Voting Is Not A Game, There Can Be Serious Consequences

Competition in sports and other activities can bring us tremendous satisfaction from individual or team accomplishment, but after celebrating victory, life moves on to the next game or to the next part of life. Politics is NOT like a game. Election results can bring real consequences, good or bad, often depending upon point of view, in their aftermath. I've written here before about my father's competitive nature and how it affected his political views. He was long a staunch Republican, and he was against Democrats, not because he disliked them, but because they were on the "other team." One time he was talking with a guy out in the yard. When he came inside, he said the guy's name (I don't recall the name now, but this was about 45 years ago) and said he had gone to school with him. The man was running for a political office, county commissioner, I believe, and my father said all kinds of nice things about the guy. This all prompted me to ask, "So, you're voting for him?" He said, "No, he's a Democrat." If I remember correctly, he didn't even know who the Republican candidate was, but it didn't matter, because whoever it was, was on his team. This is how it worked in my dad's world.

Back then, the Republicans, or at least a part of the Republican Party, generally the more conservative part,* had long seethed over Social Security, a program established in the mid 1930s, during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, but with a good deal of Republican support and some Democratic opposition.** Conservative and libertarian Barry Goldwater secured the 1964 Republican nomination for president, and Goldwater was no friend to anyone on Social Security, as he essentially believed it should be voluntary, an idea that could well have led to "Social Insecurity." Well my dad supported Goldwater and tried to play down Goldwater's rough edges, of which there were many. While an outspoken and honest person, Goldwater, in my opinion, hated living in (then) modern times and he would have preferred a more distant time, unless, of course, a time machine dropped him off as a poor person in the 1600s, where "work until you drop (dead)," was largely the way of life for the overwhelming percentage of people not in the nobility. An idea like Social Security would have sounded pretty good to old Barry in those circumstances, and let's forget about that "voluntary" stuff. Anyway, eventually, as with all of us who live long enough, my dad came face to face with the realities of getting older, and the opposition within the Republican Party to Social Security had continued, if not increased. He then saw that politics is not like some sporting event to be won or lost, but that elections could turn your life upside down, and at a time in your life when you had become highly vulnerable, older age. When Republicans took over both houses of Congress in 1994, the situation was much on his mind, as he mentioned how Republicans were too connected to big money interests just greedily rubbing their hands together, hoping to get those hands on Social Security money. How times had changed!  

* I need to point out, that in those times the two major political parties were not as they are today. I think it's safe to say that the most conservative elements in the country were in the Democratic Party, as the South was then known as the "solid South;" that is, it overwhelmingly voted Democratic by tradition dating to before the Civil War. This allegiance to the Democratic Party was HEAVILY reinforced in the post Civil War time, because the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and an anti slavery party, the party that led the Union in its defeat of the South, as well as in the occupation of the South (Reconstruction). The post World War Two "solid South," however, had been showing the strains of an increasing number of  Democrats moving to advocate for the breakup of segregation and fairer treatment of black Americans, a part of the population then still heavily located in southern states, although some black Americans began to move northward to large industrial cities in hopes of landing good paying jobs. The post World War Two Republican Party still had a fairly potent moderate to progressive wing, eventually led by New Yorker Nelson Rockefeller. Just my opinion, but the venomous part of conservatism was even in evidence back then, as some conservative Republicans absolutely HATED Nelson Rockefeller. That nasty element received lots of reinforcements in the times leading up to today, as the conservatives in the South shifted from the Democrats to the Republicans. Just to be clear, not all conservatives are like this, and wanting checks on spending and government power is not necessarily a bad thing, but rather they are worthy of debate.   

** For more on the establishment of Social Security, here is the link to an earlier article I did:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2009/09/yikes-were-already-socialists.html 

WORD HISTORY:
Virus-This word, closely related to "virulent," and more distantly related to "viscous," both words of Latin derivation borrowed by English, goes back to Indo European "weis," with the meaning, "slimy liquid." This gave Latin "virus," meaning, "plant sap, slime, foul smelling liquid, venom." English borrowed the word in the second half of the 1300s from Latin with the meaning, "venom;" thus also, "poison." By the first half of the 1700s, it was applied to "infectious substance," and by the 1970s, the idea of "infectious substance" began to be used for "transmittable computer program for malicious use;" thus, "computer virus."  

Just Who Is Trump Running Against?

Recently billionaire Donald Trump announced a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency. He said a lot of things, some basically true, some "iffy," some absolute nonsense, in my opinion, but one of the things that caught my attention was how he seems to have taken up the mantle of Ross Perot, who ran for president as an independent (at first), in 1992, when there was an incumbent Republican president, George H.W. Bush, who I usually refer to as "Bush, Sr." When Perot, actually a Republican, ran, we had had nearly twelve years of Republican presidential rule; eight years under Ronald Reagan, and going on four years under Bush, Sr. Perot clearly touched a nerve in the country, as for a time, he led in many of the polls taken in the spring and summer of 1992. One of Perot's most potent issues was his opposition to trade agreements that would send many American jobs, especially in manufacturing, out of the country. The thing was, while the two major political parties of that time were somewhat different from what they are today, Republican support for such agreements was strong, while Democratic support was far less, with a good many Democrats fervently against such agreements. It was during Reagan's time as president that the U.S. began experiencing balance-of-trade deficits with China.* So was Perot admitting he had made a mistake supporting Reagan and then Bush? Is Trump, who preached about China's economic power, admitting he made a mistake supporting Republicans who generally favored free trade laws?

Perot also touched another nerve over the national debt, a number which had soared on the Reagan and Bush watch. He made fun of "voodoo economics," an expression used by Bush, Sr. to describe Ronald Reagan's economic plan, when the two ran against each other in the 1980 Republican primaries. Reagan's plan essentially called for huge tax cuts, big increases in military spending, and (mostly) unspecified budget cuts, but that the tax cuts would "pay for themselves," by stimulating the economy, and they would not cause deficits. While most segments of the taxpaying public saw some money from the tax cuts, the biggest beneficiaries were the wealthy. The economy boomed, but so did deficits. Perot mentioned the "voodoo economics," followed by "we're now in deep voodoo," a play on "doo doo," for those unaware.** So was Perot admitting he had made a mistake supporting Reagan and Bush?

Anyway, Trump emphasized he would bring back American jobs from overseas, but he didn't say exactly how he would do so. Many politicians have railed against the loss of jobs to other countries, but there really hasn't been anyone, Republican or Democrat, who really has presented a firm plan, that has public support, to do so. Since I do a lot about words, let me do some translation here. American businesses often moved plants and jobs overseas for one reason, and only one reason .... to make MONEY! Capitalism is about one thing and only one thing ... making MONEY! It is NOT about you or your family, or educating your children, or providing you with affordable medical care, or providing for you in your old age, or providing for you in your younger age, for that matter. No, it is about investors making money! Big business and its investors saw foreign labor markets where workers made a fraction of what American workers made, and they made the conscious decision to move work to other countries, especially once American tariffs were reduced or abolished, thus making it cheaper to send the produced goods from these low wage nations to this country. The so called "free traders," often more from the conservative side of the political spectrum, didn't scream about patriotism or traitorous behavior or any such other things. This was about making MONEY!

So does Donald Trump propose to make American wages and benefits even lower to bring back jobs from overseas? Does he propose to raise taxes on companies who send jobs overseas? Just what does he propose to do? Over time, wages in some countries have risen, making some American companies consider moving some jobs back to America, and from what I understand, that has been actually happening to some degree, but I'm not exactly sure how much of this has been happening.

Trump also talked about workers who can't get jobs, and he more or less promised to see that everyone has a job, because that will make those people have more self respect, although I just forget his exact words. The thing is, if wages and benefits are reduced enough, just about anyone could have a job, BUT will they be able to live on the pay? Will they be able to save for their future? Will they be able to raise a family? Will they be able to get good educations for their children? Will they be able to afford health care for themselves and their families? Or will they be worked for long hours for little pay and few if any benefits, just to make sure people like Donald Trump make billions? What is your answer to that question, Donald Trump? And just which party are you actually running against?***

* See: http://www.iie.com/content/?ID=27

** "Doo doo" is a nice way of saying "shit," and Perot played on the expression, "We're in deep shit."

*** Trump also told supporters how the U.S. has spent two trillion dollars in Iraq, with the implication being that it was wrong to do so, but the funny thing is, it was the Republican Bush-Cheney administration that sent the troops there in the first place. So is this an admission by Trump that he supported the wrong political party?
       
WORD HISTORY:
Weave-This word, related to "web," goes back to Indo European "webh," which meant "to weave." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "weban(an)," with the same meaning. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "wefan," also with the same meaning, and this then became "weven/weaven," before the modern version. The noun was derived from the verb. The other Germanic languages have: German "weben," ^ Low German and Dutch "weven," West Frisian "weve" (little used?), Danish "væve," Icelandic "vefa," Norwegian "veve," and Swedish "väva."

^ The common German name "Weber" is simply "Weaver" in English.

"It's About Coalitions, Not Purity" Part Forty-Three

George W. Bush and Social Security

Upon entering his second term, George W. Bush chose to pursue changes to Social Security, an idea he had mentioned early in his first term. The Social Security issue was and is complex and this won't be a recounting of the whole system and the proposals for change. If you are interested in this subject, please check your local library for more detail.

