not) Kennedy, according to Westad, had promised that “our young men and women, dedicated to freedom, are fully capable of overcoming the efforts of Mr. Khrushchev’s missionaries who are dedicated to undermining that freedom.” “The Alliance for Progress, set up to provide economic, technical, and educational assistance to Latin America, had a similar aim. Kennedy’s advisor, Harvard historian Farther Schlesinger, reported after a tour of the continent that coincided with the launch  of the Alliance in the spring of 1961, that the administration had to engineer “ a middle class revolution where the processes of economic modernization carry the new urban middle class into power and produce, along with it, such necessities of modern technical society as constitutional government, honest public administration, a responsible party system, a rational land system, and efficient system of taxation. In other words,” Westad intends, “ only by becoming more like the United States could Latin America develop.”(Westad, 35).

“Henry Kissinger, a Harvard professor whose early views of development very much overlapped with those of Rostov and Millikan. Kissinger’s 1960 recipe for success was to combine massive increase in foreign aid with assistance to constructing “enlightened political institutions’ the recipient countries.” (Westad, 35).

1970s New Liberalism

1970-1971 the period gays came out of the closet.

Deunionization

“The permanent striker-replacement doctrine remained a relatively obscure feature of U.S. law until employers began wielding it more aggressively in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The permanent striker-replacement doctrine remained a relatively obscure feature of U.S. law until employers began wielding it more aggressively in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Many analysts attribute this development to President Ronald Reagan's firing and permanent replacement of air traffic controllers in 1981even though, as federal employees, controllers did not come under coverage of the NLRA and the MacKay rule. They were fired as a disciplinary measure under federal legislation barring strikes by federal employees. In fact, the use of permanent replacements began trending upward before Reagan's action. But the air traffic controllers' case solidified the force of using permanent replacements to block workers' exercise of the right to strike.”

( SourceJ)

Cold War: Global Civil War & Interventionism

U.S. v. Soviets: Period (1945-)  -- Decolonization, and the aid to these countries to keep them loyal and for the host access to markets. 

·         Soviet objective: to reduce the need for increased access to U.S. markets.

·         U.S.A. objective: to reduce the need for increased access to Soviet markets.

How was the objective satisfied? War!!!

What did war do? It destroyed countries in which the wars were fought.

What was the alternative? Aid to these countries without strings attached, or hope attacked that they would chose your ideological system – either collectivism or individualism (socialism/communism or capitalism as free market).

Did the alternative have strings attached? Yes, always a commitment through threats to be loyal to the aid giver. The host country gives massive aid and the recipient must commit to their ideology and be crafted in their image.

Interventions Why?

These were military covert or overt operations to control other countries, states or regions for particular interests to each Empire (U.S. or Soviet).

  • Sometimes, strategic, such as forming military watch bases, containment bases,

  • Sometimes economic, the mentoring relationship and image building.

  • Sometimes to restrict the other country from accessing raw materials so they would not gain the benefits of cheap raw materials to industrialize. The U.S. made its phenomenal economic strategy on safeguarding the world’s material supplies in the early 1950s and onto the 1970s. By the 1980s, the world had began to turn its back on the United States of America as a strategic and economic partner. Although, the economy was duly tied to the U.S. markets, the foreign companies tried, and many times succeeded, in importing and placing exports from the U.S. with stringent economic qualifications – thus favoring their economies.

CIA interventions: (1950s) some of them

1.       In 1954, with the help of the CIA, a coup from the military ousted democratically elected President of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz and replaced his government with a brutal military dictatorship that has lasted for forty years.

2.       In 1955, the CIA supported an attempt by Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza to invade Costa Rica and topple President Jose Figueres's government.

3.       In 1958, the CIA attempted to foment a rebellion that would remove Indonesian President Sukarno from power. The U.S. supported Suharto until his death in 2008.

