What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Political history discussion thread (1 Viewer)

1992 is a fascinating, separate discussion. 

I think in 1992 Perot has the same chances as Trump in 2016, with the same populist message minus the bigotry- and with more personal competence. Perot’s flaw, IMO, was to run as a 3rd party candidate. If he had challenged Bush in the GOP primary he might very well have been elected President. Trump remedied that error.

We are and will likely remain a 2 Party system. For an outsider like Trump or Perot or Sanders to win they have to run within the Party structure. 
True, but I think 'what if' discussions are interesting. What if X happened, then Y would have been different, and now on Earth2 we're at Z.

I have a hard time thinking of What If's for Hillary in 2008. I can think of them easily in 2016, but 2008... what can you say. Line Hillary and Obama up right now and it's the same result. The guy has 'It". Hillary does not.

But 1992? What IF Perot had kept the gas to the floor instead of essentially suspending his campaign? Things are very different in the US and the world. Maybe better, maybe worse, maybe a mix, I don't know. Or what if Perot doesn't run? What if Hillary did not stick by Bill in the light of the scandal? I see a lot of different possible permutations there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
True, but I think 'what if' discussions are interesting. What if X happened, then Y would have been different, and now on Earth2 we're at Z.

I have a hard time thinking of What If's for Hillary in 2008. I can think of them easily in 2016, but 2008... what can you say. Line Hillary and Obama up right now and it's the same result. The guy has 'It". Hillary does not.

But 1992? What IF Perot had kept the gas to the floor instead of essentially suspending his campaign? Things are very different in the US and the world. Maybe better, maybe worse, maybe a mix, I don't know. Or what if Perot doesn't run? What if Hillary did not stick by Bill in the light of the scandal? I see a lot of different possible permutations there.
Well the main result of a Perot Presidency is that NAFTA doesnt happen. Which means our economy doesn’t grow as much, and Mexico probably collapses sometime around 1997 leading to a leftist, populist Venezuelan like government (which they still may get this summer.) 

 
 but 2008... what can you say. Line Hillary and Obama up right now and it's the same result. The guy has 'It". Hillary does not.
This is a retrospective opinion and I think it’s a flawed way of looking at history: the tendency to assume that whatever happened was inevitable. 

Obama had more charisma than Hillary, no doubt. But Bernie Sanders had more charisma than Hillary. Howard Dean had more charisma than John Kerry. Gary Hart had more charisma than Walter Mondale. In 2000, John McCain had more charisma than George W Bush.

Having “it” is only one factor in winning the candidacy. Usually it is not the decisive factor. More often than not the older boring guy wins. Why that did not happen in either 2008 or 2016 (for the Republicans) is worth discussing. But it certainly wasn’t inevitable in either case. 

 
Well the main result of a Perot Presidency is that NAFTA doesnt happen. Which means our economy doesn’t grow as much, and Mexico probably collapses sometime around 1997 leading to a leftist, populist Venezuelan like government (which they still may get this summer.) 
Right, true. And NATO doesn't expand. Maybe Perot only stays for one term, and Bush Jr. is not elected, so no Iraq War. Maybe there is better regulation of the financial sector. Etc.

 
This is a retrospective opinion and I think it’s a flawed way of looking at history: the tendency to assume that whatever happened was inevitable. 

Obama had more charisma than Hillary, no doubt. But Bernie Sanders had more charisma than Hillary. Howard Dean had more charisma than John Kerry. Gary Hart had more charisma than Walter Mondale. In 2000, John McCain had more charisma than George W Bush.

Having “it” is only one factor in winning the candidacy. Usually it is not the decisive factor. More often than not the older boring guy wins. Why that did not happen in either 2008 or 2016 (for the Republicans) is worth discussing. But it certainly wasn’t inevitable in either case. 
Ok, granted, but then what is the What If for Hillary in 2008? What would she do differently to beat Obama? I don't exactly recall clear mistakes in the sense that they could have turned the vote.

Btw the rest of the lineup - Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson - was so much more substantial than 2016. Bringing in Sanders is only relevant in the context that he was the sole substantive alternative.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And I want to stress again that my “old boring guy wins” rule is for the candidacy race, not the national race. In the national race, it’s more typical that the less boring candidate wins- the opposite of the party system. 

 
Gary Hart had more charisma than Walter Mondale.
This one is easy. No Monkey Business, then maybe no Mondale as nominee.

More often than not the older boring guy wins.
Eh, let's think about who are the renegade, more relatable outsiders here. Trump (easy). Obama (also easy). Bush (Gore, definitely the more boring guy). Clinton (easy), Reagan (easy).

Bush Sr. is the outlier but then he got Dukakis (not fun, at all).

 
Ok, granted, but then what i the What If for Hillary in 2008? What would she do differently to beat Obama? I don't exactly recall clear mistakes in teh sense that they could have turned the vote.