There were various proposals made about Social Security, but essentially Bush proposed allowing individuals to invest a small percentage of their Social Security contributions in private investments of some type (generally stocks and/or bonds). The idea was that each American would then have a private account with their own retirement funds.* There were two major problems with this: one, the money used for these investments would be diverted from the existing Social Security system, thus depriving the system of that income. Two, stocks and bonds fluctuate in value, and this fluctuation, as well as the knowledge needed "to try to make" wise investments, added a definite risk to each person's account. If you were "lucky," and your investments turned out well, you would have more money than someone whose investments were less profitable, and likely far more than someone whose investments went "sour." ** With less money going into Social Security, how much damage would that mean to the system? If Social Security payment amounts to individuals were reduced and your "investments" had gone "sour," what kind of "security" did this provide for you at the most vulnerable part of your life, old age? Social Security isn't perfect, but it invests in special government (and very, very low risk) bonds, which earns the fund interest.

In 1935, the Social Security law was passed by large majorities in both houses of Congress, with a large percentage of Republicans voting "yes," and it was then signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt. As the years passed, more and more conservative opposition to Social Security mounted until, in the 1964 election, conservative Republican Barry Goldwater,*** the GOP presidential candidate, espoused making Social Security voluntary. Because Democrats and FDR had led the campaign to get Social Security enacted, the American public tended to give Democrats the credit for the law, something which continues pretty much to this day, although conservative opposition to the law has helped the public decide which side is in their favor.

While Bush's proposal would have had individuals investing in stocks and bonds, Wall Street investment banks and stockbrokers nationwide would have seen new streams of money from these investments.**** The public heard Bush's proposal and it essentially fell like a dud, and the President eventually gave up on actively promoting the plan. This Social Security non-starter, as well as the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mounting oil and gasoline prices, and the loss of jobs to technology and to low wage countries, all tugged mightily to drag down George W. Bush.  

* Many Americans "may" believe they have a bank account type Social Security account in Washington D.C., complete with funds being held in that account. This is not true. Social Security is a "pay as you go" system, with relatively recent revenue (how recent has varied over the years) being paid out to current recipients.

** This is simply how private investment goes, and to be honest, some people study all sorts of information about investing, hoping to do well, but they get "burned," because there is risk, even considerable risk, in any such investments. "Knowing how to invest" is not an exact science, and there are no guarantees, although it can be helpful, in my opinion. On the other hand, someone little versed in investments may score big, purely by luck, and luck is certainly a factor in investments. Roulette anyone? Having done a bit of betting on horse and dog racing earlier in my life, I can tell you how some people had all kinds of formulas and used all sorts of info to figure out how to make a bundle with their "educated bets." The thing was, not a one of these people ever made enough to vacation on the Riviera, or to even travel much more than about fifty miles away. I actually ended up ahead of the game over those years, but not all that significantly, although I once picked the winner in five straight races, and I didn't have a formula.

*** I say, "conservative Republican," because in those days, the two political parties were mixtures of progressives, moderates and conservatives.

**** I've noted here in some articles over the years, how my father, who was a staunch Republican, supported Republican ideas about voluntary Social Security and private investment of funds (Bush's plan was not really all that new). My dad supported these ideas, that is, until he retired, at which time he saw how necessary Social Security was to so many people, including to himself and to my mother, who had worked for a good part of her life, thus earning her a separate Social Security check. When the Republicans took over Congress in the 1994 election (taking office in early 1995), they began to press for changes to Social Security, which brought a scathing comment from my father that the Republicans and big business couldn't wait to get their hands on that Social Security money. My father was very good with numbers, as he had been both an auditor for an auto parts company and then the head of the credit union for his Steelworker local. It took his own retirement to see what his previous support for the Republican ideas had really meant.

WORD HISTORY:
Hearth-This word goes back to Indo European "ker," which meant "fire, heat." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "herthaz," which meant "fireplace, the ground used for fire." This gave Old English "heorth," meaning "fireplace, fire," and even, "home," apparently from the usage of the word for "indoor place for fire;" thus making it a symbol for one's home (this extended meaning was also in German). Later "heorth" became "herth," before the modern version. The other Germanic languages have: German "Herd," which means 'hearth," but also transferred to the modern cooking device; thus "stove, range;" Low German "Heerd," also meaning "hearth/stove;" Dutch "haard," meaning "fireplace;" Swedish "härd," borrowed from Low German and meaning "hearth." I could not find a form in modern Frisian, but Frisian once had "herth," meaning "hearth, fireplace." Apparently forms of the word died out in the northern branch of Germanic, but Old Norse had "hyrr," meaning "fire," and as noted, Swedish borrowed the word from Low German, "perhaps" because Sweden was a military power in the 1600s and 1700s, and the Swedes occupied sections of northern Germany, which was Low German speaking, although trade between northern Germany and Sweden is also certainly a possibility.

"It's About Coalitions, Not Purity" Part Forty-Two

"Medicare Prescription Benefit"

Before I move directly to George W. Bush's second term, I want to touch on the Medicare changes enacted in late 2003, which resulted in a great deal of prescription drug coverage being added to the program, but the law didn't fully take effect until 2006, during Bush's second term. The 2003 Medicare reform law pushed by President Bush had many complexities and not all prescriptions were covered under all circumstances. The bill was controversial on both sides of the aisle. While most Democrats had favored providing a prescription coverage element to Medicare for some time, they also generally charged the Bush proposed legislation gave too much power to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries,* and that it further pushed "a move toward privatization," ** with the Medicare Advantage segment. Hardline conservatives generally opposed any expansion of Medicare, citing the costs and the deficits being run in the federal budget. Prior to the congressional vote, the Bush administration released a projected cost of $400 billion dollars for the prescription plan over ten years, but within weeks of passage, the administration released a new cost projection of more than $500 billion over the same time period, especially bringing more criticism from conservatives. The final bill was passed and signed into law by President Bush. The vote in Congress: House of Representatives vote: 220 for (204 R-16 D) and 215 against (25 R-189 D- 1 I) and the Senate vote: 54 for (42 R-11 D-1 I) and 44 against (9 R-35D), 2 not voting (2-D).***

* The law prohibited Medicare from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, and the law required seniors to choose an insurance company or HMO for the prescription benefit, but that participation in the prescription program was purely by individual choice; that is, it was voluntary.

** Like with everything medical, changes to Medicare in 1997 were complex and to try to keep this as simple as possible, the law introduced "Medicare + Choice," which generally allowed seniors the option of having a private insurance company (or HMO) plan to cover their basic part of Medicare (hospital stays, physicians and outpatient tests and procedures), "plus" other coverage and pricing structures beyond those of traditional Medicare, but with Medicare paying a standard fee to the private companies for each senior. The insurance companies "could" charge seniors a monthly premium or higher copays for certain services, in addition to their premiums going directly to Medicare. The 2003 changes to Medicare brought prescription coverage to traditional Medicare, which the private plans usually already offered, which brought changes to how the private plans were to be compensated by Medicare. The "Medicare + Choice" program was renamed "Medicare Advantage." Critics of both the 1997 and 2003 changes argued that with seniors who were better off financially able to essentially pay for extra services outside of Medicare, that eventually only the poor and sickly seniors would be left in traditional Medicare, making them vulnerable to cuts in medical benefits, and perhaps an eventual abandonment of Medicare altogether by politicians, as healthier seniors and those with more financial means could actually save money and get better coverage by going to private plans. Remember, private companies have to make a profit and the easiest way to do so is to insure people who are healthier and thus "less likely" to use expensive medical services. Of course this was before the health care reforms of 2010.

*** Just a note: Later, Republicans Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum criticized "entitlements," but both voted "for" the Medicare expansion in 2003. Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, who was no longer in Congress at that time, offered support for the legislation, later to join in the criticism of entitlements.    

WORD HISTORY:
Shave-This word goes back to Indo European "skahb," which meant "to scrape, to scratch." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "skaban(an)," with the same meanings, which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "sceafan/scafan," meaning "to shave, to scrape." These then became "shaven" (meaning "to shave"), before the modern version. Later the noun form, "a shave," was derived from the verb from the notion "something shaven" or "something shaved off." Both "shaven" and "shaved" are used for participle forms, with "shaven" especially used as an adjective, as in, "The witness said the man has a clean shaven face." "Shaved" is also the past tense form, shared with the now archaic "shove" (long "o"). By the way, English also once had the noun "scafa," which meant "plane;" that is, "tool for planing, shaving wood," but modern "shaver" "seems" to be derived or patterned after it. The other Germanic languages have: German "schaben" ("to scrape," "to plane," also somewhat less often, "to shave"), also the German noun "Schaber" ("scraper"); Dutch and Low German "schaven" ("to plane"); West Frisian "skave" ("to scrape, wear down"); Swedish "skava" ("to scrape"); Icelandic "skafa" ("to scrape"). Neither Danish nor Norwegian "seem" to use a form of the word in their standard modern languages.

The Ship That Sailed

Note: While originally publish in March of 2014, I modestly updated this September 28, 2014.

