The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Fifteen

After long negotiations by President Jimmy Carter and his administration to secure the release of the American hostages being held in Iran, a deal was struck in the final hours of Carter's term, but the hostages did not leave Iranian airspace until Ronald Reagan was officially president.

Republicans controlled the United States Senate for the first time since the early part of the 1950s, and while Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, conservative Southern Democrats, who were called "Boll Weevil Democrats," provided enough support to some Reagan supported legislation to help pass that legislation. There were contradictions in Reagan's life and rhetoric, as one of his core groups of supporters was the "religious right," which pushed a theme of "family values," including opposition to divorce. Reagan was divorced from his first wife, actress Jane Wyman, and he was estranged from a couple of his children: nevertheless, religious right leaders Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson loved Reagan, who rarely went to church and who was not an especially religious person. Reagan's rhetoric opposed abortion, but Reagan never did much on the political front in support of that position. Reagan and his wife, Nancy, came from a Hollywood background in their earlier years, and, as such, they had many gay friends and acquaintances, but neither spoke out about political ads aired on television in the former Confederacy during the 1980 campaign knocking Jimmy Carter's support of equal rights for gay Americans.

President Reagan was shot by John Hinckley on March 30, 1981. Besides wounding the president, Hinckley also wounded Secret Service agent Tim McCarthy, DC police officer Thomas Delahanty and White House Press Secretary James Brady. Brady was shot in the head which caused speaking difficulty and the need for a wheelchair for the rest of his life (he died in 2014). President Reagan required surgery and it took more than six months for the president to recover (he was 70 years old).

In August of 1981, a large economic package pushed by Reagan passed Congress. The package included large tax cuts skewed toward business and the wealthy, but not exclusively. The most crucial vote in the House was 238 FOR to 195 AGAINST. Democratic members in states of the former Confederacy voting for the bill: 2 from Alabama, 6 from Florida, 7 from Georgia, 2 from Louisiana, 2 from Mississippi, 1 from North Carolina, 3 from Tennessee, 8 from Texas and 1 from Virginia (none in either Arkansas or South Carolina). So, to put this into some perspective, the bill passed with 48 Democrats voting for it, with 32 of those Democrats being from the former Confederate states. In contrast, only one Republican from Vermont voted against the bill.

In a controversial act, in early August of 1981, Reagan fired thousands of the nation's air traffic controllers who went on strike. The controllers wanted better pay, but the main issue was a shorter work week in the stressful job. Reagan had voiced support for the controllers' cause during the 1980 campaign and the union endorsed Reagan over Carter in the election. During the campaign too, Reagan touted how he had twice been the president of a union, the Screen Actors Guild (now combined with the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists). In states of the former Confederacy, Reagan's action likely caused little concern, as unions were relatively weak in the southern part of the country, where they even existed there.

Meanwhile, the economy was slipping, as the high interest rates of the Federal Reserve took more of a toll on economic growth, and the nation went into a severe recession, with unemployment reaching nearly 11 % by 1982. In the election of 1982, the first held under the redistricting of the 1980 Census, Republicans weren't spared the wrath of voters, and they lost a combined 26 seats to Democrats in the House of Representatives. Changes in the delegations in the former Confederate states: Democrats gained 3 seats in Virginia, making that delegation 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats; Republicans gained one seat in Mississippi, making that delegation 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans; Democrats gained 3 seats in Texas, all newly created by redistricting, making the delegation 22 Democrats and 5 Republicans, in Tennessee, Democrats gained one newly created seat, making the delegation 6 Democrats and 3 Republicans; Democrats gained a seat in South Carolina, making the delegation 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats; in North Carolina, Democrats gained two seats, making the delegation 9 Democrats and 2 Republicans; in Florida, four new seats were created due to reapportionment, with each party winning two of those new seats and the other seats remaining in control of the same party from the previous election, but now the increased delegation being 13 Democrats and 6 Republicans; Democrats gained one seat in Alabama, making the delegation 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans (states not listed saw no change in party representation in their delegations). In Senate elections, the Republicans gained a seat in Virginia, for the only change in former Confederate states. In elections for governors, George Wallace once again was elected in Alabama as a Democrat, but he replaced a Democrat, so no change in party control. In Arkansas, Democrat Bill Clinton defeated the Republican who had defeated him in the previous election, thus changing the party control there. In Texas, Democrats defeated the Republican incumbent, thus Democrats gained the governorship there.

WORD HISTORY:
Issue-This word, with both noun and verb forms, is related to "exit" (a word borrowed by English). The first part of "issue" goes back to Indo European "eks/eghs," with the notion of "out from, out of, out." This gave Latin "ex-," a prefix with generally the same meaning. The rest of the word goes back to Indo European "ei/ey," which meant, "to go." ^ This gave Latin "eo," with the same meaning. Together, Latin had "exeo," which produced the infinitive form "exire," which meant "to exit, to leave, to go out (from)." This passed to Latin-based Old French as "eissir/issir," with the same meanings. One of its participle forms in Old French was "issue," and it was this form that was borrowed by English in the late 1200s. The meaning of a person's or couple's "children" derived from the notion of "children coming from the parent or parents," and developed not all that long after the word was borrowed into English. It was the legal system in England where the meaning, "legal matters," developed, a meaning that then broadened beyond court. The verb meaning of, "to send out, to give notice, to present to an individual or to the public," was also sometimes used in legal matters, as well as governmental matters, as it usually conveyed a sense of authority ("The court issued a summons to the man," or, "The traffic cop issued a ticket to me for speeding." Ah, unfairly, of course!) Later it also came to be used for "handing out, distributing, supplying," as in, "The commander issued weapons to the civilians in the town."

