Are Public Sports Facilities Worth It? Part Two

I'm not sure if anyone can accurately calculate the overall financial impact of having professional sports teams in a community, as the whole thing is quite complicated, but if we lay out some of the benefits versus the negatives, I think we can make a pretty fair assumption. Teams bring people into communities* for games and other events associated with them, and those people spend money. They buy tickets, pop, beer, hotdogs, programs, and souvenirs at the facilities, plus they may pay to park, if they arrived by car, or they may stay at hotels where they pay for rooms, breakfasts, lunches and dinners, and then they're apt to go shopping, take tours, visit the various sites in the area, etc. Airports and airlines benefit, since teams, as well as press people who cover the visiting teams, fly in and out, and of course, the same with the officials for the games, umpires and referees (these people all stay at hotels, too). All of this is money coming into the community from outside. Then sports teams provide entertainment for the locals, who spend money in their own community on many of the things I've mentioned above, although, naturally, they don't have to book hotel rooms or travel all that far to attend games, but that keeps the money in the community, and it helps public transportation for those who use it to get to games.** I'm not sure what the general criteria is today, but when I was much younger, a team's drawing area was generally seen as a 150 mile radius of its home, although obviously that definition is not always possible due to geography. Having sports teams also helps local promoters "sell" the community to outsiders as a good place to visit, or to live in, if relocation is under consideration.

Communities take in money from rent on the facilities,*** and they often collect parking fees from city owned lots or garages. Then there are employees, not only at the facilities, like ticket takers, ushers, and security personnel, but at all of the supporting businesses, like the suppliers of hotdogs, popcorn and beer, and even at the places where the tickets and programs are printed. Further still, there are the outside businesses that benefit, like hotels, restaurants, shops, and bars. The money generated by all of this brings in tax revenue from sales taxes, bed taxes (common for hotels), and beverage taxes, plus income taxes, if the community has such. In the latter case, the community benefits from a local income tax by also getting the tax on the large salaries of the players and owners  Teams that consistently draw well can help to provide communities with revenues to maintain, or perhaps even expand or improve, services.  

Lastly, while I think salaries and the whole pro-sports program has gotten out of hand, I've also said here in previous articles that I realize we all need a certain amount of entertainment in our lives, which is often supplied by professional sports. Trust me, I get it.

Now, what about the other side? Well naturally it all depends upon how teams draw and help contribute to all of those things I mentioned above (and probably some I forgot to include). If a team struggles at the gate, the more seasons they struggle, the greater the decline in the benefits they provide, especially since the expenses incurred tend to stay about the same; that is, the facilities have to be maintained, debts on facilities have to be paid, police have to direct traffic, ushers and security personnel (I would guess usually police, in most communities) have to be present for games. Without being able to really calculate an accurate figure on how teams help communities, it is also not entirely possible to say if, or at what point, they hurt communities, although in some cases where teams lose community support, and attendance plummets, that determination may not be able to be given an exact number, but it is still an obvious negative.  

So what about now? As earlier, I'll use Cleveland as something of an example, although I realize not every community has the same situation in every case. As I noted in "Part One," here in Cleveland the issue of putting a retractable roof on the football stadium was raised recently. It was a big story for a couple of days, although it has subsided somewhat now, and "apparently" there was no concerted effort to push such a proposal, although we'll have to see how all of this plays out in the coming weeks and months, now that the Browns have a new owner. Let's just say for the sake of argument, the Browns make it known they want a retractable roof on the stadium. The new owner has hired architects and engineers to look at the facility, but for a number of reasons, according to his statements. To put a dome on a stadium that large, a stadium that wasn't built to accommodate such a dome, as far as I know, would, I have to believe, be a major undertaking with a huge price tag. The other thing to consider is this; the upkeep of the football stadium, the ballpark and the basketball arena all were funded by a special tax on alcohol and tobacco, and the authority for that tax expires in a couple of years. Voters would have to approve a renewal of the tax, and that's "IF" the State of Ohio even permits such a tax again, as, according to "Crain's Cleveland Business" earlier this year, lobbyists for both the alcoholic beverage and tobacco industries were able to get language into a state law a few years ago that forbids such taxes.That could prove to be very interesting, especially regarding alcohol, because the beverage industry could end up cutting its own throat by hurting the teams that sell their products, as alcoholic beverages and sports have a close relationship.

Just another item you might think worthy of discussion. Pro spots teams and communities generally have had a private-public partnership, of sorts, as communities provide the publicly funded facilities. With all the talk of "free markets," should teams have to provide their own facilities? In the past I have heard the argument, and I can't say exactly from which owner or owners, that if team owners had to build their own facilities, they would have to charge too much. Hm, I thought free markets always worked and government "distorted" the markets. We always hate things given to others, until we want something, then we find ways to say, "Well... I didn't mean when it applies to me." We must also remember, the teams pay rent, so the facilities aren't free for them to use, but by using public facilities, the owners don't have to lay out large investments to have such facilities built. And remember too, the communities have built these facilities to make money in a variety of ways, many of which I recounted above, so these are really business deals, as professional sports is really nothing like a game, in spite of apologists who say fans get too emotional, "because it's just a game." BALONEY! Anything with such huge sums of money involved is NOT a game. Anyway, communities choose to pact with professional sports franchises, some of the owners of which are ruthless devils, and when you pact with the devil, sometimes you get burned. Yes, when owners have burned certain communities by moving teams to other locations, the public and the politicians all scream bloody murder, but you can't have it both ways, although in more recent times communities have tried to protect themselves with clauses in leases saying teams can only leave town after conditions x,y, and z are met, or with signed declarations by owners to never move the team.**** 

In the end, sports teams DO help communities overall, in my opinion. Whether they need fancy ballparks and stadiums, I'm not so sure, but don't look for it to change anytime soon. Too many people are hooked on pro sports, and both the owners and players know it. Until the public stays away in droves, you'll keep hearing about new or improved facilities you'll help pay for. If you don't want to pay, the moving van will probably pull up to load the team's equipment for transport to a place where the people will pay.
 
* I'm using "community" instead of just "city." A hundred years ago, most people in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Boston, Detroit, Chicago, etc actually lived IN the cities, with areas outside these cities often being sparsely populated countryside. Gradually this changed as suburban areas began to develop, which really took off after World War Two, and today, many of the suburbs are really connected to the cities in an urban community, so, in my opinion, it is far more appropriate to use the term "community."

** New York naturally has the subway system, and other communities have mass transit of some type. Here in Cleveland, you can drive to a transit parking lot, park for free, get on the train (called "the Rapid"), or a bus, and go downtown, where you can then use a walkway to go right over to see an Indians' or Cavaliers' game; or if you are going to a Browns' game, you change to another train which takes you right to the stadium. Needless to say, many people here use the public transit system this way. Since I went over some history in "Part One," I should note that, before the train ran right to the stadium, you could take a train or bus and get off downtown, where there were shuttle buses waiting to take you the few blocks to old Municipal Stadium for Browns' games, and Indians' games with large advance ticket sales. It was like 25 or 50 cents, but that was in the 1980s.

*** The rent and certain fees may go to a specific local entity that manages the facilities, rather than going directly into community coffers, and the money is then used for upkeep and retirement of debt on the facilities.

**** If I remember correctly, in order to get final approval for his move of the Browns to Baltimore, Art Modell had to buy out the remaining years of his lease in Cleveland, which cost him something like 10-12 million. 

WORD HISTORY:
Ground-This is the noun as in, "the soil of the earth." It goes back to Indo European "ghrendh," which meant, "to rub, to rub together to break down a substance." There are no apparent relatives outside of Germanic with a similar meaning as in Germanic. Old Germanic had "grunduz," which had the notion of "bottom, deep area, foundation;" from the idea of "particles that form a basis or foundation." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "grund," which meant "base, bottom, surface of the earth." The word later took on the extended meaning "basis, reason." Common in the other Germanic languages: German and Low German have "Grund" (ground, reason), West Frisian has "grun" (land, ground), Dutch has "grond" (soil, ground, base), Danish has "grund(en)" (foundation, base, site), Norwegian has "grunn," and Swedish has "grund" (reason, foundation). I could not find a form in Icelandic, where the word seems to have been replaced by other terms, although it could be archaic.

Are Public Sports Facilities Worth It? Part One

Here is the question: Should taxpayers fund sports venues for super wealthy owners and athletes?

This will mix some history with the above question, since history and community commitments to professional sports teams are central to how many people answer that question. I haven't really spent any time researching this, so most is from memory, although the recent death of Art Modell has brought the issue of private sports franchises operating in publicly funded facilities back into view, at least to some people, and the recent news coverage has refreshed my memory somewhat. Modell's sweetheart deal to move a solid franchise like the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore for the 1996 season showed that no franchise in any sport was really safe, and that ruthless owners could exploit the fear of a community losing its team to gain new or extensively updated facilities, with the cost largely, or entirely, borne by taxpayers. Generally, as professional sports developed (more so baseball, at first), well over a hundred years ago, cities had facilities for the local team or teams to play their games. Generally these facilities were small by many of today's standards, although Fenway Park in Boston retains much of the odd configuration of  some of the old ballparks,* but of course, even there they added more seats in recent times, and there has been a trend to build new ballparks more like the the intimate facilities of the earlier 20th Century.

Here in Cleveland, the Cleveland Indians played at "League Park" on the near East Side (E. 66th Street). Famous Cleveland players like pitchers Cy Young and Bob Feller and outfielder Tris Speaker played many a game there, as well as non Cleveland players like Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio. Clevelanders approved funding for a new city owned multipurpose stadium in the late 1920s, the result being a new 80,000 seat colossus right off of Lake Erie in downtown Cleveland.** The Indians played their first game there in 1932 in front of over 80,000 fans. Initially Cleveland Municipal Stadium did not have a fence, but the huge distance to most parts of the seats for a home run was prohibitive (fans like to see home runs), and a temporary fence was put up for baseball games (it could be taken down for football or other activities, and then reinstalled relatively quickly).*** The Indians continued to play at League Park, with occasional games moved to Municipal Stadium for big crowds. I believe League Park could only hold something like 25,000 people maximum, and that may well have included any standing room. The Indians permanently moved to Municipal Stadium after World War Two, and in 1948 the team drew an amazing (for those times) 2.6 million fans, a record which stood until more recent times, and that was when teams played 77 home games during the regular season, compared to 81 now (this started in the early 1960s).