When Barack Obama became President of the United States the ship of economic change had come into the dock. In my opinion, the fact that he was the first African American to be elected president was essentially irrelevant on the economic front, although it was significant in that it pointed to the "changing feelings" in the country regarding race, but the idea that Obama's election signaled a "post racial" era, was nonsense, as notice, I didn't say "completely changed feelings regarding race." No, the ship of economic change came calling, because when Barack Obama was elected, the nation's economy was in meltdown. Americans were fearful for their jobs and for their overall well being, and certainly for their futures. Surging oil and gasoline prices in prior years had sapped the purchasing power of many, a purchasing power already diminished for some by the transfer of jobs overseas, with the resulting cuts in wages for a number of Americans, and a continuing "transfer of wealth" to the very upper incomes. Republicans, much diminished in political power in both houses of Congress, as well as in opinion polls, generally decided to make a stand against the new president by opposing just about anything and everything he either proposed or supported, including things many Republicans had once supported, or had even proposed.* No question in my mind that some, but certainly not all, of this Republican opposition was based upon race and the new president's non typical name, but it was also, in my opinion, based upon $$$, as the nation's greed mongers feared the new president would curtail and corral their run wild activities, which they slyly love to call "free markets." As it turned out, no major banker went to prison over the absolutely scandalous mortgage mess, and strict proposals to curb such activity were successfully watered down before they were enacted by Congress and signed by the president, and no new tax on derivatives' and futures' transactions for Wall Street traders became law. Even with their relatively successful efforts to limit public control over their endeavors, the whiny rich bankers kept... well, whining.

President Obama had a chance to hit the "reset button," and to ride the issues of bank/financial reform and the tremendous economic inequality in the country to bring about significant change and to improve the lives of millions of Americans by helping to make the system fairer. As I've noted in previous articles, Barack Obama is not a politician; he's more of an intellectual, with some political skills, primarily the ability to give great speeches. Both Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt understood the populist undercurrents of their times, and both men used those undercurrents to propose and to help enact change to a system that had been dominated by business interests and wealthy individuals, although neither man had to worry about his next meal or having a roof over his head. Obama's choice, however, while certainly related to income disparity, was to tackle the massive thing we call "the health care system" in this country. Various figures suggest "the health care system" makes up something like one sixth or even one fifth of the American economy. We Americans can be tough to please on just about any issue, but to please Americans on reforming such a massive part of the nation's economy was virtually impossible, and his decision helped the wealthy to escape from the position they had put themselves into when the economy imploded, and it led to a Republican resurgence in the midterm election, giving the, by then, even more conservative Republicans control of the House of Representatives, numerous governorships and state legislatures, all with the nation's congressional and state legislative districts about to be redrawn, but with Republicans then often in control of the process.** The President and his administration, seemingly unable to comprehend the potency of the healthcare issue, even after the blow torch was put to their behinds in the 2010 election, could not even get the roll out of THEIR new health care law right, as website snafus and postponement of certain provisions have proven to be an embarrassment, if not yet a fatal blow. On top of all of that, the president and those in his administration had to know the law, or at least parts of it, would be challenged in the court system, with eventually a likely hearing before the Supreme Court. This of course happened, and the law was upheld, but let's be honest, who would have thought this law would be upheld by the vote of conservative John Roberts! Of course, a win is a win, but "my guess" is, further decisions on various parts of the law will not see Roberts ever stray from the conservative line again, as he has already demonstrated in the "Hobby Lobby" case. The thing is, it looks to me that the President and his administration did not anticipate the challenges in the Supreme Court, a group which leans to the conservative side, a fact they already certainly knew.

So President Obama let the ship of economic change sail, with him waving goodbye to it from the dock. The President, Democrats and average and poor Americans better hope it doesn't return to the dock on his watch. Cuts to programs for the poor have already taken place and that's been with Obama as President. More power is now concentrated in a hand full of banks than when he became President, when many banks were called "too big to fail." The overwhelming percentage of economic gains have gone to the wealthiest Americans since the President took office in 2009, and median household income has so far declined every year of his presidency.*** If Republicans get control, look for even worse, as the wealthy will continue to move to cement their wealth within their families by the removal of estate taxes (and dare I say, more tax cuts for them from Republicans, who have a terrible case of worry over the plight of millionaires and billionaires) and the move toward further rule by the rich ("plutocracy") will accelerate. The problem is, with the ship having sailed, it looks like many of us will be able to say about the President is, "He wasn't as bad as having a Republican." Not exactly a good legacy.

* Republicans were divided over the bailouts of the auto industry, initiated by the administration of George W. Bush, and of the banks, a major program proposed and pushed by President Bush and his administration, both of which did get Republican support, but with many dissenters. Obama expanded the auto industry bailout, and continued with the bank bailouts, often drawing the ire of Republicans, who acted as if Obama had started both of these programs and seemingly disavowing any Republican association with either. Health care reform, including mandates for individuals to get insurance, had been pushed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts and also supported by Newt Gingrich, among other Republicans. Once health care reform was proposed by Obama, the Republicans were almost unanimous in their opposition to the proposal, forcing the two former prominent supporters, Gingrich and Romney, into contorted reversals. So called "cap and trade," also was largely a Republican idea, dating back in some form a few decades. This was the general idea that limits for certain air pollutants would have "caps" placed on them by the government, and that permits would be issued to companies regarding these pollutant emissions. Companies that successfully limited certain or many pollutants could then sell their permits to other companies not as successful in these endeavors, giving them added time to comply (thus the idea of ''trade"). See this Politifact article for the general history of both Republican and Democratic involvement in "cap and trade" over time:   http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/may/23/debbie-wasserman-schultz/cap-and-trade-legislation-was-originally-republica/

** For more on the importance of the 2010 midterm election, see my article at this link:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/05/why-2010-was-such-important-election.html

*** For details about income, see the Huffington Post article at this link:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/median-income-falls-inequality_n_3941514.html

WORD HISTORY:
Well (2)-English has a couple of words "well," this is the noun, "a hole in the earth where liquid or gas comes, or is brought, to the surface." (I already covered "well," the adverb, which is a different word.) Actually, the noun comes from a verb, which goes back to Indo European "wel," which had the notion "roll, move or turn violently." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "wellanan/wallanan," with much the same meaning, but also the related "bubble up." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "weallan," with the meaning "to toss up violently, to seethe, to bubble up." This later became "well," with the sense "to surge/flow up" (example: "The leak caused water to well up around us"). The original Old English word produced the noun form "wielle," meaning "water hole, spring," which then became "welle," and then "well," where it has remained for many centuries. The other Germanic languages have forms with various meanings, some examples of which are: German has the verb "wallen," which means "boil up, surge forth, churn," also another verb, "wellen," which means "to become wavy (or uneven, as in carpet ... get it?) and the noun "Welle," which means "wave" ("water that churns up"); Low German has "Well," also meaning "wave," Dutch has "wel," meaning "source" (a well or spring is "the source" of life around it), and the verb "walsen," "to roll." By the way, "well" is also distantly related to "waltz," the dance performed "with a rolling motion."

Conservatives Were Lucky

A few months ago on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," regular guest Jon Meacham, a respected author and editor, commented that "conservatives have won the argument" about cutting the budget, but while I have tremendous respect for Meacham, I must disagree, or at least "clarify," on his point, although it "appears" (or "appeared" at the time he made the statement) that conservatives have (had) won that argument. First, the conservatives, or more specifically the Republicans, were politically lucky that the economy took the dive it did in the waning months of the Bush administration. The worst political case for the Republicans was for them to win the 2008 election, especially with John McCain, a man many conservative true believers have detested for years, and still do. With polls still showing a majority of Americans, including about half of Republicans, hold George W. Bush responsible for the severe economic downturn, if Republicans had held the presidency and the Senate, I can't imagine it would have meant anything but a virtual obliteration of the Republican Party.* The policy of just letting things collapse until they could collapse no further would have been a recipe for their own destruction, if they dared to continue such policies. And some of the true believers would undoubtedly have continued to push such policies. Remember during the Gulf oil spill as the coast, the tourist industry and the seafood industry were devastated and disrupted, one Republican congressman publicly apologized to BP! Don't think the true believers ever "get it," they don't.

Huge deficits run during Bush's terms were forgotten by the conservatives, and even the nearly one and a half TRILLION dollar deficit inherited by Obama from Bush was then used AGAINST Obama.** As the economy began to right, the deficits also began to decline, although slowly. When deficit reduction was discussed, Republicans refused to consider any tax hikes to help lower the deficit. With responsible economists across the political spectrum saying that there needed to be some mixture of spending cuts and tax hikes, Republicans sat on their hands, refusing to raise taxes on the so called "job creators;" that is, the ultra rich, none of whom (see Word History, below) would have noticed the extra tax money missing from their monthly statements.***

When Obama defeated McCain, I have to believe some conservatives heaved a sigh of relief, as they then did not have to face the brunt of the economic plunge, nor its aftereffects. Instead they worked up a message that never mentioned any conservative involvement in the unfolding disaster. They quickly pivoted to place blame for the situation on the new President and Democrats. Although that message has not been totally successful, it did shore up the Republican/conservative base. When a couple of Republicans strayed from the ranch, they were lambasted for not standing firm with other Republicans.**** In the early going, the President correctly reached out to Republicans, even adding tax cuts to the actual stimulus plan to garner GOP votes, but it was virtually for naught, as Republicans, once so in favor of tax cuts, declared the cuts were not enough, and that they did not favor spending money directly to thwart the downward slide. Then a few months later, rightly or wrongly, President Obama gave the Republicans and conservatives a shot in the arm they could never have administered to themselves, health care. For about a year a titanic struggle played out day after day in front of an often disconnected American public, who thought the President had come to office to fix the economy. Some Republicans who had previously favored an "insurance mandate," quickly changed positions once Obama embraced their own basic plan. ***** Eventually the President won, but the cost was high, and his popularity has never totally recovered. Gleeful Republicans, then having been allowed to get back up off the floor, mounted an all out attack in the midterm elections, maiming Democrats across the country, and taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

So my point is, did conservatives win the argument? I say we don't really know, because they didn't have to face the music of the worst part of the economic downturn, and the economy still hasn't healed from the devastating blows it took. In other countries where cut backs have been put in place, economic growth has been slowing, and in fact this slowing could have a serious impact on our own economy. Some conservative governments in these countries have either been voted out (France), or have taken major hits in recent elections (Germany). To me, the verdict is still out, although most Democrats and most progressives agree that the deficit must be brought down, albeit gradually, something many have been saying independently from Republican demands of more immediate reductions.******

* Don't cheer too loudly Democrats. Some other party would have replaced it, or it would have survived on life-support, as there is always a counterbalance that eventually comes into play. And that is not a bad thing, although I can hear the names I'm being called for writing that.

