The 2010 campaign started 76 years ago
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
The 2010 campaign started 76 years ago
Now that the Phillies have left the building, one tiny consolation is that I'll have some extra time for the outstanding book I've been reading: The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair's Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics, by my friend Greg Mitchell, now at The Nation after an epic stint as editor of Editor and Publisher during the tumultuous George W. Bush years. The book was first published in 1992 -- it won the prestigious Goldsmith Book Prize -- but it's just been re-issued in paperback and is a must read in 2010 to understand the deep roots of cash-and-carry politics in America.
Consider a nation frustrated by years of seemingly intractable unemployment, made worse by a financial crisis that had been triggered by an era of runaway greed and lack of regulation on Wall Street. A new Democratc president who promised a transformative government, and an electorate that was frustrated that change was not happening quickly enough. Business leaders looking admiringly toward right-wing movements that bordered on fascism and funding opposition to the White House agenda.
That was America in 1934 -- the year that the well-known author of The Jungle and political socialist Upton Sinclair stunned the nation by running for governor of California as a Democrat, winning the primary and now on the brink of arriving in Sacramento to carry out a radical program called EPIC, for End Poverty in California. Mitchell's vivid and throroughly reported tome begins with Sinclair's primary win and brings in an epic (no pun intended...OK, maybe a little) cast that runs from Charlie Chaplain and other Hollywood liberals -- and rival conservatives -- (you thought there were none before George Clooney and Chuck Norris?) to the Hitler-admiring, iconic Golden State-based newspaper baron William Randolph Hearst, all the way to the White House and FDR himself, who grappled whether to disown Sinclair or embrace him.
Despite the depths of the Great Depression, it was also a time of great technological change. Because Sinclair's EPIC program would have had a huge impact on the film business, the Hollywood studio bosses rallied behind his GOP opponent, Frank Merriam. In doing so, the studio chiefs and a new breed of political adviser, steeped not in traditional ward politics of the early 20th Century but in the use of modern advertising techniques, hit on the newfangled concept of attack ads, delivered in theatres through the popular newsreels. During a golden era for motion pictures, California moviegoers were bombarded with these staged newsreels, tarring Sinclair and his ideas. They were created by film legend Irving Thalberg, namesake of the Academy Award for producers:
Then a young, shifty-eyed Chicano man standing on a busy street corner endorsed "Uptown Saint-Clair." But a sweet little old lady picked Merriam because he would keep her family safer.
Again, the next subject provided a vivid contrast. A Mr. Duncan, also elderly, wore a beat-up hat and was absent his front teeth. One might call him a bum. "I'm going to vote for Upton Saint-Clair," he said.
Voter number nine, a well-dressed young chap in a dark suit, stood on a tennis court, though not dressed for the sport, looking for all the world like an. . . aspiring actor? Maybe even an accomplished one. Merriam, he said, was "for democracy rather than socialism, and he won't involve us in any dangerous experiments."
A gentleman in a gray suit and hat standing next to him put in his two cents: "I'd like to stay in the real estate business, and if Mr. Sinclair gets in I believe there will be no real estate business."
I don't think I need to offer a "spoiler alert" in telling you that Sinclair lost the election, although the longer-term outcome was arguably more mixed -- since the aftermath of the ugly contest also gave new life to a liberal movement both in Hollywood and in Sacramento, and on the national level President Roosevelt moved to implement a host of successful progressive national policies like Social Security that, frankly, were not as risky or extreme as the socialist EPIC program would have been. Mitchell's account is comprehensive but often reads like a movie itself, thanks to its larger-than-life cast of characters.
It's also worth noting that the latter 20th Century brought a host of campaign finance reforms that aimed -- with mixed results, to be sure -- to prevent scenarios in which the wealthiest backers of one candidate could spend unlimited dollars on a mass media campaign like the one that overwhelmed the helpless Sinclair. But that was before the arrival of John Roberts and friends, and their warped Citizens United decision, and an election where Karl Rove and his American Crossroads pals are looking to party with their $250 million like it's 1934, with anonymous attack ads worthy of the Irving G. Thalberg Award for Mudslinging.
The sad fact that we've learned so little over about 76 years about preserving democracy for regular citizens in the face of powerful corporations now defined as "persons" by a rogue Supreme Court threatens to make 2010 not so much The Campaign of the (21st) Century -- as the Crime of the Century.
Thanks will. I look forward to reading this book.— BigDaddy3150
So I guess your comment about a rogue supreme court saying that business are people would also extend to SEIU, Acorn,Teamsters and the NEA? Seems to me that they are essentialy special interest groups as much as any business lobbying group. If you want the supremes to outlaw the CofC and other business groups to not be allowed to participate, then to extend the logic so must those others be excluded. The big difference between the CofC and the others is that they ( SEIU, Acorn,Teamsters and the NEA)are urging politicians to take money from other citizens to put in their pockets. Labor unions are about money for their members (I have no idealogical quarrel with that)but they should be honest about it. It isn't about kids, patients or general wellbeing of citizens. In that respect they are no worse (or better) than any business lobby. Just don't try to wrap it up in some altruistic bow. In the end, it is about the money they want, and electing people that will give it to them.Period!— georgel
I thought the republicans were spending $200 billion on this election?— Mr. Smith
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company [1886] was the first time SCOTUS declared a corp to be a person. Will, that was 124 years ago! Get over it!