Professional football was played at the new stadium in the 1930s, but it really took off in the post World War Two era with the Cleveland Browns, who regularly drew crowds of 80,000. Boxing matches, concerts and other events were also held at Municipal Stadium over the years. I have no idea how much the city of Cleveland charged for rent, but by the 1970s, tight budgets had the city turn the operation of the stadium over to Browns' owner Art Modell for a nominal annual leasing fee to the city (the city retained ownership of the property). Modell set up the "Stadium Corporation," with himself as head and majority owner, to run the aging facility, and he collected rent from the Indians and from the Browns (he was majority owner of the Browns, so he essentially paid rent to himself). He invested in new scoreboards (including smaller auxiliary scoreboards at various locations around the stadium) and he had a system of luxury loges, complete with bar service and televisions, built below the upper deck for corporate and wealthy fans, who paid an annual rent. The arrangement proved to be a good one for Modell, but not for the Indians, as they received none of the rental money. Over time, the Indians argued that with escalating payrolls, they needed all the income they could get to sign or retain quality players. That was years ago, it's far worse now! In the late 1970s, the Indians signed highly touted pitcher Wayne Garland for the sum of like $300,000. That was BIG money in sports back then; now you can't get a shortstop who bats .198 and makes two errors a game for that amount, which tells you how out of hand all of this nonsense is.

The loge rental money became a serious issue between the Indians' owners and Modell, who was their landlord. Since the Indians played 81 home games compared to the Browns 7 regular season games (back then) and one or two preseason games; the Indians were Modell's major tenant, but I don't recall how much they paid in rent or other fees, but I seem to remember they paid a base rent, and then some percentage based upon attendance. By the late 1980s, after much planning and arguing, a grand plan was developed to build a new sports complex on the southern edge of downtown, where the Indians would have a new ballpark and control their own revenue, the NBA Cavaliers would have a new arena, and the Browns would get a new stadium. Modell had been pushing for a dome on the existing stadium, but the plan did not have total community support, nor general support from the Indians, who wanted revenue from the increasingly popular (in other cities) luxury seating; something Modell did not want to share. Modell chose not to participate in the new complex, but to keep the Browns playing in the old stadium. Whether you like or hate Modell, he was NOT a stupid man, but undoubtedly his ego interfered with his judgment, a common problem for egomaniacs, as once a ballpark was open for the Indians, his stadium revenues had to fall.**** Modell's Browns were the kings of the town, but the new owners of the Indians (brothers Richard and David Jacobs) were smart business people. I just have to believe Modell could not bring himself to give up control of the old stadium, where he kept the Indians playing second fiddle to the Browns, and where he kept revenue for himself, and thus from their owners in a sports world gone nuts on big bucks.

So a few years later the Indians moved into their new ballpark, selling out the place for every game for several years. Meanwhile, the very first year the Indians were gone from old Municipal Stadium, Modell felt the pinch of his bad decision, as his revenue at the old stadium plummeted. Having missed an opportunity for a brand new stadium, still in a lease at the old stadium, ego bruised and undoubtedly envious of the success of the Indians (who were the talk of the town), and now seriously pressed for cash, Modell secretly negotiated with Baltimore and Maryland officials and moved the Browns to Baltimore, where he got a new stadium, revenue streams and public money to operate the franchise! There too he had to eventually take in a partner to supply money, which eventually brought him a Super Bowl win, but Modell's overall ego driven business sense left him in debt again, and the league eventually pressured him to sell the team, which he did.

With the Browns gone, the Cleveland community fought to get a new team with the promise of building a new football stadium, which took place at the same location as the old stadium. In 1999 a new Browns team started play in Cleveland. Now a new owner has just taken over in 2012, and just this last week or so the idea of putting a retractable dome on the football stadium has surfaced. The stadium is owned by the city and some people have wondered how to better utilize the large facility, which seats somewhere around 73,000, and to bring in more revenue. This is a major problem with football stadiums, since NFL teams only play 8 home games (in more recent times) and one or two preseason home games. What the hell do you do the rest of the 355 days? Like any building or home, just being in existence brings wear to such a facility, which then require repairs and updates, which all cost money. There has been criticism at times for placing the new stadium on the site of the old facility, right on the lakefront, where winds come whipping down from Canada, at times picking up moisture from Lake Erie and depositing it on land as either rain or snow. I'm not an architect or an engineer, but the critics have argued that this naturally takes a toll on the structure, which certainly makes sense, but whether having the football facility on the southern edge of downtown, along with the other facilities, would be all that better, is beyond me. Critics have also argued that the land on the lakefront could then have been better utilized for attractions to compliment the nearby Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Great  Lakes Science Center. Just to be clear, Browns Stadium is used for some college and maybe even some high school games or events, but not nearly anywhere enough to take a real chunk out of the 355 days when it is not used by the Browns, who don't even train there, but rather use a facility in the southwest part of town, in Berea, not far from Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.   

Naturally every community's history with sports franchises varies, but this gives you an idea of what can go on. It should be noted that Baltimore suffered the loss of their NFL team, the Colts, in 1984. At that time Modell and many other owners spoke against such a move, as the Colt's owner, Robert Irsay, moved the team to Indianapolis without any announcement and in the middle of the night. In a show of extreme disconnect, many Baltimore fans cheered the arrival of the Browns and Modell, quickly forgetting their anger over the loss of the Colts, although many commentators and other fans noted their unease over those who cried and cursed the move of the Colts, but then wildly cheered the arrival of another community's team. In "Part Two" I'll try to put an answer to the initial question.    

* "Ballpark" was a common term in the past; and in fact, my father always used that term, never "stadium." The facilities themselves were usually called either "park" or "field," and some of the facilities were (some still are): League Park (Cleveland), Crosley Field (Cincinnati), Wrigley Field (Chicago-for the Cubs), Comiskey Park (Chicago-for the White Sox), Fenway Park (Boston, for the Red Sox), Braves Field (Boston-the Braves were originally in Boston), and Forbes Field (Pittsburgh), to name a few, but there were exceptions, notably Yankee Stadium in New York, but then New York also had Ebbets Field for the then Brooklyn Dodgers and the Polo Grounds for the then New York Giants (baseball, of course), and the New York Mets played there for the first couple of years of their existence in the early 1960s.

** Some city leaders hoped the new stadium would give Cleveland a shot at landing a future summer Olympics, and Municipal Stadium came complete with a great running track and plenty of room for other field events. The "official" number of seats for baseball varied over the years as adjustments were made, but when important games were held, the 80,000 figure was generally used, although that usually included standing room behind the fence. The biggest adjustment for baseball was for seating in the center field bleachers, where eventually seats in a number of sections were not for sale, and the seats were painted dark blue to provide a good background for batters. (Note: Similar happened in other cities too, as batters had complained about losing sight of the ball in white shirts worn by fans seated in the bleachers.) The temporary "baseball" fence that was put up around much of the outfield was a simple chain link type, and later (maybe mid to late 1960s, I just forget), blue padding was added to protect outfielders who crashed into the fence when chasing a fly ball. About 1980, I was at a game when the Yankees were in town, and, I guess by agreement with the Yankees (and maybe the American League?), attendants  took some of the padding down from the fence in right center field for standing room, and some fans were permitted to sit in the usually closed for baseball center field bleachers (they were not seated in direct center, but to the sides), as most or all of the regular seats had been sold.

*** The bleachers in dead center field were 480 feet from home plate, but then there was a fairly high wall, so a batter had to hit a ball over 500 feet to reach into that area of the bleachers, something that was never done in the more than 60 years of its existence. At some point (I believe in the late 1970s?), extra bleacher seats were erected below that wall for Cleveland Browns' games, but no one ever hit a ball on the fly into those seats either.

**** While I noted Modell wasn't stupid, his business judgment has oft been called into question, and he had frequent money problems, even with large cash infusions from other sources, until he left football. I use the term "egomaniac" for Modell, because winning a championship at ANY cost, no matter whose money or emotions were spent, became his life's goal, and that quest cost many people. That's what can happen when some people see themselves as the center of the universe and seem to say, "I'm important! I'm more important that you or anyone else." To me, they deserve a penalty flag.  

WORD HISTORY:
Stadium-This word traces back to the Indo European root "sta," which meant "stand." This gave its Greek offspring "stadios," which meant "something fixed in place." This then gave Greek "stadion," which meant "a running track of fixed size." Latin borrowed the word from Greek as "stadium," with the meaning "measured running track." English borrowed the word from Latin in the 1500s (some believe earlier), with the meaning "racetrack." When seating was added around such a track, the entire complex took on the meaning "stadium," which later often came to be applied to sports venues in general.  

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twelve

The "Reagan Coalition and the Rise of the American Political Right," Part Four

With the Republican nomination locked up early on, Reagan had to turn his attention to winning over millions of Americans who thought him to be too conservative; after all, not only had he supported staunch conservative Barry Goldwater in 1964, Reagan made television commercials for Goldwater, thus placing himself squarely in Goldwater's corner, a corner that ended up receiving only 38.5% of the vote. John Anderson, a moderate Republican congressman running for president as an independent, tried to capitalize on Reagan's conservative image and attract votes from the still potent moderate wing of the Republican Party, from truly independent voters and from disaffected Democrats. President Carter led most opinion polls for quite a long time, but his lead was soft, as people were not really sold on him for a second term, but Reagan troubled many voters and Anderson faced the skepticism of many independent or third party candidates for president; the strongly held feeling that he could not win and that a vote for him would be wasted.