** To be fair, the initial inherited deficit was increased slightly by certain stimulus spending, added after Obama took office, but the main deficit had been passed to him by the previous administration. The stimulus bill passed by Congress and signed by the President had spending spread over a couple of years, not concentrated in one year. Further, with the economy in headlong retreat, shrinking revenues only made things worse. I told you conservatives were lucky not to have won the 2008 election.

*** The "Bush tax cuts," as they have come to be called, cut taxes substantially on incomes in the top 2 to 2.5 %. The "bottom" of that bracket involves incomes of about $250,000 per year. While most of us would love to earn that much, that amount in itself doesn't necessarily make one wealthy. Myself, I did NOT support raising taxes on this income group. A debate raged at the time within Democratic circles over the income level higher taxes should start. Some suggested $500,000, others suggested one million dollars, something I DID support and still do! While much fuss was made by both sides, the taxes on upper incomes would have only increased about 3 1/2%, although you'd have thought from Republican rhetoric that Democrats were out to confiscate upwards of 100% from millionaires and billionaires.

**** Beleaguered and battered Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector even switched from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

***** The basic idea was that if everyone, or virtually everyone, was going to be covered by a national plan, then everyone would have to purchase insurance. Insurance is based upon a "pool" of insured; that is, paying customers. In spite of the largely successful Republican rhetoric about "a government take over of health care," Obama supported free market insurance companies to insure Americans. Yes, the government would require people with preexisting conditions be covered, but it would also require that people buy insurance (or have company offered insurance), with extensive subsidies provided to lower and middle income people to help with the purchase of such insurance. The conservative policy group, the Heritage Foundation, was one of those conservative groups IN FAVOR of such a basic plan just a few years ago; in fact, I believe they PROPOSED IT. Other supporters of this approach were none other than Mitt Romney when he helped get statewide insurance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, and Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of the House. The idea is, if everyone is insured, including people with preexisting conditions, the "pool" has to be large enough to cover those people. This is just for example, but let's say you work for a company with 100 employees and you have hornswoggle of the big toe. Don't ask me what that is, I may tell you. The insurance company may not want to cover you, as you are higher risk, or let's say they agree to cover you for like $20,000 a year (ah, like I said, they don't want to cover you). If they can get the other 99 employees (let's say they are basically healthy) to buy insurance, they can lower the cost to you and the others to something much more reasonable, as the risk has been spread out.

****** Generally polls have shown deficit reduction much further down the agenda of most Americans. That doesn't make it right or wrong, but it does not support the notion that conservatives have won the deficit argument.

WORD HISTORY:
Who/Whom-This common pronoun goes back to Indo European "qwos/qwes," with several related meanings, but basically "who." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "(k)hwas/(k)waz," again with several related meanings, one of which was "who." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hwa," which later became modern English "who," and the "wh" was pronounced, but has obviously since been lost, but that's the reason for the modern spelling. "Whom" is the dative form of "who;" that is, for the object of a sentence or phrase, but its usage has slowly been in decline, as to many English speaking people, perhaps more so Americans, using "whom" seems a bit "high-style," or awkward; so we tend to say, "Who did I gave the book to?" Not the technically correct "To whom did I give the book?" Anyway, "whom" in Old English was "hwam." Various forms are common in the other Germanic languages, but as I noted in the Old Germanic (and Indo European) word, the basic word had several meanings (like "how" and "that" and others) which have come down to modern times in various forms in the Germanic languages. Standard German has three forms, not counting the genitive (possessive) form (I've mentioned before that German retains much of the complex Germanic grammar of old that was gradually simplified by its cousin, English): "wer," "wen" (accusative form), "wem" (dative form); Low German also has "wer" and "wem," and some dialects have "wäm" for "whom;" West Frisian has "wa;" Dutch has "wie;" Norwegian has "hvem;" Icelandic has "hver;" Danish has "hvo" and "hvem,"and Swedish has "vem."

Obama Creates Bipartisanship

Unless you have been visiting another planet lately, you know the country is in the midst of a major discussion about taking action against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad. President Barack Obama recently  came out in favor of the action, after he was convinced that Assad had used chemical weapons on his opponents in Syria, where there has been an ongoing civil war for about two years now. The whole situation has turned American politics on its head, as the President's decision has created bipartisanship the likes of which we have not seen since near the end of the Bush administration, as the economic meltdown brought people from both parties together. The thing is, this time, it has created a divide in both political parties, as some Democrats have joined some Republicans (we'll know how many of each officially very soon) to support the action, and some Democrats have joined some Republicans to oppose the action. Polls show Americans against the action by a substantial margin, and members of both houses of Congress say calls and emails to their offices are also running heavily against involvement in the conflict.

This President has a terrible habit of handing his opponents, both domestic and international, issues to use  against him, and he has gotten himself into a terrible situation, and it's HIS fault, no one else's, regardless of the talk where he indicated the world had drawn a red line in any country's use of chemical weapons. Did he consult with "the rest of the world" to get them to commit to the action they agreed to take in a hypothetical situation?  The answer appears to be "no," or if he did consult with them, he apparently didn't like their answers and he made pronouncements about Assad having crossed a red line and that action would be taken by the United States. It is important to note, the British Parliament just recently voted against Britain's involvement in this action, even though British Prime Minister David Cameron supported the President's position. The President then decided to get the approval of Congress, which, unless I miss my guess, he will not get, and he will face the fallout from it, which has the potential to be substantial, both at home and abroad. On the other hand, to go forward with military action, with or without the approval of Congress, will also bring fallout, both domestically and internationally, as he and Congress will be going against both American and world public opinion in a major way; it's called "lose, lose." He can't back away, because his ego won't let him, nor will the political situation he has created with his position, but he's damaged himself regardless of what now happens. Poor judgment on his part from the very start.

The evidence against Assad is all circumstantial, at least at this point, and much is based upon intelligence, a device severely tainted by the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to argue for an invasion of Iraq, a conflict which brought thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions in expenditures to America, whose citizens were never asked to pay (in money) for the war. What was not paid for in money, was paid for in lives and suffering of our wounded, and in the suffering to the families who suffered losses of life and limb.

 To further add to this current terrible situation, Secretary of State John Kerry has said there is no major Al Qaeda presence among Assad's opponents, a comment that seems highly suspect to me. This also brought Russian leader Vladimir Putin to publicly call Kerry "a liar." Now to be fair, Putin, while friendly with former President George W. Bush, seemingly can't stand President Obama, but Obama did stick his finger in Putin's eye (symbolically) early on after taking office.* Putin's ego stretches somewhere from Moscow to the furthest part of Siberia, so he didn't laugh off Obama's comments about him. Further, Russia has been a close ally of Syria for some time, giving Putin at least the chance to make mischief with Obama's plans for Syria, while he watches the President twitch in discomfort and face a likely meltdown of his presidency.

Then of course there's Republican Senator John McCain, who is holding the President's feet to the fire for strong action in Syria, and who has been itching to get the U.S. militarily involved in Syria for a couple of years, but then again, McCain pretty much wants America militarily involved on much of the planet, including I believe at the North Pole; after all, Santa does wear a red suit, and may be a communist, although he's definitely a socialist. Hey, he comes down chimneys and leaves free toys for kids. Now what kind of an example is that? These kids will grow up thinking you can get stuff for free, or at least for only a glass of milk, a cookie, and a few lumps of sugar for some reindeer. That's enough to get a military commitment to put "boots on the ground," or "on the snow," against Santa from John McCain.

The President and supporters have been making moral arguments about Assad and chemical weapons; and there's something to be said for that (if the intelligence is correct), BUT moral battles also have to be realistic, and this battle is not realistic.  

* In the months after his election in 2008, Obama commented (in so many words) that Putin was too stuck in the past, alluding to Putin's service as a fairly high ranking officer in the "KGB," the Soviet secret police during Communist rule. 