4.       From 1955 to 1970 the CIA attempted to remove Prince Norodom Sihanouk, ruler of Cambodia, from power through several attempted assassinations and failed coups.[92]

Administration Intervention Policies – Connections to U.S. high standards of living

1.                               Operations Condor: to form right-wing loyalists’ regimes in South America. U.S.A. Nixon –Kissinger vision of right wing South American countries – it was a consolidation of global rings of right-wing dictators. allies—it becomes an ideological issue after Nixon leaves the scene. As part and connection to the New Deal Coalitions it played a vital role in setting up U.S. phone company corporations. Therefore Unions were connected to higher wages through U.S. foreign policies. Although unions would begin to falter in the 1970s, due to New Left moralists projected against Washington and led by U.S. college students and higher education institutions that were beginning to move away from the associating with Washington leaders, the die was caste. While the New Left students decried American foreign policy as racist, unethical and unmoral, they complained about lowering of Union standards at the same time. The New Left activism simply wanted increased and larger protections of the U.S. population in economics but would not pay the price in support of Washington’s efforts at securing foreign market share by way of military measures. This can be explained that former colonies, especially the programs laid out at Bandung 1555, led to a spirit between the underdeveloped nations to collaborate and not to try to do business with the U.S.A.


[1] Democracy and the New Dealin “American Decades, Primary Sources, 1930-1939,” ed. Victor Bondi (Detroit, MI: Gale Research Inc., 1995), p. 222.

[2] Ibid., pp. 222-223.

[3] Introduction, Redistribution of Wealth, speech by George W. Norris, 25 February 1935, in “American Decades, Primary Sources, 1930-1939” (Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group, Inc., 2004), p. 106.

[4] Introduction, Redistribution of Wealth, speech by George W. Norris, 25 February 1935, in “American Decades, Primary Sources, 1930-1939” (Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group, Inc., 2004), pp. 106-107.

[5] Ibid., p. 107., President Theodore Roosevelt, official message to Congress, 04 December 1906.

[6] Introduction, Loren Hickok to Harry L. Hopkins, letter, 30 October 1933, in “American Decades, Primary Sources, 1930-1939” (Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group, Inc., 2004), p. 407.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.,  pp. 407-408.

[9] Ibid.,  p. 408.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Dust Bowl, in “American Decades, Primary Sources, 1930-1939,” ed. Victor Bondi (Detroit, MI: Gale Research Inc., 1995), p. 226.

[13] Franklin D. Roosevelt was born on January 30, 1882, at the family home, " Springwood ," in Hyde Park, New York. The Roosevelt family was involved in commerce, banking and insurance, shipbuilding and seafaring, urban real estate and landholding. Although a lawyer by training, James Roosevelt's interests were diverted to business where he was a respected figure in the field of finance, transportation (railroads), and philanthropy. The Delanos were a seafaring and mercantile family and even engaged in privateering at times. FDR's maternal grandfather, Warren Delano II, branched out into the China trade in which he made and lost several fortunes. in  The Franklin D. Roosevelt,  “Presidential Library and Museum is one of ten presidential libraries administered by the National Archives and Records Administration” (College Park, MD: The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, 2008) [ available online] 2008.

[14] Postel, Charles to Class in “personal class lecture notes,” unpublished material, 24 January 2008 (Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, History 124B, 2008).

[15] See Duck Hill, Mississippi, “blowtorch,” and weekly lynching news in the Solid South, from this period.

[16] Industrial Policy, in “American Decades, Primary Sources, 1930-1939,” ed. Victor Bondi (Detroit, MI: Gale Research Inc., 1995), p. 230.

[17] Security Exchange Act of 1934, reproduced by the Center for Corporate Law, University of Cincinnati College of Law in “American Decades, Primary Sources, 1930-1939” (Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group, Inc., 2004), p. 102.

[18] Ibid., 103.

[19] The National Labor Relations Act, reprinted in The National Labor Relations Act: Should It Be Amended” Julia E. Johnson, comp. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1940  in “American Decades, Primary Sources, 1930-1939” (Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Group, Inc., 2004), p. 111.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid., pp. 111-112.

[23] Ibid.

[24] The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, William Outhwaite, 2003, Blackwell Publishing.

[25] The New Deal, Wikipedia, unsourced editing, [ available online] 23 January 2008.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid.