^ It "seems" that Old Germanic also had a form from this Indo European word, which gave Old English "eode," which later became "yode," and was the past tense form used for "go," although it was unrelated to the word "go." To confuse matters more, "yode" itself was replaced by "went," a word related to neither eode/yode" nor "go," but rather was the past tense of "wenden," which is now simply "to wend."

The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Fourteen

The 1980 election proved to be decisive, as former Democrat turned Republican, Ronald Reagan, defeated incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter. Reagan, a former actor, had previously been governor of California, while Carter was a former governor of Georgia and a peanut farmer. The hostages being held in Iran certainly weighed on the election, although as I recall, Reagan didn't directly exploit the issue, because he didn't have to, everyone knew about it, and no one really knew what to do about it, including Republicans. Instead, Reagan talked about a military build up and "a strong America" as a way to get respect abroad. The economy was really the central issue of the campaign, as high inflation, led by the high oil and gas prices of the 1970s, dragged on the economy. Carter appointed Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1979 and the Fed began a policy of constant interest rate hikes to wring inflation out of the economy. The whole process was very painful, as interest rates soared, and borrowing money became an expensive proposition, if it could even be done. As part of this, the 1970s had seen an increased issuance of what was becoming an ever more popular form of credit... CREDIT CARDS! The interest rates on these cards soared right along, and the economy slowed. Many Americans didn't necessarily blame Carter for the country's economic problems, or for the hostage situation in Iran, but he also couldn't solve the problems; at least, not as quickly as Americans wanted. A decade and more earlier, Southerner and segregationist George Wallace had often claimed, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats;" thus, Wallace ran for president as a third party candidate. In the 1980 election, we began to see a shift in ideas, as the more conservative Reagan laid out his plans, including large tax cuts, which were touted to largely "pay for themselves," and large increases in military spending; thus, drawing some sharp contrasts to Democrats, whom Reagan and conservatives termed, "liberals," not that that this was the first time that designation had been used. The thing was, Reagan's conservatism worried many people, but after a reassuring performance at the lone presidential debate in Cleveland, polls shifted dramatically and Reagan won a big electoral victory over Carter, including in the former Confederacy. Overall, Reagan won 489 electoral votes, including those of all former Confederate states, except for Carter's native Georgia, although Reagan won Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee by close margins.**

In the Senate, Republicans made gains in the former Confederacy, as they took seats in Alabama, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina. In the House of Representatives, Republicans gained a seat in Florida making the state's delegation 11 Democrats and 4 Republicans, while Republicans gained two seats in North Carolina, making the delegation 7 Democrats and 4 Republicans, in South Carolina, Republicans gained two seats, making the delegation 4 Republicans and 2 Democrats, in Texas, Republicans picked up one seat, making the delegation 19 Democrats and 5 Republicans, and in Virginia, Republicans gained 3 seats, giving them 9 seats to 1 for the Democrats. In a hotly contested  governor's race in Arkansas, Republicans defeated incumbent, and future president, Democrat Bill Clinton.
 
* During the Republican nominating process (primaries and caucuses), Reagan's major opponent was George H.W. Bush, who dubbed Reagan's economic ideas as, "voodoo economics," a term which continued to be used long after Reagan defeated Bush for the nomination. 

** Reagan talked about support for "states' rights," a term that drew fire from civil rights groups and Democrats for its history as a "cover or code term" for pro-slavery positions, and later, for support of suppression of civil rights for black Americans and for pro-segregation positions. Reagan said he meant he supported things like education being turned totally over to states and local communities, and that he felt the federal government had been unsuccessful in many endeavors, declaring that the government had declared war on poverty (under Lyndon Johnson), but that poverty had won. He also would often say that one of the most fearful things for a person to have happen, was to have a knock at the door and be told, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" (he often tended to pronounce the word as, "govment"). It all played well with people in the former Confederacy, who perpetuated the South's long contentiousness with the federal government over slavery leading up to the Civil War, then the war itself and then the occupation of the former Confederacy by federal troops in the aftermath of the war (Reconstruction). Of course, the contentiousness and hatred continued with many of the things I've covered in previous parts in this series, including the battles over segregation and civil rights. 

WORD HISTORY:
Trend-The ultimate origin of this word is unknown, but it goes back to Old Germanic "trandijanan," with the notion of, "curve or bend in a rounded course." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) the verb "trendan," meaning, "to turn about/around, roll." This then became "trenden," before the modern form. It wasn't until the mid 1800s that the meaning, "events moving in a particular direction," became fixed to the word, as this developed from a late 1500s seafaring meaning, "the course of a shoreline or coast." The old form also spawned "trundle," of "trundle bed;" "a low setting bed on wheels" (round objects), and also the verb of that spelling, "to roll something on wheels." English also once had "trendel," "orb, ring," and "trinde," "lump, rounded mass." The various meanings over time make it difficult to research other Germanic relatives, but an interesting relative is Danish "trind," meaning, "plump, rounded." 