WORD HISTORY:
Utter-English has two words "utter;" one used as an adjective to mean "total" (as in, "utter chaos broke out"), and the other used as a verb to mean "to speak, to use the voice in some manner" ^ (as in, "The delirious woman uttered a few things"), but both words come from the same ultimate source. They go back to Indo European "ud," which meant "up, out." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "ut," which then gave Anglo-Saxon (Old English) "ut," which then later became modern "out." Old Germanic "ut" developed "utizon" as the comparative form, to mean "outer, furthest outside." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "utera," with that same meaning, and the notion of "furthest outside" brought about the figurative meaning   "total." Of course, the same form also gave modern English "outer." Other forms in Germanic (they all mean 'outer'): German has "äusser," Low German "uter," Dutch "uiter," Danish "ydre," Icelandic "ytri," Norwegian "ytre," and Swedish "yttre." Apparently Frisian no longer uses a form. Utter, the verb meaning "to use the voice," also goes back to Indo European "ud" (up, out), and this then gave Old Germanic "ut." This then gave Old English "útian," which meant "to expel, put out from land," a form which seems to mirror the then Low German "utern" and "uteren" in High German, both of which seem to have meant "express something, speak out, demonstrate/reveal something." The Old English form produced a later "outen," which meant "to reveal, disclose," and the Low German form apparently was borrowed in the 1300s or early 1400s and fused with the English form for "utter." Modern German has "äussern" (to express) and Low German has "ütern" (to express).

^ The verb also is used in law, most commonly to describe the passing of forged checks.  

"We Need Success, Not Excess"

Being in business isn't easy; some people make it, many do not survive for very long. Most Americans want business people to succeed. We aren't rooting for their failure, we want them to do well, and we realize they have invested money, work and time in these ventures. But we've seen an alarming concentration of wealth in the last three + decades, and not among our local grocery stores, service stations, or hardware stores, rather this concentration of wealth has been led by members of the "investment class," a highfalutin sounding expression, the real meaning of which is, "wealthy people." Now, I'm not really against wealthy people per se, but I am against out and out, ruthless, exploitative greed. Greed that knows no bounds or decency towards the many others who also populate this country. The accumulation of wealth has been obscene and counterproductive to the country's stability, a problem I don't need to explain to an increasing number of Americans. They're hurting! 

In response to the concentration of wealth, we've seen conservatives tout tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, as if they need more money, while other parts of their "program" demand cuts to our most economically vulnerable citizens. They've counted on selfishness "trumping" (pun intended) shared responsibility, something that has often sadly proven to be true. While no one knows what Americans will think tomorrow, there are signs the tide "may" be turning. You can only squeeze a disconnected public so far before some people actually begin to feel the pain and they begin to reconnect to others in similar circumstances. As long as Americans pay attention, the conservatives will fail. It doesn't take a genius to figure out, big business and wealthy interests haven't been pouring money into political campaigns and turning common sense on its head so they can pay you more in wages and benefits. Nope, they want the opposite, but unfortunately many Americans have been complicit in their own economic decline by supporting the nonsense. Meanwhile the wealthiest of Americans have been gaining more and more of the economic pie for themselves.

We need watch dogs to keep tabs on business at every level. They're always trying to figure out new gimmicks to separate you from your money, which can then go into their bank accounts. Remember a year or so ago when some banks wanted to charge a fee for some accounts, but many Americans finally stood up and said, "No!" The banks backed down. We need a "Success, not Excess" type of campaign in the country. There has been no shared sacrifice by the upper incomes, but now we've got to make sure they share in sacrifices more than ever, since they've benefited so much in recent times. No more, "we'll raise prices, if we have to increase the minimum wage or provide health care." Let the executives and wealthy stockholders  pay first, not reap the benefits of low wages and benefits. That's the ONLY way to get this country back onto anywhere near an even keel. Call their hands, get in their faces every time they make a move to benefit themselves and not the rest of America. Tell them, "You've had your way and now YOU will pay." Tell lawmakers to quit this tax cut crap for the wealthiest of the wealthy.

Concentration of wealth and power have seen terrible consequences in times past. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia tried for too long to hold onto an outdated system of wealth, privilege and repression. After agreeing to mild "change" in 1905, Nicholas then tried to retract much of that minimal "change." When people then took matters into their own hands in 1917, it wasn't pretty. Nicholas was swept away and he and his entire family were eventually killed, as were others of the Russian nobility. Pay back can be absolute hell.

WORD HISTORY:
Not/Naught/Naughty/Nought-Modern "not" actually stems from a former compound. It goes back to Indo European "ne," which meant "no, not." This gave its Old Germanic offspring the same form, "ne," which then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "ne/na," which then was coupled with "wiht," which meant "creature, being, thing,"^ to give Old English "nawiht," which meant, "nothing," which shortly thereafter  became "noht," and later, "naught" (nothing, zero), a variant spelling of which was "nought" ("zero"). The form "noht" later became "not." Besides meaning "nothing, zero," "naught" also took on the added meaning "not good, sinful, wrong," which then gave us "naughty." All of these various forms have relatives in the other Germanic languages: German has "nicht" (not) and "nichts" (nothing), but German dialects have several variants from the standard form, including: net, nich, nit; Low German has "nich" (not) and "nix" (nothing); Dutch has "niet" (not) and "niets" (nothing); West Frisian has "net" (not) and "neat" (nothing). Apparently the North Germanic languages (Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic) do not use forms, although Icelandic has the related "né" (meaning "nor," as in "neither this nor that"). 
 
^ This is still around in modern English as "wight," although it certainly is little used in American English, but just because I've had to use it here, I'll do its history soon. Its German cousin is "Wicht." And by the way, it has nothing to do with the form used in the Isle of Wight.  

Herbert Hoover: March Toward Reactionary, Part Three/Final

While Herbert Hoover took the Federal government into the economy and into direct relief aid to the states, his words did not keep pace with his actions, as he spoke as if his America of old was still there all the same and unchanged, as such a great system would never need the programs he had just initiated. This was one of the reasons Hoover received little credit for his actions, since he himself denied they were changes to the system, although his limitations on his own programs left these programs far from achieving their potential to stabilize the economy, which was much more the reason for the lack of acknowledgement to Hoover. When smacked in the face by reality like bankers not wanting to make loans and charities being overwhelmed by impoverished citizens, Hoover did indeed change, but he could not bring himself to acknowledge that change. It is tough to tell what Hoover actually believed, as he later became one of the main critics of the New Deal; yet, later still, he admitted that he likely would have signed the same legislation that FDR signed; that is,  ... THE NEW DEAL! And the New Deal had its roots in many of Hoover's own policies.

Upon leaving the presidency, Hoover was one bitter man. He had shown signs of such during his time in office, as he seemed bitter at the terrible hand he had been dealt for the pinnacle of his career, the presidency. Hoover the humanitarian leader, Hoover the businessman and Hoover the Secretary of Commerce was used to giving orders and lecturing others, not having to garner votes from politicians or listen to their lecturing. He was very shy, but supremely self confident in his ideas to the point that when they failed, he kept going, almost contemptuous of others' ideas. Hoover, in my opinion, had a weak ego; that is, he was insecure to the point where a criticism of one of his plans was like a personal insult. In the rough and tumble world of politics, all of this took a toll on Herbert Hoover. He and FDR had been friends for years, but Hoover ended up detesting Roosevelt, partially because of Roosevelt's criticisms during the presidential election of 1932, when Roosevelt easily defeated Hoover, and Hoover took the criticisms  personally, as he had not come up in the give and take world of politics, and that insecurity of his was always there. When Roosevelt initiated the New Deal, taken in part from Hoover's ideas and policies, Hoover blasted it, in my opinion, because someone else came up with the necessary changes needed to make the ideas more successful. This created resentment in Hoover and it spilled out into the open as he bitterly attacked FDR and his administration and moved himself into the role of something of an arch conservative hero, a place he would pretty much hold until his death. Maybe someone should have tried to convince Hoover early on that the New Deal, at least in part, was really his idea and he might then have supported it, but in fact, Roosevelt and the Democrats didn't need Hoover's blessing, as the very mention of Hoover's name could draw highly negative responses at public events for many years, including when his image appeared in newsreels at theaters. As sensitive a man as he was, all of this negative use of his name embittered him all the more, and it wasn't until some Democrats began to feel a little guilty that Hoover mellowed a tad, and that first came when Harry Truman was president. Hoover, at Truman's request, helped to reorganize the federal government to save money, and he and Truman developed a friendship of sorts, but Hoover, ever hypersensitive to criticism, didn't trust Truman either, as old Harry was a politician, and he used Hoover's name to scare the hell out of some Americans at various political events. I'm sure Truman just saw it all as politics, but Hoover was furious at what he saw as personal insults.

Hoover has links to conservatives even today, except he was never as mean and nasty while in office as some of today's "take me back to the good old Stone Age" conservatives, and while he lived in something of a dream world about his policies and an idealistic America; in fact, he saw problems and at least he made an effort to solve them, albeit with limitations. The desire of today's conservatives to repeal the estate tax would have made Herbert Hoover furious, as he believed great fortunes should not be allowed to be passed on intact, with the biggest being broken up to give others a chance to share in the wealth, and his tax program was highly progressive, not regressive like that of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush or Paul Ryan. Like today's conservatives though, Hoover wasn't too crazy about facts that disproved his own ideas, although he didn't have Fox News to cover for him. He did spout a lot of things along the line of today's conservatives about "America is the best at _______" (fill in the blank), although facts would contradict some of those things, just as today. Declaring that we're the best at everything was not a way to deal with problems and flaws in Hoover's time, nor today, but Hoover often eventually relented. Some modern conservatives have done everything they can to disavow Hoover, since they are NEVER wrong, just as their philosophy of deregulation had nothing to do with the financial meltdown in 2008. If you believe that, would you like to buy the Washington Monument? I'll sell it to you. Like today's conservatives, Hoover also tried to revise his role in history by continuing to advocate for his policies, pretty much stating they would have succeeded had the country stuck with him instead of turning to Roosevelt. The ultimate thing was, Hoover and his administration misjudged the severity of the economic downturn more than just at its beginning and therefore Hoover's  prescription of trying to restore confidence by helping banks, railroads, and business in general was inadequate to deal with it,* as too many Americans had little or no money left to up demand for goods and services. Confidence helps when people HAVE money, but are afraid to spend it, or even deposit it in banks. Even the larger expenditures by New Deal programs under Roosevelt couldn't quickly help the beleaguered economy to recovery quickly; that's how bad things were.