Democrats and Anderson were quick to remind voters of Reagan's support for Goldwater, but some attitudes since the 1964 election had changed. The role of government in the lives of Americans had come much more into question since Johnson's day, as conservative economists and social policy critics, joined by even moderate Republicans, attacked the policies of former President Lyndon Johnson with quips like, "Johnson declared a war on poverty and poverty won," * and "Government isn't the solution to the problem, government IS the problem." Presenting good slogans in Americans politics almost always works better than presenting good policies. Further, the divisive issue of abortion turned many an eye of southern evangelical Democrats to the Republican side of the ballot, as Reagan was anti-abortion. The American hostages continued to be held in Iran** and the economy, crippled by high gas and oil prices and rising inflation, was shaky, at best. Carter faced the task of trying to hold traditional Democratic voters who saw him as too conservative, and well known actor and staunch Democrat Henry Fonda took to television to plead with Democrats to remain in the fold and vote for Carter.

Just days before the election a televised debate was held between Carter and Reagan in Cleveland. Polls showed the race to be close, but with an edge to Carter. Carter had never, in my opinion, been a terribly inspiring presence or speaker, and while Reagan had taken many a hit for his acting talents (more would come later),*** his presence and demeanor on the public stage made him appear more than adequate to lead the country. With many voters now assured of Reagan's ability to lead, within hours of the debate, polls showed a decisive shift to Reagan, something communicated to Carter by his own pollster. On election night, the returns quickly and decisively gave Reagan a big win, as Carter only carried six states and the District of Columbia, with 49 electoral votes, while receiving only 41% of the vote. Reagan won an electoral landslide of 489 electoral votes, but he received a bare majority in the popular vote of slightly less than 51%. Anderson won no electoral votes and received more than 6% of the popular vote. Democrats were stunned as they lost control of the U.S. Senate for the first time since the mid 1950s, although the collective Democratic popular vote for senators still remained heavily Democratic. Republicans picked up 34 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, but remained in the minority, although conservative Democrats would prove to give Reagan a working majority at times.

American conservatism gradually took control of much of the political agenda, as it became the dominant philosophy.

Next, conservatism and the political right in governing the nation...

* The vast expansion of post World War Two suburbs gradually left mother cities with poorer residents, something that has generally continued to this day. The migration of poor southern black Americans seeking job opportunities in northern, often industrial, cites intensified the move of middle class whites to the suburbs, in what came to be called "white flight," a trend that has subsided to some degree. The decline of manufacturing jobs further limited opportunities for average and poor families. With poorer residents and shrinking revenues, cities struggled to maintain services, which only made more people move to suburbs, including, after a time, many middle class blacks. In the mid 1960s, poverty was strong in many southern states and in northern cities, although the general prosperity of the era had reduced the poverty rate. President Johnson implemented programs to help lift people out of poverty by providing training for jobs, education, and food and financial assistance to those in need. Some programs, like Head Start, are still fairly popular, although such programs have never been popular with the political right, which has essentially dismissed such programs as wasteful and unsuccessful. They have touted economic growth as the answer. The programs and the arguments over these programs would require a whole series of articles to even approach adequately explaining and covering them, but in my own opinion, some programs worked better than others (the poverty rate did decline, but it dropped only so far and basically stagnated), and some programs needed refinement (cash payments to individuals and families, for instance) or rejuvenation. Conservatives have some point about making people dependent on government programs, but their basic opposition has never allowed them to admit that any of these programs have worked to any degree. On the other hand, since Reagan's election, Republican administrations have generally cut or dismantled many of the programs hated by the right, and condemned as "wasteful," only to run huge budget deficits, partially incurred in tax cuts for very wealthy individuals, families, and businesses, a sort of "welfare for the rich." Poverty has increased, with the wealthiest 400 American families now controlling as much of the nation's wealth as the bottom 50% of the population! and the transfer of wealth from low and middle income Americans to the wealthy continues. I have yet to hear the right wingers call any of this "wasteful" or "failed," even with regard to the deregulation and lax regulation of the banking system, a major part of their initiatives, which helped bring about a near depression in 2008. No, they refuse to admit to anything; in fact, blaming Barack Obama for anything and everything, as if the whole situation started on January 20, 2009, the day Obama took the oath. (Note: Part of the conservative philosophy has been to push for deregulation of businesses, but some Democrats have been complicit; that is, they have helped them, so they are not totally innocent.) 

** An attempted secret rescue mission by American military forces in the spring of 1980 had failed.

*** For those unaware, Ronald Reagan had been a Hollywood and television actor for much of his life. Reagan also spent two distinct periods as president of the union for actors/actresses, the Screen Actors Guild. He was also a former Democrat, supporter of the New Deal and Franklin Roosevelt, whom he occasionally quoted.

WORD HISTORY:
Race-This is the noun (and later verb) involving a contest or the fast movement of something, including water. The ultimate origins of this word are unknown, but it goes back to Old Germanic "raeso," which had the idea of "intense movement, anger." This gave Old English "raesan," which meant "to rush, to run quickly, to attack," which either died out over time or was reinforced by Old Norse (Old English also has a noun form "raes"). Old Norse brought the close relative of then English "raes" to northern England as "ras," where it became part of the regional lingo in the late 1200s or so, with the meaning "run quickly, raging water flow." It may have simply combined with the existing, but weakening, English form, which then took a couple of hundred years to really spread throughout English as "race," and the verb was derived from the noun in the mid 1600s. German still has "rasen," which means "to race along, to speed along," but also, "to rage," Dutch has "razen" (rage, storm, bluster), Danish and Norwegian have "rase" (rage), Swedish has "rasa" (fall, romp) and "ras" (landslide). Forms of the word "apparently" died out in Low German, but it once had "rasen" (rage, extreme anger). I could not find words in either Frisian or Icelandic, but that doesn't mean they don't have them, as subtlety in meaning can make it difficult to find them, and they undoubtedly at least had forms at one time, just as the other Germanic languages. 

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Eleven

"The Reagan Coalition and the Rise of the American Political Right" Part Three

With Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy opposing President Jimmy Carter for the 1980 Democratic nomination, Carter's weaknesses were magnified. Many labor people, a significant element of the Democratic coalition, went with Kennedy, and many liberal Democrats saw Carter as too conservative. However, just as had happened with Gerald Ford in 1976, when Ronald Reagan challenged him for the Republican nomination, enough Democrats stuck with President Carter to eventually ward off Kennedy's strong challenge.* While Carter has often appeared to be exceedingly idealistic, both then and now, he came to the presidency in 1977 (the election was in November 1976) in the aftermath of the Watergate scandals. Carter slyly would remind voters of Watergate, a Republican scandal, while seeming to be above playing hard nose politics, by often telling reporters, "I'm not here to answer questions about Watergate." He did much the same in 1980 against Kennedy, as Kennedy had been involved in an auto accident in 1969 which claimed the life of a young woman passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, as his car veered off a bridge and into the water. The accident, on Chappaquiddick Island (Massachusetts), saw Kennedy save himself, but leave the scene, only to report the accident many hours later. The deadly accident spawned many a conspiracy theory, and even a number of Democrats were skeptical of Kennedy's story. Senator Kennedy's 1980 run for president brought the issue, which had never completely died out, back to the front pages throughout the country. Carter would steadfastly and repeatedly announce that he didn't want to talk about "Chappaquiddick," which was a way of talking about it. Comedian Bob Hope had a great quip which summed up the whole thing. Carter had a young daughter, Amy, and Hope said something to the effect that while Carter said he didn't want to talk about Kennedy's auto accident, he spent each night teaching Amy how to spell "Chappaquiddick." In the end, Carter won the nomination. Meanwhile, on the Republican side...

Ronald Reagan and his conservative supporters moved quickly to secure the Republican nomination from the Republican moderate wing, then basically led by George Bush (Senior). Bush's campaign was unable to halt the Reagan juggernaut, but he gave Reagan's opponents a highly quotable comment about Reagan's economic proposals of tax cuts and large defense spending increases, calling them "voodoo economics." ** Voodoo or not, Reagan easily captured the Republican nomination and he tagged Bush to be his vice presidential running mate, which caused Bush to use some voodoo of his own to distance himself from his previous remark. John Anderson, a long time moderate Republican congressman from Illinois, chose to run as an independent in an effort to attract moderate Republicans and disaffected Democrats. So the race for the presidency was set.

* For those unaware, Ted Kennedy was the brother of President John F. Kennedy (also known by his initials "JFK"), who was assassinated in November 1963, and Robert Kennedy, a former Attorney General of the United States, assassinated in 1968 as he campaigned for the Democratic nomination. John Kennedy was the first, and thus far only, Roman Catholic to be elected president. Even by 1980, the lingering divisiveness over religion played a role in the primary, as some staunch Democratic acquaintances of mine, who were Protestant, chose Carter, solely based upon the fact that Kennedy was Catholic. Carter was a Baptist and a Sunday school teacher.

**  In 1992 when Ross Perot was running for president as an independent, he recounted how Reagan's policies led to huge deficits and he repeated the "voodoo economics" label, then saying "we are now in deep voodoo." 

WORD HISTORY:
Bring-This word traces back to Indo European "bhrengkh," which generally meant "carry, bring," and also by extension, "worry" ("carry concerns with you"). This gave Old Germanic "bringanan," which meant "to bring, to carry." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "bringan," with the same general meaning, and by extension, "to produce," from the notion "bring forth." This then became "bringen," before the modern version.^  Common in the other West Germanic languages: German and Low German Saxon have "bringen," Dutch has "brengen," and West Frisian has "bringe." The North Germanic languages did not use forms of the word until later, although I "assume" other forms replaced it during the Old Norse period,^^ but Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish all borrowed forms from Low German: Norwegian and Danish have "bringe" and Swedish has "bringa." Icelandic never borrowed a form of the word, as it was already established in Iceland by the time the other North Germanic languages borrowed forms of the word. In some Germanic languages, forms of "bring" can also mean "take," depending upon context.