[29] New Deal Opponents, in “American Decades, Primary Sources, 1930-1939,” ed. Victor Bondi (Detroit, MI: Gale Research Inc., 1995), p. 232.

[30] Ibid., Share-Our-Wealth Societies.

[31] Ibid., Communists, pp. 233-234. emphasis and italics mine.

[32] Ibid., p. 232.

[33] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 77.

[34] The Four Freedoms Speech, Wikipedia, unsourced editing, [ available online] 29 January 2008.

[35] Postel, Charles to class in personal Class lecture notes unpublished material, History 124 B,  29 January 2008 ( Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, 2008).

[36] Yesterday or the day before, on Fox News Cable, I cannot remember the pundit, but an observation was astute: No matter what evidence comes out or has come out about the reasons for the Iraq war, the extreme left will never accept it ( in history).  It disturbs me that the ex. Lefts original claim, i.e. M. Moore ,  who has remained silent on the issue as of late) claims that the U.S. went to Iraq to annex the oil-fields, conquer the middle east,  subjugate the people for U.S. economics, and generally hold U.S. supremacy as political doctrine. None which has occurred! However, as doctrine, the continuation of F.D.R.’s Globalism ( see his rough draft, Jan. 6, 1941, speech, a.k.a. “The Four Freedoms’ Speech.”) redefined the United States of American’s role as facilitator of global democracy ‘ by force, influence, and global military power. Not to mention, he was a stout Democrat, he redefined the moral structures of WWII and most claim the moral structure of the remainder of the twentieth century. These were currents then, and they are currents now. Bill Clinton’s regime change proposals on Iraq (1998), , as well illustrate these beliefs in pushing democracy and U.S. liberalism onto other parts of the world. Franklin D. Roosevelt (F.D.R.) simply spread the doctrine of the U.S.A. system, that is to say globally, by force. Historians regard it as the manifesto against the New World Order ( e.g. the sentiment of US.A. officials defiance against dictatorships in the world under various governmental systems). What this represents was a democrat with their own manifesto, outlined in that speech, for a global world order – the ideals first put out by F.D.R., later U.S. government underlings of the Democratic Party, then only Wilson –etc….down the road to Bush Jr. ( and possibly will not change with the next leader).

[37] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 99.

[38] Postel, Charles to class in personal Class lecture notes unpublished material, History 124 B,  12 February  2008 ( Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, 2008).

[39] Postel, Charles to class in personal Class lecture notes unpublished material, History 124 B,  12 February  2008 ( Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, 2008).

[40] Postel, Charles to class in personal Class lecture notes unpublished material, History 124 B,  12 February  2008 ( Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, 2008).

[41] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 79.

[42] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 77.

[43] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 76.

[44] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 23.

[45] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 77.

[46] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 77.

[47] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 82.

[48] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 83.

[49] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 79.

[50] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 25.

[51] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 27.

[52] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 29.

[53] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 30.

[54] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 31.

[55] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 31.

[56] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 32.

[57] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 97.

[58] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 97.

[59] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 99.

[60] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 99.

[61] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 97.

[62] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 95.

[63] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 94.

[64] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 64.

[65] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 64.

[66] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 89.

[67] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 89.

[68] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 89.

[69] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 89.

[70] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 71.

[71] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 104.

[72] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 105.

[73] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 113.

[74] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 115.

[75] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 114.

[76] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 97.

[77] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 98.

[78] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 98.

[79] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 87.

[80] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 105.

[81] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 104.

[82] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 110.

[83] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 73.

[84] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 70.

[85] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 61.

[86] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 116.

[87] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 116.

[88] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 104.

[89] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 104.

[90] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 105.

[91] Self, O. Robert, America Babylon (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2003), p. 105.

[92] Behind CIA Interventions,  in “Common Courage Press - Political Literacy Course (email),” November 24, 1999; available from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Common_Courage_Press/CIA_interventions.html; Internet.

 

 


 

Direct corrections and technical inquiries to
Please direct news submissions to Here

Copyright © 1999 - 2013 Michael Johnathan McDonald