Btw the rest of the lineup - Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Richardson - was so much more substantial than 2016. Bringing in Sanders is only relevant in the context that he was the sole substantive alternative.
I provided some examples that MIGHT have made the difference. But I don’t know. 

Heres another one- heading into the southern caucuses, the polls showed that black Americans were pretty split nearly down the middle for Hillary and Obama. Then Bill Clinton, of his own accord, called Obama a clown and made a stupid stupid comparison to Jesse Jackson- the implication being that Obama was the “black candidate” and thus marginal. 

This comment made Jim Clyburn angry and he switched sides and supported Obama. Because of the nature of the Democratic southern caucuses, which are dominated by blacks, Clyburn is arguably the single most powerful person in Democratic Presidential politics. His support of Obama in 2008 locked it up for Obama, just as his support for Hillary in 2016 locked it up for Hillary. So suppose he hadn’t switched sides? 

 
And that comment by Bill was only one of several that were absurd and really hurt Hillary. 

Hillary had her own moment, the worst of her career, when she said she was still in the race because who knows? Obama might be assasinated. 

That comment didn’t lose her 2008 (by then it was already lost) but I wonder if it contributed to her loss in 2016? It created a bad taste in the minds of many Democrats and independents which perhaps they retained in the last election. 

 
One more what if- Obama was strongly advised not to choose Hillary as Secretary of State. 

If he had not chosen her, would Hillary have been the candidate in 2016? I think not. She may have run, may not have run. But if she had she almost certainly would have been opposed by Obama’s heir apparent, either Biden or somebody else. And that person would have likely been the candidate (and beaten Trump?) 

 
Even in 2016, after the country moved significantly to the left on several social issues the previous decade, American voters proved that they prefer charismatic white males over an experienced female policy wonks who lacked charisma.  I have a hard time believing the country would have been more "with her" in '08.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even in 2016, after the country moved significantly to the left on several social issues the previous decade, American voters proved that they prefer charismatic white males over an experienced female policy wonks who lacked charisma.  I have a hard time believing the country would have been more "with her" in '08.   


Bush Fatigue could have pushed the victory to her.  She was fighting against Obama Fatigue in 16.

Anecdotally....I remember a decent number of people who were lifelong Democrats who REALLY held their nose when voting for Obama.  They legitimately thought it was her time, that he was line jumping and that a win by him was going to upset the Clinton Machines hold on the DNC.  

 
One more what if- Obama was strongly advised not to choose Hillary as Secretary of State. 

If he had not chosen her, would Hillary have been the candidate in 2016? I think not. She may have run, may not have run. But if she had she almost certainly would have been opposed by Obama’s heir apparent, either Biden or somebody else. And that person would have likely been the candidate (and beaten Trump?) 
I find it odd you say Biden was the intended heir apparent when he didn’t run. In fact Obama’s was the second straight administration where the VP was not the heir apparent, as clearly Cheney was never going to run himself post-Bush. VPs were the natural next in line party nominees for generations, then suddenly not.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it odd you say Biden was the intended heir apparent when he didn’t run. In fact Obama’s was the second straight administration where the VP was not the heir apparent, as clearly Cheney was never going to run himself post-Bush. VPs were the natural next in line party nominees for generations, then suddenly not.
I didn't. What I wrote was, that if Hillary had not been the Secretary of State, Obama would then have chosen an heir apparent who was not Hillary. When Hillary first became Secretary of State and then left following the relection of Obama, she became the heir apparent by default.

 
I didn't. What I wrote was, that if Hillary had not been the Secretary of State, Obama would then have chosen an heir apparent who was not Hillary. When Hillary first became Secretary of State and then left following the relection of Obama, she became the heir apparent by default.
Considering Biden didn’t run that scenario is really interesting because I think you then see a good, broader field like the Dems had in 08 and IMO better for them.

 
Anyhow, back to the 2008 Hillary vs. Obama:

My takeaways from the book Game Change (which, unlike the HBO, is at least 75% devoted to this race) was the vast difference between the two campaigns:

1. Obama's campaign team was small, extremely well-organized, extremely competent, computer and poll savvy. Alexrod, Plouffe, Gibbs and Dunn were all on the cutting edge of internet technology, the switch from landlines to cell phones, etc. These guys were brilliant.

2. Hillary's campaign team was large, unruly, filled with hubris, incompetent. In particular, Mark Penn and Patti Solis Doyle, her two top aides, were constantly at odds. And as I have noted, Bill Clinton was a loose cannon.

Now, these facts may not be as important as when the book was written. Because in 2016, it was Trump's campaign that was out of control and filled with incompetence, while Hillary at least in the beginning had appeared to have learned her lesson: this time her people were much more in sync, competent, technology savvy, and a leash placed around Bill. In the end it still didn't matter. In 2016 somebody high up in Hillary's campaign, perhaps the candidate herself, made the crucial decision in September  to try and reverse likely red states (like Arizona and Georgia) rather than to shore up her lead in purple states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.) That mistake IMO, more than any other single factor, cost Hillary the last election.