^ In modern everyday English we have to use two words to represent the infinitive form of a verb; as in, "to bring." In the past however, English, like its Germanic cousins, used just one word, the main word + an ending, typically of "an" or "en," to mean the same thing. This ending then changed according to how the verb was used in a sentence (these changes are called "inflections," see below). Some quaint dialects and non modernized texts, like some Bibles and hymnals, still use the old forms; thus you still see things like "hast" ("have," German still uses "hast"), "cometh" (German uses "kommt"), "sayeth" (German has "sagt"). The other Germanic languages have generally retained some form of this grammar, with lots of inflections, into modern times; thus, in German for example, "bringen" means "to bring" (also "to take," not in the sense "accept," but rather "to take something or someone from one place to another"). English simplified its verbs, thus when "to bring" is conjugated, it is: I bring; you bring; he/she/it brings; we/they bring, so there are only two grammatical forms needed to express ourselves, "bring" and "brings." German, on the other hand, is still like the English of several hundred years ago: infinitive "bringen:" ich bringe; du bringst; er/sie/es bringt; wir/sie bringen, so there are four forms needed.  

^^ Old Norse is the ancestor of the North Germanic languages: Norwegian, Icelandic, Danish and Swedish (actually also Faroese, from the Faroe Islands), having come from Old Germanic, and generally dates from about 700 A.D. until about 1200/1300.   

A Street In Berlin

I am going to go with a little, somewhat obscure, history note here. I was in Berlin for almost a week in the mid 1980s. Back then it was still a divided city, with West Berlin being democratic and East Berlin being communist. I stayed at a "Pension" (see "Word History") on Bleibtreustrasse, which means "Remain True (or Loyal or Faithful) Street"),^ which was off of one of Berlin's main, and most famous, streets, Kurfürstendamm,^^ often known by its abbreviated form "Ku'damm," and I was staying not far from the ruins of the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church, a Lutheran church most of which was destroyed during World War Two, but it's ruins were left as a monument to that terrible war. I don't recall everything about the Pension (it is "Pension," as all German nouns are capitalized), as it has been too long ago, and nothing really remarkable happened to cause me to remember much about the place or the surroundings, although it seems to me there was a Chinese restaurant maybe next door or nearby (yes, Germans eat Chinese food, too), and the hotel elevator was creaky, undoubtedly dating from the war era, or even before. I really hadn't thought much about the place for years, but fairly recently, maybe when I was researching some of the information about "The German Question" series here, I came across "Bleibtreustrasse." Here's why, World War Two buffs will probably recognize the name Hermann Fegelein. He was an SS general who was married to the sister of Eva Braun (Hitler's mistress). Just a couple of days before Hitler committed suicide, Fegelein left Hitler's bunker, without permission (although some say Hitler gave everyone permission to leave during a despondent mood shortly before), in an effort to save himself. He hid out on Bleibtreustrasse, in either an apartment or in a hotel room, accounts differ, but I believe he stayed further up the street from where I stayed. When I read that information, the little Pension I stayed in popped into my mind. By the way, Fegelein didn't hide well enough, as Hitler dispatched SS men, who arrested him and returned him to Hitler's bunker, where he was tried and executed, even though Eva Braun pleaded for her brother-in-law to be spared (her sister was pregnant). Such was the Nazi mentality as the Soviets closed in on them and were only a couple of blocks away.

^ The three components of "Bleib-treu-strasse" all have relatives in English, although "Strasse" and English "street" are not original Germanic words, as the ancestor of these words was borrowed by Germanic from Latin. German "bleib" (the verb infinitive is "bleiben") is related to English "leave," a form of which, "belifan," in Old English, meant "remain, be left behind." The modern meaning of leave, "to move from a place," comes from the idea of "leaving behind." The modern German word "bleiben" is a contraction from an earlier "beliban." German "treu" and English "true" are from Old Germanic "trewwiz," which meant "true, faithful." 
   
^^ "Kurfürstendamm" roughly means "Avenue of the Electors," and the "fürst" part is really the same word as English "first;" in fact, it is pretty much pronounced the same, too, but in German it took on the meaning "prince," from the notion of "first among the nobility," as the upper German nobles were collectively called "princes," regardless of the actual title of each individual, such as "king" or "archduke." The "kur" part is an Old Germanic word for "election, choice," and English once had "corenes" and "gecorenes," with similar meanings. A German "Kurfürst" was a title given to a prince who also had a vote in the election of the German emperor. "Damm" is English "dam," and means the same as the English word, except the dialects in northeastern Germany also used it for "street, avenue," with the idea of a dam providing a means to cross water or marshy ground, something more like English "causeway" in meaning.
  
WORD HISTORY:
Pension-This word traces back to the Indo European root "pen," which had the notion of "pull." This gave its Latin offspring "pendere," which initially meant "to weigh," apparently from the idea of the ropes or chains used on a weighing device "pulling" against one another to determine weight. Payments were often weighed; thus, the further idea of "to pay" came along. "Pendere's" participle form was "pensus," which then produced the noun "pensio," meaning "payment." Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited a form of the word as "pension," meaning "payment," but also "rent" ('payment' for boarding), and "pension" was then borrowed by English in the mid 1300s. By the early 1500s, the word was being applied to "payments made for former services," which led to the most common English meaning, "monthly allotment for retirement." German too borrowed the word from French in the early 1400s, but besides the "retirement payment" meaning, the "rent" idea had developed into the extended meaning "small hotel," which spread from France to Germany and Austria, where in German it is still often used for "small private hotel." So German carries both meanings.   

The Real Whiny "Victims"

Mitt Romney's comments to a group of donors, dare we call them "investors?" I mean that for all candidates, too, not just Romney, so you Republicans don't have to start cussing me out... yet. Let's face it folks, you give five, ten, or twenty bucks to a candidate, you're hardly trying to get something in return. You give ten thousand to a half million or more, you want a return on that "investment." Okay, I digressed. Anyway, Romney's comments about people feeling they are victims and wanting government help, actually "government dependence," he may have said, really struck me. Fact checkers have been poring over all sorts of records to find out just which Americans Romney was referencing. Without wearing out any search engine, let me see if this fits the picture of America's true victims, at least if you listen to them tell it. Do you think he meant the wealthiest earners in the country, none of whom have suffered from the slow economy, but who, in fact, are almost all doing better than ever? Hm, they're always whining about taxes and regulations, but they're making more than ever. "Just give us more money and less regulation, and we'll create jobs." After decades of this same tune, I'm wondering how many verses this song has, although the refrain is the same in every verse. They really seem to believe they are "victims." We all should be so lucky to be such victims. I've got a proposal for these full of self pity victims. I'll change places with you for one year. You don't get to keep any of your millions (or billions); nope, a straight up exchange of positions. If after one year, you hear me whining about how tough I've got it because of taxes and regulations, I'll praise Rush Limbaugh as the greatest guy on earth, no matter how many pain pills it takes ME to kill that pain. Now, everyone shouldn't volunteer at once.

WORD HISTORY:
Victim-The ultimate origins of this word are unclear (see below), but English borrowed the word in the 1400s from Latin "victima," which meant "a living person or animal then killed as a sacrifice to a god or gods." The word then also took on the extended non religious meaning of "someone/something injured or killed." I tend to favor the origin as Indo European "weik," which had the notion of "separate." This idea would then have produced the Latin version, "victima," as well as forms in Old Germanic, including Old English "wig" (long "i," I believe), which meant "idol." German, the close cousin of English, has "weihen," a verb meaning "make holy, to consecrate," while Low German Saxon has "wiehen" (reversed vowels) with the same meaning, Danish has "vie" (consecrate), Dutch has "wijden" (bless), Norwegian has "vigsle" (consecrate) and Swedish has "viga" (consecrate, often in the sense of marriage). I did not find a form in either Frisian or Icelandic, but that doesn't mean there aren't forms, but with a slightly different meaning, or they could be archaic, as forms of the word "holy" actually took over much of the same meaning in many Germanic languages, including English, as we don't really use "consecrate" ^ all that much. As you can see, the Latin and Germanic forms all have something to do with religious rituals, giving credibility to Indo European "weik" as the source. The idea is, "weik" (separate), would have meant in this case "to separate the good, the holy, from the bad, the evil; thus make something holy, worthy of worship." Old English "wig" (idol, a holy object) fits right into that same basic meaning, although apparently, the English form (a noun) was formed AFTER the Anglo-Saxons left what is now northern Germany and established England, and I could not find an Old English verb form,^^ but Old Saxon, the language of the Saxons which remained in northern Germany, had the verb "wihian," meaning "to consecrate, to make holy." By the way, the German form, "weihen," helped give German its word for Christmas, which is "Weihnachten;" that is, "consecrated or holy night."  

^ "Consecrate" was borrowed into English from Latin. It literally means "make sacred," and it replaced a number of words used in English for "to make holy, make sacred," most of which are ancestors of modern English "bless" and "holy."

^^ Presumably the English noun "wig" was derived from a verb form, as the other Germanic languages all had verb forms.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Ten

First published September 2012 
See NOTE at bottom of article for update


The Reagan Coalition and the Rise of the American Political Right, Part Two

You can't really understand the election of Ronald Reagan, unless you understand the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter and the nation faced a serious problem over a continuing energy problem, or perhaps it would be better to say, over a lack of energy. Oil and gasoline prices soared, dragging the price of everything else along. The long time Democratic coalition continued its disintegration, and overseas, a fundamentalist Muslim revolution in Iran brought down the American supported government of the Shah of Iran, only to be replaced by a fanatical fundamentalist Muslim cleric, the Ayatollah Khomeini. Iranian students and revolutionaries took over the American embassy in November 1979, along with more than fifty Americans who were held hostage. The crisis had grave consequences, which are still with us today.* As the crisis went on, it was eventually covered by the news media as, "Day 79 of the Iran Hostage Crisis," .... "Day 101 of the Iran Hostage Crisis," .... Day 250 of the Iran Hostage Crisis..." and so on and so on. Americans were angry and frustrated, as no one really knew what to do. After the first couple of months of the crisis, it was revealed that Canada had hidden several American diplomats in their embassy in Iran, eventually granting special "Canadian passports" to the Americans and then flying them out of Iran to safety. All over the United States the announcement was greeted by standing ovations for the Canadians and Canadian flags were displayed and the Canadian national anthem played on radio stations and at sporting events, it was a little victory in a dismal situation, as the actual hostages remained in Iran.