The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Thirteen

NOTE: I forgot to mention this in an earlier segment: In the primaries of 1972, George Wallace ran in the Democratic Party primaries. He opposed busing, but said that he had changed his mind about desegregation in the general sense. In the former Confederate states, Wallace won a stunning victory in the Florida Democratic primary, winning 75 of the state's 81 delegates to the Democratic Convention, with nearly 42% of the vote, far more than any other candidate in the race. Hubert Humphrey finished a distant second with 18 1/2% of the vote, and he won the 6 remaining delegates. Wallace also won big victories in North Carolina, where he received more than half of the primary vote, and in Tennessee, where he garnered more than two-thirds of the vote. In May of 1972, Wallace, while campaigning in Maryland, was shot and paralyzed from the waist down by Arthur Bremer. Bremer, who had actually intended to assassinate President Nixon, but then chose Wallace, was released from prison (probation) in late 2007. The assassination attempt ended Wallace's presidential bid in 1972. I was on my way to umpire a little league baseball game when I heard the news of the shooting, as a man was running along the sidewalk shouting, "George Corley Wallace just got himself shot."

----------------------------------

The 1970s saw the American economy struggling with increased oil and gasoline prices (brought on by instability in the Middle East), which put upward pressure on overall prices, which put a drag on the economy, a situation that came to be called "stagflation." Further, automation continued to whittle away at jobs, and business people with industries in northern cities began to look more and more to the South for ways to cut costs. Southern states had resisted labor unions to a great extent, so business people saw this as a way of cutting labor costs. Gradually this transfer of jobs and industry (and not just heavy duty industry) southward to the "Sunbelt" (named for the warmer climate) would pick up steam, leaving behind the communities in the northern part of the country as the "Rustbelt;" that is, older, declining industrial centers. The Confederacy had surrendered more than a hundred years before, but suddenly the slogan "the South will rise again," began to come into play.

The Republican Party had long been tilted in the direction of conservatism, going back more obviously to the split in the election of 1912, which saw former Republican president, Teddy Roosevelt, run against his Republican successor, William Howard Taft, who proved to be too conservative for the more progressive Roosevelt.* This split allowed the election of Democrat Woodrow Wilson as president. Wilson was a Southerner, having been born in Virginia and raised there, as well as in North Carolina. He later became president of Princeton University in New Jersey, which led to his election as governor of that state.

With the Great Depression and the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in four successive elections, Republicans generally staked out positions at least somewhat to the right of Roosevelt. This general tendency toward conservatism was solidified during the turbulent 1960s and 1970s, as Republicans, generally seen as pro-business, were also seen as, and campaigned on, being the party of law and order, especially as compared to the Democrats, who slugged it out with each other over the Vietnam War, segregation and many social issues, such as abortion and women's rights, in the 1960s and 1970s, leaving socially conservative elements of the party to come more into play for Republicans. If you've been following this series, you've seen the Republicans become more and more competitive in the former Confederacy.

A longstanding foreign policy issue was over the Panama Canal, or actually more specifically, the Panama Canal "Zone," which had been under U.S. control from the time of Teddy Roosevelt. The overall debate about the canal zone is complex, as the international situation of the U.S. versus the Soviet Union, the fear of the spread of communism and the political positions of Latin American governments had much to do with the politics of the canal. "Generally" speaking, many conservatives, sort of led by Ronald Reagan and South Carolina senator, Strom Thurmond, opposed the negotiation of a new treaty about the canal or the canal zone. The issue became highly  contentious, but in the end there were two separate treaties signed and then ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1978 (ratification requires 2/3 affirmative vote of the Senate).

In what became a major event of the times, following a revolution in Iran, which brought to power a fundamentalist Islamic government, more than 50 American embassy personnel were taken hostage and held prisoner beginning in November 1979. The crisis went on and on, and the network news shows (no cable news in those days) began opening their newscasts with, "Day 120," or, "Day 187."** An American military rescue attempt in the spring of 1980 failed and the hostage crisis continued to hang like a dark cloud over the 1980 election process.  

In the nomination process for the 1980 election, incumbent Democrat and Southerner, President Jimmy Carter, was challenged by Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy of Massachusetts, the brother of slain President John F. Kennedy and slain presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Carter won all primary contests by big margins in the former Confederacy against Kennedy.

On the Republican side, Ronald Reagan easily defeated George Bush (Sr.), and a number of other candidates, in primaries in states of the former Confederacy, although the vote in Texas was much closer, Reagan 53% to 46% for Bush. Overall, Reagan won the Republican nomination by a comfortable margin.

Next... The Republicans Choose Reagan and The South Follows

* Teddy Roosevelt was a distant cousin of future Democratic president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, but he was the uncle of Franklin's wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, the daughter of Teddy's brother.

** A friend of mine told me that his wife, who suffered from bipolar disorder, was so distraught over the hostage situation, that he and his family had to keep her away from the television during the news, as it upset her so much. 