 
We’re talking about primary races, not the final contest. In the primary race, historically, New is ultimately a hindrance because most times the established candidate has more money and more support to start off with and it is very difficult to defeat that lead. Some of your examples are evidence of this: Mondale faced a young new Gary Hart and beat him. Kerry faces a young new Howard Dean and beat him. Obama represents the anomaly here; in the primary race his newness was not an advantage. 
Mondale certainly  had more money to start than pretty much everyone else combined, but I'd argue that ultimately he won for the same reason Obama beat Hillary and Hillary beat Sanders - the Democrats front loaded the primaries with southern, more conservative states to prevent a Ted Kennedy from gaining momentum against Carter and then Mondale.  I'd also state that unions were under attack like never before with Reagan and the union endorsements kept most of the rust belt in Mondale's corner.  The "what if" for 1984 is what if Glenn - not exactly a newcomer had not run out of money so soon would he had split some of these conservative votes allowing Hart's early New England wins to give him the lead and momentum?  

In 2004 Dean and Gephardt destroyed each other campaigning  in Iowa opening the door for Kerry and  giving false hope to Edwards.  Dean was certainly not lacking in funding at the start.  Then Kerry dominated Super Tuesday which pretty much clinched it.  

I don't think either of these examples support your assertion.  Democratic primaries are usually won by doing well enough early on to keep the funding from drying up and then winning in the "start of the second month" primaries in the south.  Exactly what Obama did to Hillary in 2008 (aided in part by picking up Edwards early delegates.  Exactly what Hillary did to Sanders after Sanders' early wins.  In 1988 Gore and Jackson splitting the South and Gephardt and Simon having some midwest strength is the exception here  (basically the 1984 "what if".)  

Now Republicans tend to be "when it your turn".  With the exceptions generally winning.

 
I didn't. What I wrote was, that if Hillary had not been the Secretary of State, Obama would then have chosen an heir apparent who was not Hillary. When Hillary first became Secretary of State and then left following the relection of Obama, she became the heir apparent by default.
Obama didn't choose anyone. If Hillary hadn't been SoS, she would have remained a senator and would still very likely have been the '16 front runner. I don't see how his picking her made any difference in that regard.

The true what-if would be if Obama had not picked Biden as his VP and gone with a younger candidate like Bayh or Kaine who had future designs on the White House*. That would have set up a potential showdown between Hillary and the VP in the '16 primaries.

* Although it is interesting that, despite his appearance on a major ticket, there is literally zero buzz for Kaine in '20. Not that I disagree with it, just that usually the failed VP candidate from the last election is considered a contender in the next one.

 
Quayle

Kemp

Lieberman

Edwards

Palin

Ryan

I guess all of them got some buzz but none even came close to getting the nomination the next time around.
Yes, it's almost universally a bad idea for them to run. Last failed VP to actually win the presidency was FDR (lost in '20, elected in '32). Last two to get the nomination (Mondale '80/'84 and Dole '76/'96) didn't fare too well in the general election, either. But usually they're given enough of a profile from the campaign that they're at least talked about as potential contenders. No one is talking about Kaine, nor does he seem to have much of an interest in running. Which I'm totally fine with, by the way.

That said, if he had served eight years as VP under Obama, it's hard to imagine he wouldn't have run in '16.

 
toshiba said:
Obama would have lost to McCain had McCain selected Lieberman.  I am not so sure that McCain/Palin would have beat Hillary, but maybe McCain would have been less likely to select Palin against Hillary, which I think was the death blow to his campaign.
Sorry, but this is nuts. The reason McCain didn't pick him is because it would have torn the party apart. That was a real concern, and you can't just hand wave that away. I think Palin was a net negative for the ticket because she was so transparently unqualified, but she did bring many conservatives back into the fold. Lieberman would have done the opposite.

Overall, I agree with @timschochet that '08 was the Dems to lose, regardless of who was at the top or bottom of the ticket. I remember during the primary saying to a friend that Obama-Hillary was like Suns-Spurs (who played each other in the '07 conference semis; it was clear that they were the two best teams that year, and once San Antonio won the series they cruised past Utah and Cleveland to win the title).

To me, the real question is how a Hillary administration would have been different from Obama's. In large part, I think it would have been less different than I imagined back in '08 (I was a huge Obama supporter at the time). Most of what Obama was and wasn't able to accomplish was based on structural factors, not personal ones. A Senate with 60 votes was likely going to be able to pass some type of health care reform, and one in Republican control wouldn't have passed much of anything. The one thing that gives me the most pause is that Hillary's more hawkish instincts might have meant that she would have gotten bogged down in an unwinnable war, most likely in Syria, which could have dragged down the rest of her presidency. We also can't underestimate how unprecedented it was for Obama to make it eight years without any major scandal. It's hard to imagine the same being true of Hillary.