In the midst of all that was going on, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. This prompted President Carter to have the American team boycott the 1980 Olympic Games, which were held in Moscow. It was a decision that brought mixed reviews, as many critics, fairly or unfairly, believed the Olympics should have been free of international politics.** 

President Carter also negotiated a treaty with Panama to turn control of the Panama Canal over to Panama on December 31, 1999, while maintaining the neutrality of the canal, so it could be used by all nations, and giving the U.S. the right to enforce that neutrality. Conservatives exploded, accusing Carter of giving away control of a necessary American shipping passageway to a dictator (which was true, as the ruler of Panama had taken power in an overthrow of the government several years before). The Senate ratified the treaty anyway, but conservatives fumed for years over the loss of what was "like sovereign American territory," as I believe some of them put it, and perhaps even Ronald Reagan said it, I just forget, as he opposed ratification of the treaty.

With inflation a constant problem, and gasoline prices at record highs (the Middle East/Iran situation),*** the economy stumbled along in a period of what was termed "stagflation;" that is, stagnant economic growth, but persistently high inflation which was threatening to climb to double digits. President Carter wore a sweater, told Americans to adjust their thermostats to help control energy costs, and a 55 mph highway speed limit had already gone into effect under President Nixon in 1974. At first, many Americans saw the need for such measures, but Americans were not used to such things, and many people began to resent the conservation measures. In an effort to get control of rising prices and restore economic growth, President Carter, a moderate, appointed Paul Volcker as Federal Reserve Chairman. Volcker began to raise interest rates, but with rate increases came a downturn in economic growth, which brought Carter trouble from labor unions and businesses. The 1980 election season was then underway. 

* The U.S. imposed economic sanctions against Iran back then, which were later intensified over other matters, and these sanctions continue to the present, President Obama having turned the screws even more tightly. The American public was so outraged over the hostage taking (countries had long agreed to the non arrest of foreign diplomatic personnel and to help protect such personnel from harm), that politicians were careful not to be seen as in any way associating with Iran, thus keeping any diplomatic ties from being reestablished, and preventing talks aimed at averting other crises. With no presence in Iran, when the anti-government protests developed there a year or two ago, the U.S. was pretty much out in the cold. Now, the other side of this is certainly true; that is, while Khomeini died in 1989, the religious fundamentalist governmental system he established is still in place, and this government not only allowed American embassy personnel to be held captive, but actively supported it. The problem is, no one, Republican or Democrat, really knows what to do about the situation, in spite of hot-air rhetoric to the contrary. The Middle East has been a powder keg for decades, seemingly waiting for the lit match. The world dependence on oil from the Middle East has given countries there a daunting trump card, as anything that threatens the world oil supply sends oil/gasoline prices skyrocketing, threatening economic turmoil everywhere. 

** In retaliation, the Soviets boycotted the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.   

*** For much of the 1970s gasoline prices were high compared to previous decades, and this was in large part due to the Middle East being so unstable, including war between Israel and Arab nations, and revolution in Iran.

NOTE: The situation with Iran goes far beyond the revolution there and the taking of American hostages in late 1979, but the tensions between many nations, including the U.S., and Iran do trace back to the Iranian Revolution. In more recent times, Iran began research and development in the nuclear field. This brought more sanctions from the U.S. and others. In 2015, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, and several other countries reached an agreement with Iran over nuclear research and sanctions against Iran. 

WORD HISTORY:
Shot-This word, closely related to "shoot," goes back to Indo European "skeud," with the notion of "to project, to throw, to move quickly." This gave its Old Germanic offspring a noun "skot(an)," "something thrown or discharged, the result of shooting." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sceot," with the same meaning, but also "a payment, a contribution" presumably from the notion of "handing over; that is, projecting the payment to another." It had this same ("payment") or similar ("tax") meaning in the other Germanic languages too, but this meaning has died out, except in the expression "scot free;" literally, "payment free," and the original hard "c" or "k" sound is still present, while in "shot" the sound softened. Common in various forms in the other Germanic languages: German has "Schoss," which means "lap (of a person);" that is, "a projection from a sitting person," and also "a young sprout from a plant, for which English uses the related "shoot;" further, German has "Schuss," meaning "shot." Low German Saxon has "Schott" (shot) and "Schoot" (lap of a person). Saterland Frisian has "Schoat" (shot) and "Schoot" (lap); Dutch has "schot" (shot) and "schoot" (lap of a person). Danish has "skud" (shot) and skød (lap); Icelandic has "skot" (shot); Norwegian has "skudd" (shot); Swedish has "skott" (shot). Notice that the North Germanic languages, Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish have all retained the "k" sound.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Nine

First published in September 2012


The Reagan Coalition and the Rise of the American Political Right, Part One

Gerald Ford was an "establishment Republican;" that is, he was very much in the main stream of not only the Republican Party, but of American politics in general, favored by business people, farmers, and middle class workers. He had served many terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, where Republicans were almost always in the minority during that time, and he was close friends with many Democrats, even though he was (Republican) Minority Leader of the House from the mid 1960s until his appointment to the vice presidency by President Nixon in late 1973. Ronald Reagan, a former Democrat and union member, had attracted much conservative support from around the country, and his former political affiliation and union membership gave him an inroad into traditional Democrats, with the idea that "it's okay to vote for me, I was a Democrat too."

Many conservatives were upset about the failure of Nixon and Ford to go all out to win the Vietnam War, but public opinion had shifted more and more away from support for the war, a factor which led President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, to a decision not to seek reelection in 1968.* Nixon had implemented a policy of gradual withdrawal from South Vietnam, as well as selective military strikes, including air strikes against North Vietnam. When Ford replaced Nixon, the final stages of American withdrawal were taking place, but many conservatives wanted more military and financial support for the weak South Vietnamese army, something neither Ford nor (seemingly) the country were willing to do. Conservatives were infuriated by the final withdrawal of Americans and the collapse of the South Vietnamese, as American Marines were evacuated by helicopter from the embassy, as surging communist forces neared the complex, an event captured on film and viewed by millions of Americans on television for days thereafter. Further, Nixon had opened up diplomatic relations with (communist) China and had worked to improve relations with the Soviet Union, policies continued by his successor, Ford. Again, many conservatives were often outraged by these policies, and Ronald Reagan offered them a voice by talking of only dealing with communist regimes from a position of military strength, and offering a belief that what he and conservatives perceived to be American weakness increased the chances of nuclear war.

Reagan challenged Ford for the Republican nomination, but initially Ford and the then dominant liberal to moderate wing of the party** gave Ford the upper hand. Then Reagan came into far more conservative states, where he put together a number of wins over Ford. Ford retained much of the traditional Republican base, with Reagan putting together hard line conservatives and a growing fundamentalist religious element, by its very nature, highly conservative. While Democrats still controlled the South, transplants from other parts of the country and a gradual change in party affiliation from Democrat to Republican by conservative southerners were leading to a growing Republican Party in the South, an area where Reagan bested Ford, including in Texas. Terrified traditional Republicans, fearful of the defeat of a sitting Republican president in the nominating process by a hard line conservative, perceived to be outside the mainstream of American politics, closed ranks behind Ford, who finally achieved the nomination, but with bitter feelings by Reagan and conservatives, who were not terribly enthused over supporting Ford in the general election.

The election produced a victory for moderate Democrat Jimmy Carter, a southerner from Georgia, who carried the South, except for Virginia. which he lost by a close margin. Ford started the campaign far behind, but a rousing convention speech, a personal likeability, and a grudging acceptance by many conservatives helped him close the substantial gap. In the end though, Carter carried important Ohio by just 11,000 votes and Wisconsin by a larger margin, and he clinched the presidency. With Ford defeated and a Democrat in the White House, the way was much more open for another Reagan run for the presidency in 1980.   

* Lyndon Johnson had escalated the war considerably, and the public generally had supported that effort, but unlike the then fairly recent battlefields of World War Two and Korea, the war in South Vietnam was a mixture of civil war (pro communist forces against the existing South Vietnamese government), and a communist guerrilla war against foreign interests; first, the French, and then more so the United States. The overall country had been divided into communist dominated North Vietnam and dictatorial South Vietnam in 1954. The subject of the war is far too complicated for this article, but it would make a great subject for several articles in the future. Gradually, public opinion in the U.S. began to shift against American involvement in Vietnam, as the war came to be seen as virtually unwinnable and a drain on American lives and resources. Eugene McCarthy, a Democratic senator from Minnesota, galvanized the growing opposition to the war and challenged Johnson for the Democratic nomination in 1968. McCarthy's more than respectable second place showing in the New Hampshire primary brought Johnson, an astute politician, to the realization that his reelection, and indeed, his very renomination, was far from certain and he chose to step aside. This was a case where Johnson saw his coalition of Democrats coming apart.  

** At that point in time (and you must keep the time period perspective in mind), while Republicans tilted rightward, the party was not decisively conservative, as conservative southern Democrats had not yet completely gone over to the Republican Party, although their votes for president had increasingly gone to that side of the ballot. There were still "liberal" Republicans, too, although they were becoming a rare breed, but added to the numerous moderates, this wing outnumbered conservatives, especially true right wingers. The American system of primaries is odd. It is controlled by the states, but only in a sense, as more particularly the political parties in each state control the primaries. Some states have what are termed "closed" primaries; that is, a voter must be registered with a particular party in order to vote on candidates in that party. Other states have "open" primaries, where registered voters can ask for any party's ballot. So, in the first case, if you're registered in your county as a "Democratic-Republican," you must take the "Democratic-Republican" ballot. In the second case, you can ask for the ballot from any party. Some states do not require a person to claim allegiance to a particular party when they register, while other states do require such, but a voter can always change party affiliation, but the change is governed by state registration laws, which might require a person to change party affiliation at least thirty days or more in advance of an election. In Ohio, you give a preference for political party when you first vote, but you can literally change on the day of a primary election, so Ohio is an "open primary" state. Let's say you register and vote as a Democrat, so the rolls will show you as a Democrat, but the next primary election when you go to vote, the election worker will ask which ballot you want, at which time you can ask for the Republican ballot, although "in theory" you are then "supposed" to swear an oath of allegiance to your new party before voting. 
  