WORD HISTORY:
Ordeal-The main body of this word, "deal," goes back to Indo European "dail/dhail," which meant "divide." This gave Old Germanic "dailiz/dailaz," meaning "a part, a share, a portion." The prefix "or-" goes back to Indo European "uds," with the notion of "upwards, up, out." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "uz," meaning, "out, out from, away from." In Old English this developed into "or-," while in German, for instance, it developed into "ur-" (originally "ir-," and it also gave German the prefix "er-," for many words, and in English also "a-" as a prefix in some words). The prefixed form in West Germanic was the verb "uzdailijan," meaning, "to deal out a judgment;" that is, "to give a verdict." Lying behind the meaning was the notion of "judgment received from the gods," and later, after Christianity spread among the Germanic tribes, "judgment by God;" that is, "judgment rendered by a physical test," as survivors or those uninjured were seen as innocent and non survivors or those injured were seen as deservedly dead or injured, as they had been guilty. "Ordeal by fire" is still something we hear of in modern times. The West Germanic word produced the Old English noun "ordal," meaning, "judgment by test;" with the spelling later becoming "ordeal," and the meaning of, "something that severely tests a person," still very much a meaning in the word, which has kept it much closer to the original meaning; whereas, in the other West Germanic languages, the word has come to mean "judgment, verdict," in the more general sense, without the "physical test" element. Forms in the other West Germanic languages: German has "Urteil," Low German Saxon "Ordeel," Dutch "oordeel," West Frisian "oardiel." 

The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Twelve

The former Confederate states were becoming more competitive politically, a situation that would only grow in the future, as the South's Democratic Party tradition strained under that Democratic Party's continued stand against any segregation and discrimination and its move away from absolute hard lines in foreign policy; interestingly, actually moved much to the forefront a few years before by Republican Richard Nixon in his meetings with both China and the Soviet Union.* The earlier antiwar movement was often centered in the nation's colleges and universities, with that movement also having linked to the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, along with dress and hairstyle changes, trends not heartily embraced in the more tradition friendly southern states. **   

In the midterm election of 1978, Republican Thad Cochran won a senate seat in Mississippi, and this was the only party change in the former Confederate states in the Senate. In the House, Republicans gained 1 seat in Arkansas, making the delegation 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans; Democrats gained 2 seats in Florida, making the delegation 12 Democrats and 3 Republicans; in Georgia, Republican Newt Gingrich won a seat, making the delegation 9 Democrats and 1 Republican; in South Carolina  Republicans gained 1 seat making the delegation 4 Democrats and 2 Republicans; in Texas Republicans gained 2 seats making the delegation 20 Democrats and 4 Republicans.*** In governorships: Republicans gained the governorships of Tennessee and Texas, while Democrats retook the governor's mansion in South Carolina. This was not a party change, but future president Bill Clinton was elected governor in Arkansas.

* Nixon had gained prominence in national politics as a tough anti-communist while serving in the House of Representatives from California after World War Two, but especially so, when he ran for a Senate seat in 1950, by referring to his Democratic female opponent as, "the Pink Lady;" a reference, actually begun by her Democratic primary opponent, meant to accuse her of being "close with communists, while not actually accusing her of being a communist." This was all at a time of the early years of the conflict between communism, led by the Soviet Union and China, and "the West," led by the United States and Britain. When Nixon visited and negotiated with China and the Soviet Union, the selling line was that Americans could trust Nixon to negotiate with communist nations, because of his steadfast record against communism. It all became sort of reduced down to, "Only Nixon could go to China." I should add, in those times, China was always referred to as, "Red China."    

** Our definitions of "tradition" can be a hard chore to accomplish, as tradition based upon what era? In the former Confederacy, where the era of the Confederacy was looked upon favorably by a significant part of the population, that era had men with lots of facial hair and long hair, something much more akin to the 1960s and 1970s, where that style was more common among antiwar protesters and people advocating looser sexual mores and attitudes towards drugs, as well as support for women's rights (often called "the counterculture" by conservatives), something not so readily accepted by many in the South, where the often clean shaven and short hair of the World War Two and immediate postwar decade seems to have been the "tradition" being upheld, as well as opposition to drugs and women's rights. While I'm certainly generalizing here, I want to make the point that not all political change and openness to Republicans in the former Confederate states was about race.       

*** An interesting note in Texas: future president George W. Bush run for a congressional seat, but was defeated. 

WORD HISTORY:
Weevil-This word, related to "weave," goes back to Indo European "webh," which meant "to move to and fro, to move about;" thus also, "to weave." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "webilaz," the name for a type of beetle, "perhaps" from its motion? Or the use of its snout so as to seem to weave? This gave Old English "wifel," with the same meaning. This then became "wevel," before the modern form. Forms in the other Germanic languages: German has "Wiebel," now a seemingly archaic term for a type of beetle,^ Low German "Wivel" also seems to be less used in modern times, as is Dutch "wevel," Old Norse, the forerunner of Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Swedish, had "vifill," used in "tordyfill," literally, "turd beetle;" that is, "dung beetle," but finding the use of a form in modern Danish, Norwegian and Swedish has proven to be difficult, although that doesn't mean they no longer exist, as they too, may now be dialectal or archaic.  

^ The more common modern word for a weevil in German is, "Rüsselkäfer," literally a, "snout or trunk (like of an elephant) chafer (beetle)." Weevils have a trunk-like snout. 

The Former Confederacy & Modern American Politics, Part Eleven

A Supreme Court decision in the early 1970s (Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education) allowed courts to use the busing of students to help with desegregation of schools.* It was an explosive issue. In the fall of 1972, I remember talking with one of the professors of my college who was originally from either Tennessee or North Carolina, I just can't remember now. He mentioned how busing in his home state had caused tempers to boil over. 