 
To your last point- I think it’s a fairly good chance that a Hillary Presidency in 09 lasts for one term. Which means, in all likelihood, President Romney. 

 
Sorry, but this is nuts. The reason McCain didn't pick him is because it would have torn the party apart. That was a real concern, and you can't just hand wave that away. I think Palin was a net negative for the ticket because she was so transparently unqualified, but she did bring many conservatives back into the fold. Lieberman would have done the opposite.
The republicans would have still voted for McCain/Lieberman over the "Black Muslim from Kenya".

 
To your last point- I think it’s a fairly good chance that a Hillary Presidency in 09 lasts for one term. Which means, in all likelihood, President Romney. 
Maybe, but the fact is that most presidents in recent history have gotten re-elected. Carter is the one exception, and it took a major foreign policy crisis and a poor economy to do it.

Of course, this is the danger of counterfactuals. We live in a world where Hillary blew two winnable races in '08 and '16. A world where she doesn't do that is one where she's most likely not as bad a politician as we view her today.

Douglas Hofstadter wrote a great piece back in the '80s where he pointed out that some people were arguing "If Jesse Jackson were white, he'd be president" at the exact same time that others were saying "If he were white, he couldn't get elected dogcatcher." Obviously, they can't both be true. His point is that when you make a counterfactual you are by necessity assuming certain constants, but different people will make different assumptions.

 
Maybe, but the fact is that most presidents in recent history have gotten re-elected. Carter is the one exception, and it took a major foreign policy crisis and a poor economy to do it.

Of course, this is the danger of counterfactuals. We live in a world where Hillary blew two winnable races in '08 and '16. A world where she doesn't do that is one where she's most likely not as bad a politician as we view her today.

Douglas Hofstadter wrote a great piece back in the '80s where he pointed out that some people were arguing "If Jesse Jackson were white, he'd be president" at the exact same time that others were saying "If he were white, he couldn't get elected dogcatcher." Obviously, they can't both be true. His point is that when you make a counterfactual you are by necessity assuming certain constants, but different people will make different assumptions.
That’s a great point. 

 
We remember two events today: 

D-Day began the liberation of Europe and created the peaceful world order which we have enjoyed since the fall of Hitler in April of 1945. It is arguably our greatest moment as a nation, when we fulfilled our promise to the world as a bringer of freedom. 

50 years ago today Robert Kennedy won the California primary. After a short acceptance speech he prepared to leave the Ambassador Hotel through the kitchen when a Jordanian born terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan, appeared and shot him. Los Angeles Rams star Rosie Grier tackled Sirhan but by then it was too late. Most historians believe that RFK would have gone on to easily defeat Nixon, dramatically changing history. 

 
50 years ago today Robert Kennedy won the California primary. After a short acceptance speech he prepared to leave the Ambassador Hotel through the kitchen when a Jordanian born terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan, appeared and shot him. Los Angeles Rams star Rosie Grier tackled Sirhan but by then it was too late. Most historians believe that RFK would have gone on to easily defeat Nixon, dramatically changing history. 
Is the assumption that RFK would have won the nomination.  Because this was prior to the 1972 DNC reform which HHH still had a huge advantage over RFK in 68 (even if RFK had swept the remaining primaries).  LBJ was a huge player and wanted HHH.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is the assumption that RFK would have won the nomination.  Because this was prior to the 1972 DNC reform which HHH still had a huge advantage over RFK in 68 even if RFK had swept the remaining primaries.  LBJ was a huge player and wanted HHH.
Yeah the common assumption is that all of the Eugene McCarthy people would have gotten behind Kennedy, and the Chicago convention would have been less fractious. 

 
Yeah the common assumption is that all of the Eugene McCarthy people would have gotten behind Kennedy, and the Chicago convention would have been less fractious. 
Maybe this is the "common assumption" but common to who?  While the layman might believe this I am not sure this is as concrete among historians.  Eugene McCarthy might have supported RFK but it is very clear LBJ and the rank and file of the Democratic party did not want RFK.  This is why the changes in 1972 of the DNC matter so much, the youth had much more power after this.  And while 1968 might not have been RFK's year, if he lived, 1976 might have been.

 
Maybe this is the "common assumption" but common to who?  While the layman might believe this I am not sure this is as concrete among historians.  Eugene McCarthy might have supported RFK but it is very clear LBJ and the rank and file of the Democratic party did not want RFK.  This is why the changes in 1972 of the DNC matter so much, the youth had much more power after this.  And while 1968 might not have been RFK's year, if he lived, 1976 might have been.
Interesting. I can’t counter you as I don’t know enough about the details. I do know that every historian who has been on TV over the last couple days that Ive seen has made this same assertion about Kennedy in 1968, so I’d love it if one of them were made to respond to your challenge. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do think that RFK became a liberal icon only after his death- during his lifetime he had far more of a mixed image, somewhat similar to Hillary Clinton: often regarded as an opportunist, a McCarthyite early in his career, a carpetbagger, etc. On the other hand, he was adored by southern blacks as second only to Martin Luther King for civil rights advances in the early 60s. 