WORD HISTORY:
Yield-Before English borrowed "(to) pay" from French around 1300, this was one of the words used by English speakers to convey the meaning, "to pay." The ultimate origin of this is word unclear, and forms only seem to be in Germanic, except where a couple of non Germanic dialects borrowed it. Old Germanic had "geldanan," which meant "to pay, pay back." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "geldan" and "gieldan," depending upon dialect, with the same meanings, including "punish," from the notion of "pay back." Later it became "yielden," before the modern version. The idea of "pay back," also used in the sense of "interest earned on investments," as in, "The savings account yields ("pays") 4% interest" (pay back for your investment), further gave the extended meaning "to produce," as in, "My garden yields lots of tomatoes" (pay back for your time and effort). The notion of "paying;" that is, "handing over," seems to have led to the idea of "give way, surrender," as in "yield (give way) to oncoming traffic." The noun form was derived from the verb. Forms are common in the other Germanic languages, with associated, but varied meanings, most of which tie somehow into the idea of "pay" or "be worth paying:" German has "gelten," which means "to be valid, have worth," ( it once meant "pay back" and "produce income," like its English cousin), Low German Saxon has "gellen" (notice the "d/t" sound is gone). with much the same meanings as standard German, Dutch has "gelden" (to be valid, be worth concern), Frisian has "jilde" ("pay," but apparently archaic), Icelandic has "gjalda" ("pay back in kind, pay," in the sense "suffer"),  Danish has "yde" (yield, pay), Norwegian has "-yeld" as part of a compound word meaning "to reciprocate" (pay back) and "ytelse" (yield), Swedish has "gälla" (be valid, be correct).

Misleading Rhetoric On Bailouts

We hear lots of talk about the bailouts by both political parties.* The political right runs misleading ads about "failed policies" to discredit the loans given to the financial and auto segments of the economy under both George W. Bush, a name long since forgotten by the right wing of the country (they hope voters will forget that name too), and by Barack Obama, whom the right wing has blamed for everything, except perhaps the bombing of Pearl Harbor, although don't rule that out, since his birth certificate is from Hawaii, thus establishing a link to the American naval base bombed in December 1941, long before Obama was born, but such "details" never seem to stop the right wing attack machine.**

Deciphering all of this information can be tricky, but here is the best I can come up with. In 2008, Congress authorized and President Bush signed a law providing $700 billion (with a "b") in funds to help stabilize the financial industry; namely banks, and more precisely, many big banks which had gotten themselves into trouble by bundling risky mortgages together and using them to back securities. Now, the entire $700 billion was NEVER dispersed (about $600 billion was dispersed); something I believe is generally unknown to most Americans, since the political ads are run to scare the hell out of you, or get (or keep) you angry, not to truly inform you. Most of the dispersed money was allocated on some sort of "loan" basis; that is, it is expected to be paid back, and to earn interest or other compensation, while a much smaller amount (seemingly $5-6 billion, but certainly less then $10 billion) was more or less given as grants to certain entities; the plain English translation of which means, "It's gone!"  Now, a fairly large chunk (about 55%) of the dispersed money has been PAID BACK, again, something NEVER mentioned in ads. Further, Uncle Sam has earned something on the order of $85 billion in compensation for the loans, primarily interest or dividends.*** The largest unpaid amounts from the general "financial" sector are owed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (both part of the mortgage industry) and by insurance company AIG, which had lots of investments in bad securities. The auto industry bailout dispersed slightly under $80 billion, of which something like $29 billion is still owed, from what I can tell. Please understand, these numbers can change quickly, as Uncle Sam can sell stock or receive payments or dividends at any time.

In researching this information, it is sometimes difficult to tell what is really still owed, or perhaps more specifically what is expected to be paid back, according to each specific case, since Uncle Sam receives interest and dividends (as I already mentioned) and received stock or other securities in many companies, some of which were then sold by Uncle Sam, thus bringing in more money, and "apparently" reducing the amounts owed, at least in "some" cases. What do I mean? Well "Randy Inc." borrows $100,000 from you and owes you $10,000 in interest, and you get 1000 shares of the company, just to keep the numbers fairly easy. I pay you $2000 in interest payments and you get $1000 in dividends from the stock. Now, does "Randy Inc." still owe you $100,000, or $97,000? I didn't research each "deal," as the sheer magnitude of such research would be prohibitive. Further, let's say "Randy Inc." is doing better since your cash infusion, the stock rises and you sell 500 shares, earning say, $10,000. Does that "$10,000" cover part of the loan, or not? Likely it would. What the end result will be is still to be seen, but the absolute hysteria by the political right about the bailouts, especially AFTER Obama took office, that he was trying to take over the country, was absolute NONSENSE! 

* Democrats, especially, tout the money used to help both General Motors and Chrysler survive, although in their case, they either conveniently forget the Bush administration's initial involvement, or mention it quickly, as if to kill the pain. With the bank bailouts, Democrats are much quicker to mention Bush as the main advocate (which is true), as the bank bailouts have proven to be a much hotter potato, fairly or unfairly. When will either party, when appropriate, get back to sharing credit for successes, and taking joint blame for failures? The answer lies with us, for as long as so many Americans get their "news" from politically slanted cable shows, masquerading, or at least perceived by many Americans, as news programs, and from thirty second ads presenting purely one side or the other's case on a given issue, I don't see this ending. So bluntly, I DON'T see this ending. If you think such ads don't work, remember, companies wouldn't spend millions on telling you to buy their dish detergent or to buy their green beans, if their ads didn't work. We all sort of think we're too smart to be influenced by such ads, but we're being naive.

** The onerous "Citizens United" decision by the Supreme Court allows groups or individuals to spend as much as they want on political ads, without having to disclose who the donors to these ads are.

*** As best I can tell, that amount also includes the sale of some stock received by Uncle Sam in certain companies. The actual overall amount may be closer to $90 billion, but I put it at $85 billion, a figure I feel is more certain.  

WORD HISTORY:
Pay-This word goes back to Indo European "pak/pag," which had the notion of "to fasten, to unite, to make stable." This gave its Latin offspring "pax," which meant "peace," from the idea of " 'uniting' involved parties in an agreement or 'pact.' ^ " This then produced Latin "pacere," a verb meaning "to pacify," and from that idea it then developed the further meaning "to settle or satisfy (often a debt)," and the original "peace" idea was still evident, as in "keep peace with a person to whom one owes something." Old French, a Latin based language, inherited a form of the word as "paier," and English borrowed the word in about 1300 as "payen," before the modern version, and the further idea of  "something owed for work" also developed, as well as the noun form (from the verb) for such a payment; thus your "pay."

^ "Pact" comes from the same source, with the idea of "unifying sides in an agreement." 

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Eight

The 1976 Republican nominating process was a tough one, with incumbent President Gerald Ford challenged by former California Governor Ronald Reagan; but a little background first. The 1964 Republican contest had shown conservatives strengthening their hold on the Republican Party, as conservative Barry Goldwater won the nomination. What was left of the progressive wing of the Republican Party, most symbolized in those days by New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller, began to fade into what might be termed "moderates," which included Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Reagan, a former Democrat, became a prominent supporter of Goldwater in 1964 and the heir apparent leader of conservatives in the Republican Party after Goldwater's landslide loss to Democrat Lyndon Johnson. Nixon captured the presidency in 1968, as President Johnson and Democrats wrestled with discontent over the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, increasing inflation, and serious divisions within their own political party, as many southern Democrats took to supporting Alabama Governor George Wallace, an avowed segregationist,* who ran for the presidency in 1968 as an independent; thus siphoning off both popular votes and electoral votes from Democratic candidate, Hubert Humphrey. Nixon won a narrow half million vote plurality (43.4%) over Humphrey (42.7%), but Wallace received nearly ten million votes nationwide (13.5%), although the largest portion came in the traditionally Democratic South, where he carried five states.** Democrats were obviously in trouble, as a significant part of their coalition abandoned them for Wallace. The 1972 election saw a landslide reelection of Nixon, as Democratic Senator George McGovern carried only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, and losing the popular vote to Nixon 60.7% to 37.5%. This time, in a forerunner of what was to come later, the Solid South voted solidly Republican.

Republican momentum at assembling a dominant coalition was halted by events and a self-inflicted wound. Events had to do with the winding down of the Vietnam War, where American troops were being withdrawn in stages, and conflict in the Middle East, which brought an oil embargo by Arab nations against the United States for its support of Israel in a war begun in October 1973. The oil shortage created long lines at American gas stations and escalating inflation, which was already becoming a problem as a drag on the slowing economy. The self-inflicted wound was by Nixon and some of his aides. Burglars broke into the Democratic headquarters in Washington D.C, in the Watergate complex, but they were captured. The resulting investigation led Nixon and his closest aides to cover up information about the break in and about other activities initiated by his reelection staff and White House personnel. The whole ordeal came to be called "Watergate," and Nixon resigned in August 1974, with Vice President Gerald Ford becoming president.*** 

Since Nixon would not have been able to run again anyway, as he was term limited, Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, was clearly a force to be reckoned with, as he garnered support from conservatives nationwide. It is interesting that Reagan could run for the presidency, seeing that he warned of the imminent demise of freedom in the country if Medicare became law in the mid 1960s, but Medicare did become law, and freedom lasted to see Reagan run for president in 1976, to see him elected twice, and we're still free in 2012. You think he misjudged? Or exaggerated?

Next, the "Reagan coalition" and the ascendancy of the American political right.