Watergate, the presidential pardon of Nixon, a slow economy and the loss of Vietnam left President Gerald Ford highly vulnerable when he chose to seek a presidential term of his own. Remember, Ford had not faced voters on a national level; but rather, he had been appointed as vice president and then assumed the presidency when Nixon resigned. Former governor of California Ronald Reagan challenged Ford for the Republican nomination in 1976. Interestingly, Reagan was a former Democrat and Ford counted many congressional Democrats as some of his closest friends (he had long served in the House of Representatives). Reagan had established himself as a prominent conservative in the 1964 election, when he spoke openly on behalf of conservative Republican Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. At the Republican Convention, Ford eked out a first ballot win over Reagan, but in the former Confederate states, he carried a majority of delegates only in Florida and Mississippi. Meanwhile, in the Democratic race for the nomination, a Southerner, former Georgia governor, Jimmy Carter, won the nomination against several well known Democrats, "perhaps" because he was not a Washington insider. Being affiliated with Washington after the Nixon administration scandals was a negative to some voters. So now we had a moderate Georgia Democrat versus a moderately conservative Michigan Republican. How would the former Confederate states vote?

Jimmy Carter carried all of the former Confederate states, except Virginia, which he lost to Ford by only about 1 percentage point, although Carter only carried Mississippi by slightly less than 2%, while in states like Texas, Florida and Louisiana, even though Carter won pretty comfortably, Ford drew more votes than might have been expected. Overall, Carter won the popular vote nationwide by about 2% and he won the electoral vote 297 to 239, as 1 Republican elector from the state of Washington voted for Ronald Reagan, not Gerald Ford.

In the Senate, Democrats won the race in Tennessee, while all other party affiliations in the former Confederate states remained the same. In the House, the only changes were in Virginia, where Republicans gained 1 seat, giving them a 6 to 4 edge in the state's congressional delegation, and in Texas, Democrats gained 2 seats, making the delegation 22 Democrats and 2 Republicans. In governors, the only change in party was that Democrats retook the governorship in North Carolina.

* Remember, prior to the mid 1950s, there were legally mandated separate schools for white children and black children in the southern states, while much the same was true in the northern and western states, although not by law in those areas, but rather by practice. When desegregation of schools (and other facilities) was ordered, the problem of separate schools remained, as most of American neighborhoods were heavily segregated. So, generally speaking, former "legal" black schools remained black schools, because the schools were in black neighborhoods, just as former "white schools" remained essentially white, as they were located in white neighborhoods. Underlying that whole situation was that funding for legal "black schools" was less than for legal "white schools," which essentially did not change when desegregation became the law of the land, because of the segregation of neighborhoods, and because of the racial divide in school administrative systems and state legislatures, which were overwhelmingly white, and which provided school funding. Busing took children from their own neighborhood, and away from their local white or black school, to a school in another neighborhood to try to achieve some racial balance, with the idea being that funding and care of schools and supplies would then "even out." Make no mistake about it, busing was highly controversial among both white and black parents and students, but among people already holding racial animus, it inflamed ill feelings even more. Many white parents put their children into religious or other private schools, where they had to pay separately for their child's education. Most black Americans did not have the financial resources to pay for private schooling, thus they had to keep their children in public schools (funded by taxes), so in many communities with fairly large black populations, the public school systems became overwhelmingly black. This began to affect more and more cities in the northern and some western states, as black Americans migrated to other areas for economic opportunity; often, to northern industrial areas.    

WORD HISTORY:
Ball-There are a couple of words of this spelling in English, but this is the word for "a round object," and which is related to "balloon."^ The word goes back to Indo European "bhel," which had the notion of "swell, bloat out, to bulge." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "balluz," which meant, "swollen or bloated object;" thus later actually, "round object." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "bealla," meaning, "round object." This was reinforced by the related Old Norse form "bollr," which meant "ball," brought to England by Danes and Norwegians, often collectively called "Danes." The word then became "balle," before the modern form. Other Germanic languages have: German and Low German "Ball," West Frisian and Dutch "bal," Danish "bold," Norwegian "ball," Swedish "boll," Icelandic "bolti."  

^ "Balloon" is a borrowing by English from Italian, but the Italian was derived from a Latin form borrowed from Germanic. 

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Thirteen

"Conservatism Takes Power-Reagan"

In January of 1981 Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. The ordeal of the American hostages in Iran, which had lasted well over a year, reached an end on Jimmy Carter's last full day in office, after extensive negotiations, but in an apparent effort to give Carter as little attention as possible, the Iranians only released the Americans from custody the next day, right after Reagan took the oath of office.
 
Reagan and Republicans began to try to implement their agenda, which included big tax cuts and large increases in military spending. To achieve his goals, Reagan worked with conservative Democrats, particularly in the House of Representatives, which was under Democratic control. By appealing to these Democrats, Reagan forged a coalition in the House which often provided him with a working majority. The country faced an inflation rate in the double digits, and the Federal Reserve, under Carter appointee Paul Volcker, sought to squeeze inflation out of the economy through interest rate hikes and a slowing economy. Interest rates reached 20% during 1981, and more than 21% the next year. Gradually the high interest rates slowed the economy considerably, bringing about a severe recession, which technically began in the summer of 1981. In the meantime, an assassination attempt on Reagan in March 1981 left the President hospitalized, and others wounded, including James Brady, Reagan's White House Press Secretary, who suffered a severe wound to his head, which left him disabled thereafter. The gunman was a mentally ill man named John Hinckley, who had also worked on plans to kill President Carter. Reagan was rushed to surgery and he remained in the hospital for about two weeks, but it took a few months for him to fully recover.