 
Interesting. I can’t counter you as I don’t know enough about the details. I do know that every historian who has been on TV over the last couple days that Ive den has made this same assertion about Kennedy in 1968, so I’d love it if one of them were made to respond to your challenge. 
The 60s and early 70s are a fascinating time.  Well worth the effort to study for someone like you who appears very interested in history and learning.  Might even make you feel a little more confident in this country being able to manage our way through these trump days.   :thumbup:   :lmao:

 
The 60s and early 70s are a fascinating time.  Well worth the effort to study for someone like you who appears very interested in history and learning.  Might even make you feel a little more confident in this country being able to manage our way through these trump days.   :thumbup:   :lmao:
It is one of my favorite eras to read about. I didn’t know the machinations of Democratic Party politics in 68 though. 

We’ll get through Trump. It’s frustrating because there will be a lot of unnecessary suffering, that’s all. 

 
League of the Three Emperors and the Reinsurance Treaty: Kaiser Wilhelm finally ended this alliance between Prussia/Germany and Russia in 1890. 

When in 1890, Russia asked for a renewal of the treaty, Germany refused. Kaiser Wilhelm II believed his relationship with Tsar Alexander III would be sufficient to ensure further genial diplomatic ties and felt that maintaining a close bond with Russia would act to the detriment of his aims to attract Britain into the German sphere. Like the Austro-Russian antagonism, Anglo-Russian relations too were strained due to Russia gaining influence in the Balkans. The Russian aim of controlling the Straits of the Dardanelles, would threaten British colonial interests in the Middle East. Having become alarmed at its growing isolation, Saint Petersburg, as Bismarck had feared, entered into the Franco-Russian Alliance in 1894, ending French isolation. The dismissal of Bismarck, the erratic temper of Wilhelm II and the uncertain policy of the men who succeeded Bismarck (partly out of consideration for England, they failed to renew the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia but did renew the Triple Alliance), were joint causes of a period of fundamental change.

In 1896 the treaty was exposed by a German newspaper, the Hamburger Nachrichten, which caused an outcry in Germany and Austria-Hungary. The failure of the treaty is seen as one of the causes of the First World War, due to German diplomatic isolation.
- I dunno, for some reason this seemed relevant to me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Today in political history:

August 21, 1858: the first Lincoln-Douglas debate- Ottawa, Illinois

Lincoln: (after acknowledging that, like Douglas, he did not believe that blacks were equal to whites):

I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]

 
When W. E. B. Du Bois Made a Laughingstock of a White Supremacist

Why the Jim Crow-era debate between the African-American leader and a ridiculous, Nazi-loving racist isn’t as famous as Lincoln-Douglas.

In March, 1929, the Chicago Forum Council, a cultural organization that included white and black members, announced the presentation of “One of the Greatest Debates Ever Held.” According to the Forum’s advertisement, the debate was to take place on Sunday, March 17th, at 3 p.m., in a large hall on South Wabash Avenue. The topic was “Shall the Negro Be Encouraged to Seek Cultural Equality?”

In smaller letters, the ad asked, “Has the Negro the Same Intellectual Possibilities As Other Races?” and below that the answer “Yes!” appeared with a photograph of Du Bois, who would be arguing the affirmative. Alongside the answer “No!” was a photograph of Lothrop Stoddard, a writer, who would argue the negative. In the picture, Stoddard projects a roguish, matinée-idol aura, with slicked-down hair and a black mustache. The ad identified him as a “versatile popularizer of certain theories on race problems” who had been “spreading alarm among white Nordics.”

The Forum Council did not oversell its claim. The Du Bois-Stoddard debate turned out to be a singular event, as important in its way as Lincoln-Douglas or Kennedy-Nixon. The reason more people don’t know about it may be its asymmetry. The other historic matchups featured rivals who disagreed politically but wouldn’t have disputed their opponent’s right to exist. Stoddard had written that “mulattoes” like Du Bois, who could not accept their inferior status, were the chief cause of racial unrest in the United States, and he looked forward to their dying out.

 
Today in history: August 23, 1939: Joseph Stalin and Joachim Von Ribbentrop signed a non-Aggression Treaty between Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. It would last for nearly two years until Hitler broke it by invading Russia. 