It's a shame that modern politics can't be more like in the time of the Founding Fathers when guys like Thomas Jefferson bankrolled their own newspaper to relentlessly libel and slander Federalists like John Adams and Alexander Hamilton.
If the libs looked like they were going to win in November, none of this would be an issue.— jmc- Why should everyone have to know what political causes you spend your money on? That could be called an impediment to free speech.
Theo, good point. The fact is, media has become more democratic than ever. Corporate interests may eventually go broke trying to co-opt it.
Comment removed.- Nor'easter, free speech has a purpose - to inform democracy. When the price tag of speech becomes unaffordable to the average citizen, it can hardly be called free. Only in a society where you fear the price tag of speech can you think that transparency has a chilling effect.
- I will be glad when this election is over. When I have gone and done my civic duty and can go back home and NOT listen to any more of those nasty misleading and frankly annoying political ads. None of them offer any real substance (makes you wonder about the candidates). Certainly confirms the old saw that we have "the best government money can buy." Also goes a long way in explaining why people who would truly be good at the job don't run. The whole slimy business makes me sick. I do not think that the political process is aided by 24/7 news coverage either. Bombardment of the masses has become a substitute for thinking. Reagan was totally candid when he said "the medium is the message." Too many people are just willing to swallow it whole and not consider the repercussions (sic).— Curmudgeon
- Nutter, wake up, it's only a blog. Curmudgeon, I believe that was Marshal McLuhan, not Reagan. He later rephrased it as the "medium is the massage", owing the change to a simple printer's error which ended up clarifying his point.
I gotta agree, the money in this campaign is outrageous. I watched 4 Toomey ads in a row this morning. Some are saying he is jumping the shark here with his non-stop slurs on a great American. Election day will tell for sure. Bring. It. On.— Les Ismore- Justin, thanks for mentioning that case. Tea baggers need to be reminded that corporations often fought "state's rights" and SCOTUS was more than happy to oblige them in favor of federal commerce power. Also, to those fans of 'strict construction' and 'framer's intent', it reminds us that such quaint ideas immediately go out the window whenever the rich guy's money is at stake.
- Interesting poll from Newsweek. Enthusiasm gap closing rapidly as Americans start to realize that elections have consequences.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/22/poll-obama-approval-jumps-dems-more-fired-up.html— Les Ismore - Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- "Democrat money = good. Republican money = bad." . . . . . . . Among the choice of two evils, I'll buy that.
- AFSCME leads in contributions going into this week. And their contributions are literally paid for with your tax dollars. So they are advertising with your tax dollars to have the government pay them more of your tax dollars. But the Koch brothers are somehow a problem, because they believe in across the board tax cuts. The idiocy is stunning.— RG
- "When the price tag of speech becomes unaffordable to the average citizen, it can hardly be called free." You're conflating advertising with speech. One costs money, the other doesn't. "Only in a society where you fear the price tag of speech can you think that transparency has a chilling effect" We've had a long history of anonymous political speech. Remember Publius? Why should private citizens have to declare their intent, so they can open themselves up to potential retribution?— RG
- "AFSCME leads in contributions going into this week. And their contributions are literally paid for with your tax dollars" YOu want to tell us how that works RG?— Les Ismore
- "YOu want to tell us how that works RG?" Its a government employee union. Their salaries are paid for with tax dollars, so their union dues are paid for with tax dollars. So they get to advertise for Dem candidates who will raise taxes to protect their jobs and benefits.
— RG - And MSL, you might want to ask for more transparency from your own government: "The United States Treasury concealed $40 billion in likely taxpayer losses on the bailout of the American International Group earlier this month, when it abandoned its usual method for valuing investments, according to a report by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. “In our view, this is a significant failure in their transparency,” said Neil M. Barofsky, the inspector general, in an interview on Monday."" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/business/26tarp.html?_r=1
— RG - "Its a government employee union. Their salaries are paid for with tax dollars, so their union dues are paid for with tax dollars." RG, now that is a stretch for even YOU! So, if a union employee gives to a teabaKKKer rally out of their own pocket, the government is subsidizing the teabaKKKers or to use the WSJ example, if they go to the movies the Federal government is subsidizing the movie industry.
Wow what an incredible logic FAIL!— Les Ismore - Les, AFSCME gives overwhelmingly to Democrats for the sole purpose of keeping their jobs and benefits. Since AFSCME is this elections biggest donor, this is significant. I did not say they subsidized anything, I pointed out that your tax dollars are buying ads for candidates who will support the union whenever it comes to tax raises vs job or benefit cuts.— RG
- Elections have consequences: Here is a short list of things the teabaKKKers would eliminate in their interpretation of the Constitution.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/top-six-established-laws-that.php?ref=fpblg
Lets see, Social Security, Medicare, UE insurance, minimum wage, Civil Rights Act of 1964 and of course the UN.— Les Ismore
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