As Reagan recovered, but the economy moved lower, the President pushed his initial economic plan through Congress later in the summer of 1981, by which time the economy was in full retreat and unemployment eventually soared to nearly 11% in 1982. Democrats quickly pinned the severe downturn on Reagan and his policies, but in my opinion, the recession was overwhelmingly the result of policies implemented by the Federal Reserve to curtail inflation. Reagan's plan cut taxes for high incomes from 70% to 50% and from 14% to 11% for the lowest bracket, and the rate of taxation on capital gains fell from 28% to 20%.* More than a year later in the fall of 1982, the economy had worsened and Reagan's popularity had diminished considerably. Democrats scored significant gains in the House in the midterm election that year, but Reagan was still able to use conservative Democrats as part of his legislative coalition to get things passed. The severe economic downturn brought about a decline in inflation and a gradual lowering of interest rates by the Federal Reserve. Huge budget deficits from the tax cuts, high unemployment, and increased military spending helped stimulate the economy, in spite of Reagan's anti deficit rhetoric. Unemployment, the worst since the Great Depression, began to slowly recede.

All in all, a year or so before the presidential election of 1984, Reagan looked like a one-term president, but Reagan had a knack for keeping his coalition together, although his rhetoric often actually contradicted his policies or real life experience. The "religious right" became a force to be reckoned with in American politics during Reagan's presidency, and its leaders, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, preached "family values" and they loved Reagan, although Reagan had been divorced and had estrangement problems with a couple of his children, plus he rarely attended church. In the end though, most Americans liked Ronald Reagan and that helped to sustain his presidency. Polls showed his likability, while Americans were lukewarm or out and out cold toward some of his policies or ideas. Reagan loved to joke, including about himself, a characteristic seemingly liked by most Americans. Reagan tended to be in his White House office from like 9 to 5,** a preference he in fact admitted to, and Democrats dubbed him "lazy," but Reagan cracked a joke about his office hours that generally sticks in my mind to this day. When asked about his hours by reporters, Reagan told them something like, "My mother always told me hard work never hurt anybody, but I decided to take it easy, just in case she was wrong." (Although I've put this in quotation marks, this is NOT an exact quote, but rather a paraphrase from my recollections, and Reagan "may" have used variations on his quip at different times.)

With Social Security facing financial problems, Reagan worked with Democrats in 1983 to keep the popular program solvent. Reagan had long advocated that Social Security be voluntary, but in 1983, he completely reversed himself and joined with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill to bring more revenues (deductions from paychecks) and reforms to Social Security, including gradually raising the retirement age. Reagan proved himself to be far less dogmatic than many had feared, while still keeping his conservative base intact. Americans tended to see in Reagan what they wanted to see, something that has continued to this day, as the now far more conservative Republican Party talks how Reagan didn't increase taxes, or that he had firm convictions, while all of the historical evidence on such matters shows them to be wrong, and that doesn't count the enormous budget deficits run during his presidency, even AFTER the economy had recovered from the terrible recession earlier in his term.*** Reagan regularly met with Democrats, and while he and Speaker O'Neill did battle in public, they frequently shared a drink and joke telling at the White House. This was politics on a personal level, something never done much or well by Jimmy Carter.

Next, "Conservatism Consolidates Power-Reagan"

* You can see the entire bill or its major provisions at various sites. The actual law was termed, "The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981," although it is also called the "Reagan tax cuts." Capital gains taxes are paid on profits from the sale of assets, and therefore tend to largely, but not entirely, benefit wealthier people. For example, just to keep this simple, you buy stock for $100 and you sell it for $300, you therefore pay capital gains based on the $200 profit. Since wealthier people own a huge percentage of all stocks, bonds, and property, they tend to benefit more by a lower capital gains tax rate. The actual percentage of such assets owned by the wealthy is somewhat in dispute, but it seems that the top ten percent in wealth own somewhere between 80% and 90% of these assets. The idea of capital gains taxes was to tax "non earned income;" that is, income not derived from working at a job or business.

** Democrats made an issue of Reagan's office hours, but by all accounts, he did take lots of work upstairs to the White House residence each day, and let's be honest, in spite of criticism by both parties of presidents from the opposing party going on vacation or not working hard enough, no president is EVER truly on vacation or off duty. Both parties get silly about some things, when there are far more important debates to engage in.

*** It is important to note about the deficits in this manner, because recessions cause budget strains, as higher unemployment brings a drop in tax revenue, while simultaneously increasing spending on  unemployment payments and programs like food stamps or public works. "Ideally" when the economy is stronger, deficits would be low, non existent or turned into surpluses. None of this happened under Ronald Reagan by the time he left office in January 1989, nor was he close to achieving such. 