Over time Hoover's image did recover to some degree, but some people still detested him decades later. It bears repeating, Hoover was not a true progressive nor a true conservative during his presidency, but he most definitely took on the mantle of conservatism after he left office, accompanied by that delusional belief that he had not deviated from American individualism and by his extreme bitterness. The passing of time and the political atmosphere surrounding Hoover had progressives eventually discover (or perhaps rediscover) Hoover's progressive side, which then gave reactionaries something to point to, in the sense, "If progressives like some things about Hoover, he can't be a conservative."

The economic and financial meltdown in 2008 rekindled interest in Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Depression, in general, as people wanted to see how that major historical event developed and was handled all of those decades ago. The problem is, in more recent times, many people obviously knew little or nothing about the Great Depression, as they seemed to want to experience such an event in their own lifetime; thus we had awful policies put into place, or policies that were not enforced, bringing instability and a virtual total collapse of the American and world economies. While most of the perpetrators have been Republicans, some Democrats seemed anxious to be a part of this "let's see what kind of a great depression we can create" philosophy. Throughout the build up to the 2008 meltdown lay the bizarre and troubling idea of "the country should be concerned with the plight of millionaires and billionaires; they've got it tough," instead of what had been happening to the middle class and the poor. These groups would suffer even more from the economic mess of what has been called "the Great Recession." While Republicans scoffed at President Obama's remedies (also often at Ben Bernanke's policies, the Federal Reserve Chief), the economic plunge of late 2008 and early 2009 was halted, and matters never got out of hand as they did in the early 1930s, but recovery has been slow, just as it was in the 1930s. The problem this time was, some of the structural problems were not corrected, like with the banking industry, which has made me think Democrats too haven't studied the policies of their own political icon, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In my opinion, while health care reform was a very important policy, financial reform should have been the first item on the agenda after the stimulus package, but it was not. By the time financial reform was put on the front burner, the political situation had changed drastically, with a resurgent, ideologically fire-breathing GOP, invigorated by the unpopular health care law debate at that time, able to get a substantial watering down of financial reform. We'll see if all of this comes back to haunt us.    

Almost all that I've written in this three part series about Hoover comes from memory, and over the years, I've read a lot of books (some many times over) and articles about him, including his own memoirs. With so much done from memory, it's tough to "credit" specific authors for the information I've put into these articles, and some might not want to be "credited," since it is given from the perspective I've developed on Hoover over the decades (I mean this both seriously and humorously). I guess the biggest compliment to any and all of the authors is that I read their material and retained a good deal of it, that's how good the information was. What I've decided to do is to list a number of books I've read over the years which dealt in large part with Herbert Hoover. Some were more specific biographies of Hoover, others were not just about Hoover, but they dealt with parts of his life, most especially his presidency and his attempts to halt the Great Depression. Some of these books I no longer have on hand, and this list will certainly not be complete, as I'm sure I've read some books or articles years ago, the names of which I no longer recall.

"Herbert Hoover" by William Leuchtenburg; "The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover," 3 volumes by Herbert Hoover (there may be abridged/condensed versions available, but I'm not sure); "American Individualism" by Herbert Hoover; "Herbert Hoover: Forgotten Progressive" by Joan Hoff; "An Uncommon Man-The Triumph of Herbert Hoover" by Richard Norton Smith; "Herbert Hoover-A Public Life" by David Burner; "The American Political Tradition" by Richard Hofstadter (has a very good chapter on Hoover: "Herbert Hoover and the Crisis of American Individualism"); "Herbert Hoover and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation" by James Stuart Olson; "The Great Depression" by John Garraty (obviously not just about Hoover); "The Great Depression-America 1929-1941" by Robert S. McElvaine (again, not just about Hoover, but with very good info and opinions on him-one of my favorite books on the subject); "Herbert Hoover and Harry S. Truman-A Documentary History" edited by Timothy Walch and Dwight M. Miller; "The Great Crash of 1929" by John Kenneth Galbraith; "The First New Deal" by Raymond Moley (has some info about the New Deal's ties to Hoover)

* To be honest, Democrats didn't know what the hell to do about the Great Depression either, thus they really didn't put forward many plans during Hoover's term, fearful they would then take part of the blame if the plans didn't work. FDR talked about "experimentation" in his inaugural speech, which tells you he wasn't exactly confident about specific plans either. 

WORD HISTORY:
Boor/Bower-These closely related words go back to Indo European "bu/bhu," which meant "dwell, live upon/on." They are closely related to the second part of "neighbor" (British spelling: "neighbour"), as neighbor simply means "a person (or people) who dwell(s) nearby," literally "nigh-dweller." The Indo European form gave its Old Germanic offspring "buraz," with the meaning "place where one dwells." This gave Old English "gebur," which meant "dweller, farmer," and also "bur," which meant "dwelling, cottage, hut, room for dwelling," but also meant "farmer, peasant," likely from the notion, "one who dwells in a hut/cottage in the countryside." This then became "bour," before "bower," by which time it also had taken on the meaning "lady's living quarter's in a palace/castle," as well as the "area in a garden sheltered by trees or leafy plants." "The Bowery" of New York City was simply a continuation of the Dutch term for what was then (the 1600s) an area with farms. As for "boor," it seems to have died out, but came back to English as a borrowing in the earlier 1500s from either Low German "bur," Dutch "boer," as England had much trade with northwestern Europe. It came into more prevalent usage in the late 1800s and early 1900s from contact and conflict with Dutch settlers in southern Africa who were called "Boers." The conflict between the Boers and British settlers and colonial authorities was termed "the Boer Wars" (there were two). The term "boorish," meaning "rude, ill-mannered or crude behavior," came from the notion of "behavior by farm/rural residents, as compared to the sophisticated behavior of city dwellers." The other Germanic languages have lots of relatives to English "bower" and "boor," some of which are: German has "Bauer" (pronounced very much like "bower"), which means both "farmer/peasant" and "birdcage" (from the sense "room, enclosed dwelling area"); Low German Saxon has "buur" (farmer); Dutch has both "buur" (neighbor) and "boer" (farmer);West Frisian has "boer" (peasant/farmer); Swedish, Danish and Norwegian have "bur" (cage); Icelandic has "búr" (cage).

Herbert Hoover: March Toward Reactionary, Part Two

During his lifetime, Herbert Hoover marched from moderate progressive toward a position on the solid political right; that is, he became something of a reactionary. I say "something of," because it is difficult to actually tell what Hoover truly believed at times, as in my opinion, he lived in a bit of a dream world where his words were often in denial of the actions he had taken. That dream world consisted of the American system which he had come to idealize; the system he had lived in and prospered in for his life up to the point of the Great Depression. It was a system of neighborliness, of voluntarism, of cooperation to help others, and it was a system where private business ruled, but where private business also needed a bit of government regulation to keep a check on ruthless exploiters (Hoover had been a supporter of progressive reformer Teddy Roosevelt). Hoover had been overseas a good part of his adult life, so he had seen many other parts of the world, including Europe during and after World War One. He had seen powerful rulers suppress their people and he had seen the absolute horrific results of  (then) modern warfare. He returned to the United States to serve in Woodrow Wilson's administration during America's time in the war, only to leave for Europe after the war to help feed starving Europeans and to sit in on the peace conference that officially ended the war. He came back home and took a position in Warren Harding's administration as Secretary of Commerce, which then led to his own successful run for the presidency. Wherever he served he had been known for his tremendous energy and his organizational abilities. Now to continue with some of the actions he took during the Great Depression, especially with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation from "Part One." (For those who need a refresher about the first part, or for new visitors, click here for "Part One:" http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/06/herbert-hoover-march-toward-reactionary_15.html