* Wallace carried some of assassinated Louisianan Huey Long's populist ideas along too, as he supported more aid to elderly people on Social Security. As to the red hot issue of the Vietnam War, he preached to either go all out to win the war in a short period of time, or to get out of Vietnam. Wallace was seriously wounded in an assassination attempt by Arthur Bremer during the 1972 (not 1968) campaign and was confined to a wheelchair for the remainder of his life, which ended in 1998 at the age of 79. After his presidential campaigns, Wallace renounced his segregationist views.

** Nixon, as are all presidents, was actually elected by electoral votes: Nixon 301, Humphrey 191 and Wallace 46.

*** Ford had been appointed to replace Spiro Agnew, who resigned in 1973 over legal problems of his own involving tax evasion over brides he received while governor of Maryland.

WORD HISTORY:
South-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, but it likely goes back to Indo European "shuwen," which meant "sun, bright light." This gave Old Germanic "sunno" (sun), which then spawned "sunthaz," which meant "land or area of the sun, southward." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "suth," with the meaning "south," which later came to be "south." When I was a kid, there were people around who pronounced it "suth," which rhymed with "tooth," and this was likely close to the pronunciation in Anglo-Saxon times. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Süd(en)," Low German Saxon has "Süüd," Dutch has "zuid," West Frisian has "Sud(en)," Icelandic has "suthur," Swedish has "syd/söder," Danish has "syd," and Norwegian has "sør." 

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Seven

Updated in NOTE at bottom of the article....

Women were given the right to vote prior to the election of 1920 (Republican Warren G. Harding vs. Democrat James Cox),* but it took many years for women to equal the turnout rate for men (voter registration by women lagged behind that of men). As I said in the previous article, change takes time to settle in. During the election of 1964 (Republican Barry Goldwater vs. incumbent Democrat Lyndon Johnson) I recall a lady in our neighborhood telling other women something to the effect, "Voting is a man's business. One of the worst things to ever happen to this country was when they gave women the right to vote." Now that wasn't 1920, but 44 years later! I'm not saying this attitude was the only reason women lagged in turnout, but the fact is, no one really knows why women voted less, but that lady's attitude so many decades later was undoubtedly much more prevalent in the first few elections in which women could vote.

World War Two undoubtedly had an effect on the role of women in American society, as women took to the workplace to fill jobs vacated by men in military service. After the war, many women remained in the workforce, even if only in part time jobs to help supplement the family income. As time passed, so called "women's issues," like equal pay and the jobs women could apply for, for example, began to emerge and undoubtedly motivated women to register and vote in greater numbers, although it must be pointed out, not all women agreed on what were "women's issues." Overall, from 1920 until 1976, men generally turned out to vote by about a 2% to 4% higher percentage than women, although there have been MORE women vote than men since the 1960s.** From 1920 until the 1930s, Republicans seem to have enjoyed an advantage among women, just as among men. In 1976 (Democrat Jimmy Carter vs. incumbent Republican Gerald Ford),*** the gap between male-female turnout narrowed considerably, but men still voted by a larger percentage, but by 1980 (Republican Ronald Reagan vs. incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter) the gap barely existed, although again, more women voted than men.**** The election of 1984 (incumbent Republican Ronald Reagan vs. Democrat Walter Mondale) brought a change in the political demographics, as women voted, not only in greater numbers than men, but for the first time, in a greater percentage than men, a trend that has continued to the present.***** Since the 1980s, Democrats have made concerted efforts to attract female votes, but often with less than stellar results, which shows that the fears of some men that women would dominate the political world and vote distinctly opposite of men has not proven to be true. Rather it has shown that women vote based upon issues in each election and that they are not automatically beholden to either party, although in more recent elections women have gone pretty decisively Democratic.****** Whether this recent trend has to do with the marked shift to the political right by Republicans remains to be seen, but women have now become important to any Democratic coalition.    

In the 1960s, one of the people I admired most was Margaret Chase Smith, a Republican from Maine. She was the first woman to serve in BOTH houses of Congress, having been appointed to the House of Representatives to fill the seat of her deceased husband, and then reelected several times, and then elected to the Senate. She was very moderate and worked well with people from both sides of the aisle. She served four terms in the Senate, but lost her bid for reelection in 1972.  

* Harding won a landslide victory and most historians assume he won large majorities of both men and women due to the magnitude of his victory, but there were no exit polls with such breakdowns back then, as in more recent times.

** Beginning with the Census of 1950, women outnumbered men in the U.S. population, but men tended to register to vote and vote in higher percentages than women.

*** Gerald Ford and his wife, Betty, and Jimmy Carter and his wife, Rosalyn, were supporters of the "Equal Rights Amendment" (aka, "ERA"), The amendment sought to guarantee equal rights for women, but the "politics" of the amendment were complicated, as some women, covered by government labor laws, feared the amendment would no longer guarantee those protections, while outright opponents, more from conservative political groups and religious fundamentalists, worked hard for the defeat of the amendment. Labor unions, which were male dominated back then, feared passage would cost their male members jobs, but eventually many unions reversed their opposition and supported the amendment. The amendment passed Congress in 1972, and was supported by Republican President Richard Nixon, but failed to get ratified by enough states. Jimmy Carter defeated Gerald Ford in the 1976 election by about 2 million votes, but in the all important Electoral College, the margin was much closer, 297 to 240.

**** Reagan defeated Carter in 1980, with Reagan receiving 50.75% of the popular vote to Carter's slightly more than 41%. In the Electoral College, it was a Reagan landslide, 489 to 49. It should be noted, John Anderson, a former Republican congressman, ran as an independent and received more than 6% of the popular vote, but carried no states, thus receiving no electoral votes. Anderson had some major differences with the growing conservative element of the Republican Party. He is now 92 years old. Reagan opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, the status of which was still being decided by the states at that time. Reagan bested Carter handily among male voters, but only by 47% to 45% among women, with John Anderson receiving about 7% of women's votes.

***** Reagan won in a landslide, both in the popular vote and in the Electoral College. Democrats made history by nominating Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro as their nominee for Vice President, the first woman so nominated by a major party. It didn't help, as Reagan also carried women, although by a smaller percentage than he carried men, by about 56% to 44%.

****** Barack Obama received about 56% of the female vote in 2008, which is more than a tilt.

NOTE: In the 2012 election (Republican Mitt Romney vs. incumbent Democrat Barack Obama), 55 percent of women voted for Obama and 44 percent for Romney, while men voted 52 percent for Romney and 45 percent for Obama. In the 2016 election (Republican Donald Trump vs. Democrat Hillary Clinton), 54 percent of women voted for Clinton to 42 percent for Trump. Trump received 53 percent of men to 41 percent for Clinton. (Figures for both elections from Roper/Cornell University) 

WORD HISTORY:
Rye-This word goes back to Indo European "wrugherio," which meant, "rye" (the grain and the plant). This gave Old Germanic "ruigis/ruigiz," with the same meanings. The Old Germanic word gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ryge," before the modern version, where the "g" sound died out, the only Germanic language where that happened, although the "g" in not usually all that prominent, or distinct, in German pronunciation. The grain's use to make hard liquor also gave the name to that whiskey, "rye." Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Roggen," Low German Saxon has "Rogg," Dutch has "rogge," West Frisian "rogge," Danish and Norwegian have "rug," Swedish has råg, and Icelandic has "rúg."

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Six

First published in September 2012, but slight edit/clarification added August 20, 2017


As noted in the previous segments to this series, during the Great Depression, Democrats assembled a coalition which kept their general philosophy the dominant one for decades. But the coalition was so varied, it is amazing that it held together for so long. Black Americans abandoned the Republican Party for the Democratic Party in the election of 1936 (incumbent Democrat Franklin Roosevelt vs. Republican Alfred Landon), where they have remained ever since. White, often "ethnic,"* workers, both union and non union, previously had often supported Republicans, especially during the Teddy Roosevelt era, but also because of  Republican support for high tariffs on imported goods from the Civil War era clear up until the beginning of the Great Depression. Democrats, on the other hand, tended to favor lower tariffs in those times.** The Great Depression brought such calamity to American industry (a nearly 50% decline by 1933!!!), and also generally overseas, that tariffs became less of an issue, and thus far less of a political advantage to Republicans. Unemployment, the depressed economy and fairer distribution of income took center stage with all workers, union and non union. Franklin Roosevelt and many Democrats and progressive Republicans clearly favored helping workers and unions, in general, and workers shifted to the Democratic Party in droves. The era of Prohibition even played a part in the political realignment of the country.*** In many of the "ethnic neighborhoods" previously mentioned, residents, often, but not always Catholic, were more tightly cemented to the Democratic Party when many Democrats advocated, and got, the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 (the 21st Amendment).(Note: Many immigrants, both Protestant and Catholic, came from cultures where alcoholic beverages, wine, beer or special liquors, were part of their every day lives. People of fundamentalist religious beliefs generally supported Prohibition. I must admit, I'm not sure how many Jewish immigrants or Asian immigrants viewed alcohol in those times.)

By the 1970s, the old Democratic coalition from the 1930s was showing more than a few strains. The Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s (supported by a majority in both parties in both Houses of Congress), but with major opposition by southern Democrats) had brought a backlash from southern whites, and the movement of many blacks northward, mainly into large industrial cites, strained relations with white working class Americans.**** In old city neighborhoods, the general prosperity of the post World War Two era gave working class people a chance to move into developing suburbs and the middle class. Interestingly, the help by progressives in both parties, but mainly in the Democratic Party in that era, in fostering a fairer distribution of income (often by supporting unions) helped make at least some, if not much, of this possible, but once in suburban areas, voters began to be much more selective in their choice of candidates, often turning more conservative and casting their lot with Republicans. To be fair, change is not always easy for people to accept quickly, but until recently, time gradually brought general acceptance of the changes, except for some who have remained angry and determined to turn back the clock. This angry segment of society, often, but not in every case, white and male, became a part of the Republican coalition, although many maintained their registration as Democrats (I told you, change is not always easy or quick), being termed "Reagan Democrats" during the 1980s. Thar's NOT to say there aren't angry members of the Democratic Party too. Remember, by essentially maintaining a two-party system, it isn't easy to keep voters happy with every position announced by respective party candidates. That's part of the coalition building needed to gain and retain political power.  