WORD HISTORY:
Smite-This word traces back to Indo European "smeid," which had the notion of "rub, smear," and further, "hit, strike." This gave Old Germanic "smitanan," which meant "to throw, to fling, to smear," with the "throw" meaning likely a development from "smearing mud or lime onto a wall or object, after throwing it there." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "smitan," which meant "to smear, to make dirty, to hit." In this case, "hit" likely expanded beyond the "throwing" of mud or lime, to include other things, more generally. This later became "smiten," before the modern version. The word came to be used in Biblical translations with the meaning "slay," again likely from the notion of "hitting an enemy with a spear, rock or other thrown weapon," and it is this general meaning that has persisted into modern times. While not an every day word in English anymore, it is still in use, and it still has relatives in the other Germanic languages, which largely retain the "throw, fling" meaning (unless otherwise noted): German has "schmeissen," Low German Saxon has "smieten," Dutch has "smijten," West Frisian has "smite," Danish has "smide," and Swedish has "smita" (this has come to mean "run off," probably from the notion of "throw, projecting something away from the speaker"). Norwegian and Icelandic apparently no longer use forms of the word.

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.   

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).

Paying The Piper-Part Four-B-Does Obama Get It?

First a little disclaimer: Since "it's the economy, stupid," I'll say this, many people have compared the last couple of years to the Great Depression and have compared Obama to Franklin Roosevelt or to Herbert Hoover.* While we came close to a new depression in late 2008, and we aren't totally out of the woods yet, the devil is in the details. The circumstances which faced Hoover, and then Roosevelt, were different from today. When the Great Depression started, America still had a substantial, although dwindling, agriculture component as a percentage of the economy, and the country had become a major industrial powerhouse in previous years. With American agriculture having been depressed throughout much of the 1920s; that is, prior to the onset of the actual Great Depression, many small farmers and laborers had headed into cities and towns to seek jobs in America's bustling factories or associated businesses. When the economy went belly-up, and they lost their jobs, they couldn't just decide to go back to the farm, because agriculture was in terrible shape, even worse than in the 1920s; thus unemployment in many cities was extremely high. Back in those times though, most businesses in this country were owned by Americans, were headquartered in America, had plants in America (with some scant exceptions), and relied upon the American economy and the American consumer to make those businesses successful. Increasingly in more recent times, many companies located in America are foreign-owned or have large interests (plants and outlets) in foreign countries, with workers provided by those countries, or in some cases, like BP, for instance, are foreign-owned and located overseas (the actual headquarters), but have plants or outlets here. In just casually watching some business news on television in recent years, I've heard it said that many "American companies" are more dependent on markets in foreign countries for the biggest share of their profits, than right here in this country. Now, I'm NOT slamming foreign countries, or American companies with large foreign interests, but there's no question that all of this has an effect on OUR economy and OUR country. The question is, is that effect good or bad? I'm not sure we know the answer to that question, as we've never seen a situation like this before, and the answer will always depend upon who is giving that answer. If you are in the importing business, you will probably say the effect is "good." Will things get to be every business for itself and who cares what happens to the country? Maybe, but eventually what happens here helps or hurts most of the world. To those who wonder why "history" is important, this is why. We look to the past for answers about the present and the future. So this situation is one major difference facing Obama that neither Hoover or FDR confronted.

Next, we have so much, what I'll call, "political information" available to us, it is absolutely mind boggling. Notice I didn't say it was necessarily truthful information. We've always had some of this, but now maybe it's tied to our "legalistic society," where lawyers toss accusations and theories around to defend clients, and that is part of our system. While I'm not a lawyer, I do believe a judge has to allow such theories to be used based upon some realistic foundation.** Further, unlike in the not too distant past, there are all sorts of ways to get these accusations and conspiracy theories out to the public. Claims can now be made on the blogosphere, talk radio, cable TV, or by mass emails. They then get picked up by the more traditional media, and off they go. It happened to George W. Bush and it has certainly happened even more, in my opinion, to Barack Obama. All of this hurts the presidency. I'm not for squashing debate or free speech, but so often there is a lack of reason. What is perhaps more troubling is that these folks have fairly large audiences and followings. What has gotten into America's drinking water? Polls show a disturbing percentage of Americans believe Obama, not Bush, started the bailouts of banks and auto companies (he didn't, Bush did, but Obama continued those policies) and that Obama is a Muslim (he's not, he's a Christian). This is not the sign of an informed American public, nor is it the way America will be able to compete in the modern world.

Then we have the political parties. These are not the same parties of a few decades ago, and in some officeholders' cases, not even the same as fairly recent (witness Charlie Crist of Florida changing from Republican to independent, and a couple of southern Democratic congressmen changing to the Republican Party). The Democratic Party has always been pretty raucous, some times VERY raucous. Why? Undoubtedly a lot of reasons, but perhaps the most important is about regional philosophy. Some of the most conservative elements of this country were, until fairly recently, Democrats, not Republicans. The South came to be known as the "solid South," in political terms, because in the post-Civil War era, the states of the old Confederacy (and even many so called "border states") voted Democratic.*** In fact, there weren't many Southerners who even dared identify themselves as Republicans, because, unlike in recent times, Republicans were the party of the Federal Government, and Lincoln was far from a revered figure in the South. These conservative elements often clashed with the more moderate or progressive Democrats in other parts of the country. On the other hand, some of the most progressive/liberal elements of the country were in the Republican Party a number of decades ago, and this too brought about some major philosophical clashes among Republicans. Ever so gradually conservatives, mainly "fiscal" conservatives at first, began to take control of the Republican Party. The 1970s and 1980s brought the much more socially conservative elements into the party until it truly became the conservative party of the country, leaving little room for liberals/progressives, or even in some cases, moderates. At this very moment, there is still a battle going on within the party over who is conservative enough.