Hoover's Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) had some success in 1932, and the economy actually saw a mild tick upwards and confidence improved a great deal as the number of bank failures dropped dramatically, but confidence could not put food on the table nor money into empty pockets, and the economy continued in its depressed condition, with high unemployment. Franklin Roosevelt used the RFC much more than Hoover, as FDR wasn't as dogmatic in his approach to getting money into the economy as the methodical Hoover, and parts of the RFC were made into separate agencies under Roosevelt, like the Public Works Administration (PWA), for instance. Hoover and Congress expanded the RFC in mid 1932 to include aid to strapped states to help the unemployed and poor, an idea finally embraced by Hoover, as he belatedly admitted that private charities and state and local governments could not cope with the extent of the increasing poverty. The expanded RFC, besides its original purpose primarily to shore  up struggling banks, was also to provide loans for state and local public works projects and loans to agricultural entities, with the ultimate goal that all of this would generate employment to give the economy a boost toward recovery. The public works projects had to have some means of raising money on their own to help guarantee the repayment of the loans, as well as provide for continued operation and maintenance after they were built, so this was not a program where people were to be put to work digging ditches without purpose. Two of the problems with the program were, Hoover and his administration put limitations on the RFC by having the government charge higher interest rates than private loan institutions, so as not to compete with them, but the whole point was, the loans were NOT being provided by private lending institutions anyway, as they were generally holding onto their cash, and the main economic problem was not the lack of loans for businesses to expand, but a lack of demand by strapped consumers, the solving, or partial solving, of which would have created demand, which then would have led to a true demand for loans by businesses to expand production and to hire more workers. Second, the administration set the terms requiring loans to be repaid within the atypically short period of ten years. Hoover would not agree to use any of the money as "grants," only as "loans," and that mentality had the RFC giving close scrutiny to applications, fearful that the money could not be paid back. This meant that applicants faced almost the same requirements from the RFC as they faced from private bankers, but at a higher interest rate! Needless to say, applications were often sparse for many things and the process of approving the applications that were made took a good deal of time. Further, as the Obama administration found out early on, getting most projects mapped out, applied for, engineered and tweaked, took time, thus few projects were even approved or underway by the time Hoover left office in March 1933, with the "glory" then going to FDR as the projects finally started.*

Much the same happened with the relief expansion part of the RFC, as Hoover's administration made each state go through a pretty rigid approval process to show that the state had indeed exhausted its funds and had done all it could to help its own unemployed and poor. Even after jumping through the hoops, some states were given paltry sums compared to their actual needs. This all left many Americans embittered and angry at Hoover, but again, this was typical Hoover, where method was something of a result in itself.** In fairness, this was all new to America and Hoover deserves credit for making the changes, limitations or not, as without his having done all of this beforehand, FDR would likely have had a more difficult time, as Hoover's term showed that past policies didn't work, and that Hoover's new policies were too limited or too cumbersome to effectively halt the decline or bring about recovery, but that these new policies had promise, if they weren't hamstrung by the administration. The Roosevelt administration used the RFC to far better service right up through World War Two than did Hoover, even though it was Hoover's creation.

While a large number of banks had collapsed throughout the 1920s, with far higher numbers during the Great Depression, one of the enduring legacies of the Great Depression was the national panic during the waning days of Hoover's term in office. In 1932 the RFC had bolstered a number of banks, and while some banks still failed, including some that had received aid, the banking system appeared to have stabilized. Most of the failed banks came from generally rural areas, but failures in smaller cities had increased. The appearance of stabilization was all an illusion, as general business conditions were very depressed and, as unemployment remained high, many Americans had little or no money to become the consumers American businesses needed to prosper. Farming communities were very hard pressed, as were urban industrial centers. All of this was bound to have dire consequences for the American banking system.

Receiving loans from the RFC turned out to be a double-edged sword, as Congress mandated that the RFC turn over periodic lists of recipient banks to them. The names of the banks were at first to remain out of the public domain. The idea was, if you heard that your bank had received RFC money, you might very reasonably assume that your bank had been in trouble, and might still be in trouble. This could then prompt you and other depositors to run to the bank to withdraw deposits and this would then bring about a possible failure of that bank. Well Congress, unhappy with some loans, wanted the names of the banks made public, and while it didn't exactly cause a panic, it made many a depositor of these banks nervous. At first though, with the banks seeming to have stabilized, it didn't cause much of a stir, but that would change. Further, some banks in need of help "may" have forgone seeking RFC help for the fear of their public image.

Franklin Roosevelt convincingly defeated Hoover in the 1932 election, but the very fact that a change in administrations was coming made some uneasy, as FDR had tried to steer clear of a commitment to any specific policies during the campaign. In those times, presidents were sworn into office on March 4, not January 20, as today, and during such an economic meltdown this extra period of time just served for even more calamity, with a politically defeated outgoing administration still in power, and a politically victorious new administration waiting to take the reins of power. In the interim period, Hoover tried to get Roosevelt to commit to certain economic policies, essentially Hoover's policies, something FDR would not do (correctly, as the country had just overwhelmingly rejected Hoover). This likely contributed to the uncertainty and shakiness of early 1933, but it was also not the primary cause of the banking crisis, as Hoover conveniently later said. Hoover was the last president to take office in March, as the amendment (the 20th Amendment)  to change the inauguration of presidents to January 20 was ratified in early 1933.
   
One of the industrial powerhouses of the nation was Detroit, where the auto industry had taken a major hit from the Great Depression, with a large percentage of production shut down. With prolonged high unemployment the Detroit banks suffered accordingly. In early 1933, a couple of large Detroit banks were on the verge of collapse and the RFC stepped in to to help, also seeking assurances from none other than large depositor Henry Ford that he would remain a depositor of the banks, something to which he would not commit. The fear that Ford would withdraw his money from the banks prompted the governor of the state to declare a bank holiday to head off the collapse. The news shook the country and other states began to follow suit in closing their banks for a time. The whole situation caused panic, as Americans, terrified they would lose their money (remember, no deposit insurance back then) or not have access to needed funds, raced to their banks before they were shut out. With many banks closed by their states and Americans so fearful of losing their money, spending dried up even more, sending the economy into another plunge.

There will be one more part ....       
 
* The "stimulus bill" passed very early in the Obama administration was to provide funding for many "shovel ready projects." The President later lamented there weren't many such projects available, as again, states and local governments had basic plans they wanted to develop, if and when they got the money, but then actually preparing those plans to go forward with firm architectural and engineering designs, public hearings (many cites and states require public hearings on such plans), modified zoning (if needed), any new roads or other infrastructure needed to support the project and the proper contracts, took much more time than "shovel ready." Someone didn't read or know their history, because Hoover's administration suffered from the same problem in 1932, with many projects terribly delayed and a demanding public furious that everything took so long.

** When Hoover was administering food programs in Europe during and after World War One, the overhead for such programs was astoundingly small and his vaunted "efficiency" was seen as an example of how to help people, but with almost all of the funds going directly to those in need and not to administrative costs, but Hoover also was dealing with many volunteers and charitable contributions back then, including from governments, a fact he did not publicly talk about, which did put a somewhat deceiving gloss to the process, and there's no question in my mind that all of this colored his thinking about the efficiency and voluntary cooperation efforts he tried later as president. Hoover's omission of telling about the large contributions of governments, including that of the United States, was part of that dream world he lived in, where he wanted so much to believe that people would voluntarily help other human beings that he was in denial about how far such help would go. Like today's conservatives, to admit government helps anyone is to admit failure of your own philosophy.

WORD HISTORY:
Rear (2)-English has a couple of words spelled "rear," this is the word meaning "hind part, back of, last part." The ultimate origin of this word is unknown. It goes back to Latin "retro," which meant "back, behind," a form of which was inherited by Old French as "riere" and then used in the compound "rerewarde," used in military terminology for "the rear guard." Another form, Latin "adretro," which meant "to the rear," was inherited by Old French as "ariere" (which was borrowed by English and became English "arrear"). It is unclear if English got "rear" by using a short form of French "rerewarde" or from a shortened form of "arrear." It is common to call the military units behind the front the "rear" or simply "the rear," so that might well be the source.  

Herbert Hoover-March Toward Reactionary

I've written a good bit about Herbert Hoover, including the recent, "Herbert Hoover: Good or Bad?" To view any of the articles where Hoover is more than just mentioned, go to the bottom of this article and click on "Herbert Hoover" in the "labels" section. This will take you to all of the other articles. In my opinion, Hoover, while not a successful president, was a very important president, because he was a transitional figure who tried using many of the old ways to combat the nation's most severe economic downturn, but who then turned to new ways, albeit with many self imposed limitations. Herbert Hoover lived more than three decades after he left the presidency and I remember his funeral in 1964, which was carried on television back then. He was the first former president to die in my lifetime and I took great interest in the events surrounding the death of the 90 year old Hoover and he was discussed in my school classes too. With his death coming only a year after the assassination of President Kennedy, I'm sure that focused a lot of attention too, as prior to that, the last president to die was Franklin Roosevelt in 1945.

As I noted, Hoover was something of a transitional president, finally willing to abandon tradition in favor of new ideas and programs, although often grudgingly doing so. The interesting thing is, Franklin Roosevelt, his successor, became renowned for his efforts to combat the Great Depression with his "New Deal," but Hoover was scorned by much of the American public and even out and out hated by some. Why the difference? For one thing, being in the "broad middle" of the American political spectrum at certain times can be a very dangerous place to be. The Great Depression tried the nation's patience with Hoover, as his methodical, often doctrinaire approach ignited strong animosity from a large part of an American public stricken by poverty or the fear of falling into poverty. On the other hand, arch conservatives felt he did too much. Hoover had come out of the progressive wing of the Republican Party (progressives were a fairly substantial element of the GOP in those times), but he wasn't a "true believer," he had limits to his progressivism, although he later abandoned some of those limits. Some saw him as a conservative as president, but he wasn't a "true believer" on that side either. With Americans split between those demanding bold, decisive action and those fearful of breaking new ground, Hoover was sort of trapped in between, although, as I mentioned, many saw him as a more conservative president. The reason is likely that "Hoover the conservative" was always trying to down play "Hoover the progressive." He never really jumped onto the bandwagon of change, even when he initiated it, as he preferred to try to link his change programs to some sort of continuity with the past, as if there were no real breaks in policy. FDR had no such reluctance about embracing change, although he and Hoover shared much the same basic philosophy (Hoover would later change, as I will note later on). Roosevelt publicly embraced change, but privately worried about some of the potential consequences of that change.