For Stalin, the positives were that he avoided going to war before he was ready. His occupation of part of Poland and the Baltic States probably saved Moscow in 1941. His subsequent conquest of part of Finland in December of 1939, sloppy and brutal as it was,  probably saved Leningrad. On the other hand Russia had to face Germany alone in 1941, without France and with an impotent England, so the negatives may have outweighed the positives. 

Hitler avoided a two front war and accomplished what the Kaiser could not: the ability to defeat one continental enemy at a time. But the price he paid, the Russian occupation of half of Poland, prevented the Nazis from defeating Russia in 1941 and winning the war. Still, the pact was a net positive and perhaps Hitler’s single most brilliant foreign policy achievement. 

For France and England, this deal was a complete disaster and the direct result of years of inept and failed diplomacy. They played footsie with the Nazis in the hopes that Germany would destroy the Communists. In one stroke Hitler turned the tables on them. It spelled the end of France. It would have meant death for England as well if not for the bravery and resilience of Winston Churchill, then out of power. But of course the worst hit was Poland. Carved up like a Thanksgiving Turkey, it would take 50 years before the Poles could rise back out of slavery. 

 
The NY Times had an excellent summary of the 1921 Tulsa Black Wall Street pogrom.

*****

The Burning of Black Wall Street, Revisited

Nearly a century after the Tulsa Race Massacre, the search for the dead continues.

The lynch mobs that hanged, shot or burned African-Americans alive during the early 20th century sometimes varied the means of slaughter by roping victims to cars and dragging them to death. The killers who re-enacted this barbaric ritual in Tulsa, Okla., on June 1, 1921, committed one of the defining atrocities of the Tulsa Race Massacre, the bloody conflagration during which white vigilantes murdered at will while looting and burning one of the most affluent black communities in the United States.

The helpless old black man who was shredded alive behind a fast-moving car would have been well known in Tulsa’s white downtown, where he supported himself by selling pencils and singing for coins. He was blind, had suffered amputations of both legs and wore baseball catcher’s mitts to protect his hands from the pavement as he scooted along on a wheeled wooden platform.

Among the white bystanders who witnessed the pencil seller’s grisly end was a teenager named E.W. Maxey, who was undersheriff of Tulsa County by the time he recounted the carnage to the local historian Ruth Sigler Avery 50 years later. Undersheriff Maxey admitted to knowing the thugs who tied the “good old colored man” to a convertible and sped off along Main Street. Describing the scene to Ms. Avery in 1971, he recalled that the victim “was hollering. His head was being bashed in, bouncing on the steel rails and bricks” that lined the street.

Not far away, in the prosperous black district of Greenwood, white vigilantes systematically torched nearly 40 square blocks. Gone in the blink of an eye were more than 1,000 homes, a dozen churches, five hotels, 31 restaurants, four drugstores and eight doctors’ offices, as well as a public library and a hospital. As many as 9,000 black Tulsans were left homeless. Photographs from the period depict shellshocked survivors being marched at gunpoint to temporary concentration camps.

From Day 1, many Tulsans believed that the authorities had sought to suppress the true horror of the episode by setting the death toll at a few dozen. Others have estimated that as many as 300 may have died. The number of fatalities seems destined to remain a mystery.

Stories emerged featuring bodies stacked up on street corners, ferried out of town on city-owned trucks, burned in an incinerator or dumped into a river. In his 2019 book “Tulsa 1921: Reporting a Massacre,” the journalist Randy Krehbiel unearths a macabre legend that depicts large numbers of dead ground up for use as fertilizer.

Questions that have troubled Tulsa’s sleep for nearly 100 years seemed closer to resolution last year when archaeologists identified two possible mass grave sites, one of them at a city-owned cemetery. History itself seemed to be taunting Tulsans when the onset of the coronavirus pandemic in March forced the city to postpone a test excavation at the cemetery.

When Tulsa resumes the search for its dead, archaeologists should bear in mind Undersheriff Maxey’s portrait of the unnamed dragging victim: an old man with two amputated legs — one stump longer than the other — and a skull bashed in by streetcar tracks.

Running ‘the Negro Out of Tulsa’

Greenwood, whose business district was known as the Negro Wall Street, was the seat of African-American affluence in the Southwest, with two newspapers, two movie theaters and a commercial strip featuring some of the finest black-owned businesses in the country. White Tulsa’s business elite resented the competition all the more because the face of that competition was black. Beyond that, the white city saw the bustling black community as an obstacle to Tulsa’s expansion.

The white press set the stage for Greenwood’s destruction by deriding the community as “town” and portraying its jazz clubs as founts of vice, immorality and, by implication, race mixing. As was often the case in the early 20th century, a false accusation of attempted rape opened the door for white Tulsans to act out their antipathies.

A black man accused of accosting a white woman in a downtown elevator in broad daylight was predictably arrested, and, just as predictably, a mob convened at the courthouse spoiling for an evening’s lynching entertainment. Black Tulsans who appeared on the scene to prevent the lynching exchanged gunfire with the mob. Outmanned and outgunned, they retreated to Greenwood to defend against the coming onslaught.