So what about women? That's next in Part Seven...

* "Ethnic" in the sense that many immigrants had poured into America from the late 1800s and well into the 1900s, often congregating in specific neighborhoods of cities or towns, where they lived and worked. The prosperity of the post-World War Two era helped many of these people, or perhaps more so their children or grandchildren, to move into then developing suburbs of the nation, which then often brought a change to their political views, as will be seen.

** I'm certainly generalizing here, as how tariffs affected markets and prosperity is another debate, but let's keep this simple and common sense. If a company in a foreign country could ship some product to the U.S. cheaper than you could make it here, either as an owner or employee, your business or job was threatened. The higher the tariffs imposed on such imported goods, the less threatened your business or job was. The theory was, with industry doing well, workers would do well, and both business people and workers would spend their earnings on goods in other businesses, thus spreading the prosperity. The main problem was, profits from "protected" industries were not often shared in any sense of a fair manner with workers. Further, the other side was, high American tariffs brought high counter tariffs by foreign countries on American goods sold overseas; so, if you were an exporter, you hated high tariffs. Tariffs were the main source of revenue for the Federal government until the early 1900s. Republicans generally saw tariffs as a "money maker" for Uncle Sam, while Democrats preferred that tariffs only be used to keep the government solvent, and that lesser tariffs could be used to promote the export of American goods.    

*** Prohibition forbid the manufacture, sale or transport of intoxicating beverages in America. It became the law of the land with the 18th Amendment, which went into effect in early 1920. It also spawned the growth and proliferation of organized crime in America, as opponents of the law, often, but not always, Catholic Americans (and hypocritical supporters who liked a little nip once and a while or more) wanted alcoholic beverages, against the law or not. "Bootlegging" soared, as various alcoholic beverages were produced in basements, bathtubs, and backyards. Some of the alcohol produced was downright dangerous, containing impurities that could cause blindness and even death. For those familiar with "The Beverly Hillbillies," the highly popular television comedy of the 1960s, you may recall how Granny kept a still to produce what she called her "rheumatiz medicine," a beverage that could eat right through the table if spilled. Son in law Jed said it was so powerful, he used it to "blow (tree) stumps." The gangster era became famous, as organized crime groups established "business" territories in cities, large and small, where they made money by the shovel full, or maybe, the "bathtub full," would be a better way of putting it. As one group tried to move into another group's territory, fighting would break out, with paid gunmen on both (or all) sides, but casualties of innocent passersby was not uncommon. Chicago's Al Capone is the most famous of the Prohibition era gangsters to most Americans.

**** The immensely popular television comedy "All In The Family" clearly demonstrated the strains in American society, as character Archie Bunker, a working class New Yorker, was appalled and angry over the changes going on around him, including the addition of a black family next door to him. While not a faithful voter (see note), Archie was a Republican, showing how white working class Americans were changing political allegiance from Democrats to Republicans. (Note: In one episode, Archie goes to vote, only to be turned away for expired registration, because he hadn't voted in such a long time.)    

WORD HISTORY:
Wheat-This word, closely related to "white," goes back to Indo European "kweytos/kwi(n)dos," which had the notion of "bright, shining." This gave Old Germanic "(k)hwaitijaz," literally "the bright or shining grain." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hwaete," which then became "whete," before the modern version. Common in the other Germanic languages: German has "Weizen," Low German Saxon has "Weet," West Frisian has "weet," Dutch has "weit," Danish has "hvede," Icelandic has "hveiti," "Norwegian has "hveti,"
and Swedish has "vete.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Five

I'm going to backtrack here in the first part of this article, as I feel I should explain a bit more about the political nature of the country in the post-Civil War era, largely during what is known as Reconstruction and thereafter. It was an important era that brought political alignments (coalitions) for decades.

In the last couple of decades our political system has become increasingly polarized, and we "may" have to look back to the Civil War era to find a time when Americans were so politically divided over such an extended period of time and over so many issues. Some Republicans have even mentioned "secession from the United States," not that I believe that anything  is imminent. The Civil War era division largely centered around slavery and federal power to bring it to an end; a concept opposed by many southern states, whose representatives argued that states had a right to do what they wanted. Of course, the major beneficiaries of slavery were wealthy interests, usually plantation owners and exporters,* who were able to make the "states' rights" issue appear to be at the heart of the matter, not the immorality of slavery. By promoting the idea of a bullying Federal government, which was attacking southern independence, the interests were able to rally a "southern nationalism" to help them keep slavery in place. Poor white farmers and town dwellers, essentially receiving little, if any, benefit from slavery, became its staunch advocates, as they saw attempts to end it as an attack on "the South." If some of this sounds similar to today, you are wide awake.

The defeat of the Confederacy brought occupation to the South by troops of the Federal government. Each former Confederate state had to agree to certain laws before they could be readmitted to the Union, mainly those guaranteeing rights to former slaves. Republicans, the big political winners from the Civil War, as the party had been formed largely as an anti-slavery party, gained political control of most southern states by forming a coalition of blacks, northern white Republican transplants, and "repentant" white southerners.** Former slaves made up a substantial percentage of each southern state's population, but remember, at that time, only men could vote, not women, and blacks were virtually 100% Republican, as it was Lincoln and Republicans who helped them gain their freedom. Many southern white Democrats were elected to local offices, and thus began a period of intimidation of blacks and gimmicks (like poll taxes) to keep blacks from voting. Gradually, white Democrats began to regain control of southern states. In an agreement reached in 1877 over the disputed election of 1876, where Republican Rutherford B. Hayes trailed Democrat Samuel Tilden by more than two percentage points in the popular vote, Hayes won the Electoral College by just one vote, but the agreement provided for the withdrawal of troops from the South, and the ascension of Democrats to power there until the latter part of the 20th Century. Cracks began to develop much earlier in the Democratic coalition, however, over race.

Progressive elements within the Democratic Party,*** with support from none other than Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of President Franklin Roosevelt, wanted black Americans to enjoy the same rights as other Americans, something that was not a fact in those times, even in the north, although the black population was still overwhelmingly concentrated in the states of the former Confederacy. Segregation was the fact, with separate seats for whites and blacks in theaters, restaurants, buses, etc, and separate schools and even separate water fountains. The movement for equal civil rights brought discord among Democrats, as southern whites, although staunchly Democratic, began to voice opposition to such rights for black Americans. At times, some southern politicians like Strom Thurmond, ceased their affiliation with the Democratic Party, at least temporarily, forming the so called "Dixiecrats," with the main aim being the perpetuation of segregation, although as like nearly a hundred years before, under the guise of supporting "states' rights." **** As more black Americans began to move northward to find jobs in northern industrial cites, conflict developed with the indigenous white population, much of it working class.***** The Democratic Party was finding their political coalition being strained, but fear of Republican pro wealthy policies (a carry over from Depression times) kept most Democrats scared enough to keep them in the fold election by election. When President Lyndon Johnson pushed for, and got, civil rights legislation in the mid 1960s, Republican political strategists found a potential opening to bring their stagnant party to possible majority status.******

The 1960s, more specifically the mid to late 1960s and into the early 1970s, were highly tumultuous. The war in Vietnam grew increasingly unpopular and divisive, with bloody protests and riots, at the same time as the civil rights movement for black Americans brought bloody protests and riots. The war brought antiwar people into activist positions within the Democratic Party (a group which also tended to be highly supportive of civil rights). Republicans won a close election for President in 1968 with former Vice President Richard Nixon. Republicans and conservative southern Democrats had been "flirting" for a number of years, but Nixon's appeal to patriotism and "law and order" (code for breaking up riots by antiwar protesters and civil rights groups; that is blacks) brought him a major victory in the election of 1972. Republican momentum to take control of Congress in 1974 or 1976 was derailed by the Nixon administration scandals, sort of collectively called "Watergate." Democrats won big in the 1974 congressional elections, and captured the presidency in 1976, but their era was out of gas, almost literally (oil and gasoline shortages). As the Democratic coalition unraveled, the Republicans were about to build one of their own.     

* The South was highly agricultural in those times, and heavily dependent upon cotton, of which much was sold outside the South, and overseas.  

** I've used the term "repentant southerners," for lack of a better term, but these were southern whites who essentially agreed with meeting the required conditions to rejoin the Union. "Unrepentant southerners" called these folks "scallywags" and they called the white northern transplants "carpetbaggers," after the travel bags they carried, fashioned out of carpet-like material, a fairly common  practice in those times.

*** Many progressives in the Republican Party began to switch to the Democratic Party in the 1930s and thereafter, but the progressive wing of the Republican Party remained fairly strong until 1964 and the nomination by Republicans of highly conservative/libertarian Barry Goldwater. After that, it was pretty much only a matter of time before progressive/liberal Republicans became an endangered species within the GOP.

**** It is worth noting that Thurmond later became a Republican and served in the U.S. Senate until the age of 100. It also is important to note that Thurmond, the staunch segregationist, fathered a child (a daughter) by a black woman. Hmm, I guess he didn't believe in segregation as far as sex was concerned.

***** As I've joked with black friends over the years, "Northerners opposed slavery, but we didn't think you were going to come up here and live next door to us." I'm not naive, and I'm sure someone will take this out of context, but I use it to point out that there were many racists in the North.

****** The 1964 election saw conservative Republican Barry Goldwater carry several southern states in a losing effort against Lyndon Johnson, an indication of how strong racial tempers were flaring in the Old South.

WORD HISTORY:
Slave-The ultimate origins of this word are uncertain, but it goes back to Old Slavic "slovo," the underlying meaning of which had to do with "sounds, utterances;" thus "speech." This then produced "sloveninu," meaning "Slav/Slovene," from the notion "group of people of the same or similar speech/language." This was borrowed by Greek as "Sklabos" ("Slav"), which in turn was borrowed by Latin as "Sclavus," but with the meaning "slave," as many Slavic people had by that time been conquered and enslaved by others. This gave Old French, a Latin-based language, "(e)sclave," and this was borrowed as "slave" by English in the latter part of the 1200s.