So, for quite some time, both parties had a big mixture of conservatives, moderates, and progressives/liberals. With such a mixture of these philosophies being represented in both parties in Congress, members frequently reached across to members of the other party to work together on legislation for the country, something that is sorely missing so often today. Today's Republican Party is pretty much limited to people who identify themselves as conservatives, some even espousing such so called conservatism that Ronald Reagan, the man who initially brought conservatism to power, and made it acceptable to many Americans, would not qualify as a Republican. Democrats have many progressives/liberals, but also many moderate to moderately conservative supporters, especially in southern and border states, while many Americans have chosen to declare themselves as independents.

With the two parties so philosophically aligned now, the venom has poisoned the political atmosphere. Politics has never been much of a profession for the faint-hearted, but now it has truly become a "knock 'em down, kick 'em, and drag 'em by the hair" donnybrook. In this case, Obama is much more like Herbert Hoover, at least so far. Like Hoover, his basic temperament is less combative. His opponents have done just about everything they can to dirty his name and image. The question is, can he bounce back? Bill Clinton was pummeled too, and some of his wounds were self inflicted, but Clinton, no matter what you may think of him, was a fighter, as is Hillary.

To be continued in Part 4 C.... (A Word History is below the notes)

* For those interested, this link will take you to "The Great Depression-Part One," a multi-part series which I did a few years ago. You can then get to the rest of the series by clicking on either "Herbert Hoover" or "the Great Depression" in the "labels" listed at the bottom of Part One.

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/08/great-depression-part-one.html


** What I'm getting at is, if you are on trial for murder, saying "I'm on the government death panel," isn't necessarily going to fly with a judge, unless that judge is Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin.

*** Political philosophies aren't subject to state borders, and while border states didn't attempt to leave the Union, many people in those states had strong sympathies for the Confederacy, and like the states of the Old South, these feelings didn't die with the end of the Civil War.

WORD HISTORY:
Five-This numerical word goes back to Indo European "penkwe/pengke," which meant "five." This gave the Old Germanic offshoot "fimfe/fenfe" (I found both forms). This in turn gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "fif," which later became "five." There are many relatives to our word throughout the Indo European languages, sometimes a bit "disguised," but our other Germanic relatives are: German "fünf," Dutch "vijf," Frisian "fiif" (that is double "i"), Low Saxon "fief," Danish, Norwegian and Swedish "fem," and Icelandic "fimm."

Are We Back To The ' 70s?

Listening to some analysts talk about the economy, there's been discussion about whether we are now back to a late 1970s scenario. After all, we have Jimmy Carter as president... OOPS! As you already know (and probably regret), we have George W. Bush as president, so I must apologize for the comparison to Jimmy Carter, so here I go: "While I didn't care for you as president, I apologize, Jimmy, for comparing you to George W. Bush! That was a cruel and inhuman remark."

Anyway, some analysts have been comparing the tremendous increases in oil/gasoline prices and food prices with the late '70s, and they seem to be wondering if we're in for another bout of what was then dubbed "stagflation." The term referred to stagnant economic growth, but rampant inflation. For what it's worth, I'd say there isn't as big a comparison. Back then, unions were relatively strong (certainly as compared to today) and they were able to get wage increases to keep purchasing power for many folks, as even the non-union people benefited from union negotiating power. That is not true today. The gap between the richest Americans and the rest of the population has widened to levels unseen since the 1920s, when unions were also weak, or non-existent in many sectors of the economy.

In the late 1970s, Paul Volcker, the Carter-appointed head of the Federal Reserve, began to raise interest rates. That policy continued into the early 1980s, with rates reaching around 20%, if my memory serves me right. We had a very sharp and severe recession in the early 1980s, but the country actually rebounded faster than many thought that it would. Again, I come back to wages. In my opinion, with most people's wages not in a free fall back then, and with government cost of living increases for people on Social Security and extended unemployment benefits, these things helped to keep many average people in the ballgame. With purchasing power not as diminished, the economy actually went on a tear eventually. The negative thing, looking back, was that the Reagan tax cuts, while necessary in my opinion, began the march to a widening income gap, as they did tilt toward the wealthy. With Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, many programs for low and middle income people continued, in spite of calls from the "sit on their ass class" to dismantle them.

Today, I just don't think Americans have the purchasing power. Wage and benefit cuts have left many Americans drifting toward Third World status, if you want to call that "status." Home values, if you have managed to stay out of foreclosure, are so diminished, that equity loans are seldom an option for many folks; so that source of cash is gone. Credit cards have been maxed out by many, and that dried up another source of money. Even people with fairly good incomes are now being scrutinized for loans, and even denied, so there just isn't the purchasing power anymore. Then, of course, there's the price of energy and food. By the time many Americans put gas in their tank to get to work and buy food for their families, they are one step away from foreclosure, or eviction, if they are renters. The country sits on the edge of a cliff. Will it tumble over that cliff?