The city guaranteed mayhem by deputizing members of the lynch mob — a catastrophic decision, given that Oklahoma was a center of Ku Klux Klan activity — and instructing them to “get a gun, and get busy and try to get a .” The white men who surged into Greenwood may well have been told to burn the district. Greenwood’s defenders fought valiantly but were quickly overwhelmed.

A 2001 report on the destruction commissioned by the Oklahoma State Legislature included a photograph of Greenwood burning. The telling, misspelled caption reads: “RUNING THE NEGRO OUT OF TULSA.”

Writing in the same report, the historian Danney Goble likened the attack to the murderous pogroms that the Russian Empire unleashed on Jewish communities during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In both cases, the authorities hoped to drive out despised minorities by allowing marauders to kill and loot at will. Mr. Goble argued that the Tulsa massacre was best seen against the backdrop of at least 10 lesser-known pogroms in other Oklahoma towns that had drenched the decade leading up to 1921 in African-American blood.

Two other historians, John Hope Franklin and Scott Ellsworth, described the vast scope of the destruction:

“Practically overnight, entire neighborhoods where families had raised their children, visited with their neighbors, and hung their wash out on the line to dry, had been suddenly reduced to ashes. And as the homes burned, so did their contents, including furniture and family Bibles, rag dolls and hand-me-down quilts, cribs and photograph albums.”

In a less racist judicial system, black Tulsans might have successfully sued the city for encouraging Greenwood’s destruction. But as the legal scholar Alfred Brophy told a congressional hearing in 2007, all-white grand juries in a 1920s-era court system infiltrated by the Ku Klux Klan foreclosed any possibility of justice for African-Americans.

From ‘Riot’ to ‘Massacre’

The remarkable Olivia Hooker was 6 years old the day her family’s business, the clothier Elliot & Hooker’s, was rendered down to ash. She grew up to become the first black woman to enlist in the Coast Guard, and she later joined with other Greenwood survivors in an unsuccessful federal lawsuit that sought restitution from the city and state.

Dr. Hooker, a psychologist, offered a harrowing portrait of the massacre when she testified before Congress in 2007. The invaders of Greenwood, she said, raked her neighborhood with machine-gun fire. Her mother pointed to the source of the gunfire and said: “That thing up there on the stand with the American flag on top of it is a machine gun. And those are bullets hitting the house. And that means your country is shooting at you.”

While fleeing the mob, Dr. Hooker’s mother paused to lecture white parents who had brought their children to witness the conflagration. Trained in oratory at the Tuskegee Institute, she intoned that this deed “would be visited upon the children unto the third and fourth generation” — at which point she was asked to stop, because the white children had grown frightened. The marauders stripped the Hooker home of furs, jewelry, silver — and took axes to fine furnishings not easily carried away.

Dr. Hooker died in 2018 at the age of 103. Soon afterward, the commission set up to coordinate centennial activities for what was increasingly referred to as a massacre — as opposed to a riot — changed its name. The 1921 Race Riot Centennial Commission became the 1921 Race Massacre Centennial Commission.

The change reflects lingering resentment over the fact that insurance companies had seized upon a “riot exclusion clause” to deny claims filed by Greenwood property owners. The wording also bespeaks a realization that the assault was a deliberate attempt to terrorize and force black people out of the city.

Bodies ‘Stacked Up Like Cordwood’

Some of the white men who ravaged Greenwood may have convinced themselves that the armed black men who confronted the mob at the courthouse were part of a conspiracy to take over the white city. No such pretense was even remotely available to the killers who roped the helpless pencil seller to a car and dragged the life out of him along Main Street. The event was a carnival of death, staged for their amusement.

This atrocity was given a single sentence in a larger news article about the carnage: “One Negro was dragged behind an automobile, with a rope around his neck, through the business district.” In recent years, however, the incident has become a bloody shorthand for the hatred of blackness that underlay this massacre as a whole.

Consider the critically acclaimed HBO series “Watchmen.” While making a new generation of viewers familiar with this bloody episode, the writers used their version of the dragging as a metaphor for white supremacist violence not just in Tulsa but in the country as a whole.

In 1921, the white civic elite did its best to shield the city from negative publicity by limiting news coverage. Not long after the conflagration, for example, Tulsa’s police chief barred the taking of photographs in the devastated area without police permission — as “a precaution against the influx here of Negroes and other critics seeking propaganda for their organizations.”

The description of the dragging that Undersheriff Maxey shared with Ms. Avery 50 years after the fact offers a window into how this public silencing was achieved. He despised the leader of the killers — who was dead by the time of the 1971 interview — and seemed to have had genuine affection for the pencil seller. Nonetheless, he declined to name the main perpetrator because he “had people” in Tulsa. Multiply this mind-set by the thousands of men who had either participated in the violence or knew someone who had, and you quickly get a sense of how this story was pushed to the margins of public awareness.

Like many other Tulsans, Undersheriff Maxey doubted the city’s suspiciously low body count. During the Avery interview, he spoke of seeing five or six truckloads of black bodies moving up Main Street to an unknown destination. “I seen them haul truckload after truckload of colored people in those things, stacked up like cordwood,” he said. Asked where the dead might have gone, he replied, “I don’t even know that, but they was hauling them out somewhere, I guess, and put them in ditches or something.”

As Tulsa scours the landscape for its dead, the centennial of one of the most destructive episodes of racial terrorism in the country’s history is fast approaching. When archaeologists resume their work, modern-day Tulsans could well learn more about the blood-drenched episode that has haunted the city’s dreams for nearly a century.

**************

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Senator Burton K. Wheeler, Charles Lindbergh, and novelist Kathleen Norris giving the Nazi salute at an America First Committee rally, New York, October 30, 1941.

In light of this, I hope that Getty Images will correct its caption again, and also review its process for dealing with disputed information. It appears that, in this case, an effort to rinse Wheeler’s reputation has led the agency to misstate the historical record, leaving the impression that Lindbergh and friends were simply good patriots who were using a flag salute only later retired because of its unfortunate connotations.

To borrow the totalitarian slogan from Orwell’s 1984, “Those who control the past control the future”—and those who march under the banner of America First today would surely be only too grateful to see those who marched under it yesterday scrubbed of any taint of fascism.

 
We remember two events today: 

D-Day began the liberation of Europe and created the peaceful world order which we have enjoyed since the fall of Hitler in April of 1945. It is arguably our greatest moment as a nation, when we fulfilled our promise to the world as a bringer of freedom. 

50 years ago today Robert Kennedy won the California primary. After a short acceptance speech he prepared to leave the Ambassador Hotel through the kitchen when a Jordanian born terrorist, Sirhan Sirhan, appeared and shot him. Los Angeles Rams star Rosie Grier tackled Sirhan but by then it was too late. Most historians believe that RFK would have gone on to easily defeat Nixon, dramatically changing history. 


California parole board has recommended SIrhan Sirhan for parole. Will be interesting to see if the Governor approves.

 
Ok, granted, but then what is the What If for Hillary in 2008? What would she do differently to beat Obama?


This is a good question.

Hillary Clinton would have taken 2008 if she could Oprah Winfrey as her running mate.

1) Locked in all of Hollywood ( which went to Obama otherwise)

2) Locked in favorable media optics everywhere ( Oprah knows this game back and forth)

3) Would have forced DNC HQ to consider the risk of having the black vote split.

4) Would have locked in suburban women, on both sides of the aisle. This is the only political scenario where that would happen.  Winfrey would have gotten favorable returns even in classically Red strongholds.

5) Massive fundraising. Clinton amassed a juggernaut warchest in 2016, but with Winfrey in tow, it would have even eclipsed that.

6) Many voters would see enduring Clinton would be the pathway to getting Winfrey to POTUS eventually. That could sell.

7) Negative media optics on Clinton ( and there were a ton) would be implied as an attack on Oprah.  And Oprah's enemies have a bad habit of disappearing fast and dirty.

Why would Winfrey do that to risk her black audience that would be Obama loyalists? It's a pretty important question. In 2008, there was not identity politics and intersectionality at the level now. Winfrey could have run and not disclosed she was gay. ( Can we pretend not to pretend anymore on this issue?) Given the VP seat, she could have avoided this question that would have hammered her had she run for POTUS directly. She'd have years to bury anyone who would oppose her on this matter as said VP. If Winfrey ran today, she'd have no choice. She'd have to disclose her personal status. Something to consider is Winfrey's age. The idea of revealing that is a different ballgame for those who are older and faced a different type of upbringing and cultural expectations.  She'd have to face the camera about Steadman Graham and Gayle King and when you are that powerful, and for that long, the idea of having to justify yourself operates as a type of personal internal death.

I think most people fail to understand the zealotry around Oprah Winfrey. She could cry on camera and say your name and immediately 5000 of her hardened no holds barred supporters would come and try to blow the top of your head off.

Obama was a generational level public speaker. And IMHO, that was it. That was the extent to his "magic" I found him to be a thoroughly mediocre grifter POTUS.  Winfrey had a pulse on actual human behavior. Her level of potential "magic" in politics would be omnipotent.

That's it, that's the only way Clinton could have taken POTUS in 2008. Tim Kaine was all but useless in 2016. She needed a logical counterbalance for her flaws. She needed someone likeable and media capable to neutralize her toxic level lack of appeal.

For all things suburban women, many of them, hated about Clinton ( and they turned out for Trump in 2016), they would ignore because of how much they loved Oprah.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top