With Hoover so reluctant to admit to having changed anything, FDR and his advisers took some of Hoover's ideas and programs, tweaked and expanded them, and then claimed them as their own, leaving Hoover with no credit whatsoever. Hoover's personality made him a bit of an odd guy to be president, although that isn't quite fair. In an age when radio was a great means of communication with the public, and sound movies had replaced silent films, Hoover was shy and very serious. He was not a great communicator, especially when compared to FDR's jovial, inspirational personality. On the other hand, Hoover might look downright dashing compared to his predecessor Calvin Coolidge. When the dour Coolidge died and someone told one reporter who had covered him that the former president was dead, the reporter asked, "How can you tell?"

Hoover's really big change idea came with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, known by its initials "RFC." First, a little background. Why were banks in trouble? You go to a bank for a loan and they want collateral. You give them property, jewelry, or some other valuable items sufficient to secure the loan. The problem was, the depression brought a big decline in the value of everything, leaving banks (and other financial institutions) exposed to losses. Further, financial institutions had loaned money for companies and individuals to buy stocks, with the stock used as collateral. When the stock market imploded the value of stocks dropped leaving the institutions with losses. Also, financial institutions and insurance companies invested in stocks and bonds, with the same resulting losses. Many banks were located in rural agricultural areas. With American agriculture already in dismal condition throughout much of the 1920s, many rural banks collapsed even prior to what is generally seen as the start of the Great Depression in 1929, an event that sent more rural banks into closure. In those times, there was no system of insurance for bank deposits, so when Americans got rattled, they headed to their bank and demanded their deposits in cash, fearful they otherwise would lose their money. With banks already strapped by losses for many of the above noted reasons, coming up with large cash sums to pay depositors off was difficult. Some assets they possessed could be turned into cash fairly quickly (this is called "liquidity"), but other items took longer to sell, if they could even be sold at the depressed prices then prevalent. In order to get help from the Federal Reserve, a bank had to belong to the Fed's system. In those times, many banks didn't belong and other financial institutions couldn't belong, so there was nowhere for them to turn for help.

A couple of years into the Great Depression, Hoover tried one of his voluntary cooperative programs, this one to shore up the banking system. Hoover called together a number of the country's bank executives and got them to pool some money to loan to other banks that were experiencing difficulty. The bankers were reluctant to do so and really seem to have preferred government intervention, but they gave a lukewarm effort to satisfy the President. The thing was, they were so fearful of losing their money to the troubled banks, they set tough criteria for borrowing banks to meet and more banks failed. It wasn't long before Hoover saw that voluntary cooperation doesn't always work and he got Congress to approve the RFC. Hoover had been a businessman, he had appealed to business people for humanitarian aid during and after World War I, he was involved with business as Secretary of Commerce, so he had a strong connection to business giving him a business point of view, which coupled with his engineering mindset, gave him a zealousness for "efficiency," which then hampered the success of the RFC program. The RFC took government directly into economic matters. It was set up to loan government money directly to troubled banks and other financial institutions and to railroads and to farm boards for seed loans. The idea was, if financial institutions were stabilized, the public would gain confidence, the run on banks by depositors would cease and such institutions would then lend money to business people and the economy would recover. The problem was, many in the public were broke, so lack of demand stood in the way of any strong recovery, plus, banks took the RFC loans to stabilize themselves, but NOT to then loan money out in the troubled economy.* One of the problems was, that the Hoover mindset, and it seems even more so the mindset of the business people running the RFC, made qualifying for a loan a bit difficult, when the program was set up to make loans that were intended to be a bit risky and that would not be made by private business. Further, by making loans to banks and railroads, but NOT to states and local entities to feed and help the masses of unemployed and destitute families, Hoover was seen, correctly, as being for "trickle down" economics. During the period leading up to this point, Hoover had fretted and lectured Americans about maintaining their individualism and their commitment to self help, a sense he noted that would be damaged if Americans took government money. As the bank and railroad loans were handed out, many Americans took notice that their president had no such worries that bankers and railroad execs would have their individualism and sense of self help damaged, only the poor and unemployed, as well as many small banks and financial institutions. Money provided to the lower end likely would have helped the economy much more, as it would have created demand for goods, as the recipients were going to spend that money, not hoard much of it. 

More in "Part Two" ...

* This should sound somewhat familiar, as the bank bailouts a few years ago helped banks recover, but the banks then maintained very high credit standards so that few companies or people qualified for loans, which  left the economy to very slowly recover.

WORD HISTORY:
Lust (List)-This word, closely related to the "list" of "listless" (see below), goes back to Indo European "las," which had the notion of "be eager, want to do, desire." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "lustuz," with the same general meanings, but also "pleasure," likely from the notion that "things you are eager to do give you pleasure." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "lust," with the same meanings. Later, as religious writings began to be translated into English, "lust" took on the foremost meaning of "sexual desire," which remains its primary meaning to this day. The verb later developed from the noun. The same Old Germanic source also produced a verb "lustijanan," a verb which meant "to please, to bring pleasure, to cause desire." This then gave Old English "lystan," with those same meanings. This later became "liste" and then "list" (not related to "list," as in grocery list), an archaic word by itself now, but still used as the first part of the compound "listless;" that is, "lacking in desire or pleasure." The other Germanic languages have: German has various forms of "lust/list," some of which are, "Lust," a noun meaning "desire/have an inclination to do something," used frequently like, "Hast du Lust Karten zu spielen?" (literally, "Do you have the desire to play cards?"), and it also means "take pleasure in doing something; enjoy doing," but it can also have the "sexual desire" meaning. German also has "lustig," which, like its close English relative "lusty," doesn't necessarily carry the sexual connotation, but rather generally means "happy, merry," as in "Die Lustige Witwe," "The Merry Widow." The German verb "gelüsten" means "to crave, to covet;" that is, "have strong desire for." The German noun "Lüstling," however, carries the sexual appetite idea and means "lecher." Low German Saxon has both "Lust," meaning "desire," and the noun "Lüst" ("appetite;" that is, of course, "desire for food") and the verb "lüsten" ("to have an appetite, or craving") Dutch has "lust," which means "be inclined to do something, desire, like/relish doing." West Frisian once had "lust," but apparently it is now little used, if not outright archaic. Danish and Norwegian have "lyst" (desire, inclination, strong desire, pleasure). Icelandic has "losta," which seems to carry both the general meaning "desire," but also of the sexual type. Swedish has "lust" (desire, yearning).

Why 2010 Was Such An Important Election

First published in May 2013

Republicans have lost the last two presidential elections by fairly large margins, but in between they won a major victory by taking control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, an election which also saw the GOP whittle down the Democratic majority in the Senate. Not only that, Republicans won several key governorships and took control of many more state legislative chambers, giving Republicans the most seats they've held in state legislatures since the 1920s!* This was immensely important, because it gave Republicans control of many states for the all important redistricting for the House of Representatives and state legislative districts based upon the 2010 census.With Republicans redrawing boundaries, they were able to cement some Republican leaning districts into strong or stronger Republican districts, tilt some highly competitive districts Republican, and weaken some Democratic leaning districts.** This favorable redrawing of boundaries is called "gerrymandering," and it is not just a Republican device, as Democrats use it too,*** and it is highly effective, even though on occasion the "non favored" party candidate may win in a gerrymandered district, that person will have to carefully watch his/her votes on key issues, lest they antagonize the voters of their district, the majority of whom usually favor the opposite party. George Voinovich, a Republican, was elected to the Ohio House of Representatives and Mayor of Cleveland in overwhelmingly Democratic territory, but he was not an extremist and he was more than willing to work with Democrats. As mayor, Voinovich relied upon the president of city council, George Forbes, a staunch Democrat, to help achieve much of his agenda. In the case of both men, they worked for what they thought would benefit the city, not their respective political parties.

Of course strong one party control of districts, or even of states in the case of senators or presidents, can allow the favored party officeholder to adamantly oppose the other party. After Republicans took a beating in congressional elections in 2006 and 2008, the remaining senators and representatives were often in pretty safe states or districts, allowing them much latitude in their criticism of President Obama, and Democrats in general, and as we've seen, they even refused to negotiate with Democrats, preferring to block as much legislation as possible. For many of these Republicans there is no downside to this, at least at the moment.

In the 2012 election, Democrats scored heavily, even garnering nearly a million and a half more votes in House races than the Republican majority. Still Republicans retained control of the House of Representatives, although by a narrower majority. In the House, legislation only requires a majority, unlike in the Senate, where by its own rules, legislation (with some exceptions) needs a minimum of 60 votes (the Senate has 100 members, the House 435 members). At this time in the Senate, Democrats hold 53 seats, independents hold two seats, both of whom caucus with the Democrats, and Republicans hold 45 seats. In the House, Republicans hold 233 seats, Democrats hold 201 seats, and there is one vacant seat in Missouri (vacated by a Republican) scheduled to be filled in a special election, with the Republican candidate heavily favored.

While all elections are important, elections held in the year of a census and then two years later (after new district boundaries are drawn) are critical to how the House of Representatives will likely set up for a decade. This also is true for legislative seats in state legislatures. While Democrats scored a major victory in 2012 and they drew far more votes in House races (collectively), they still could not overturn the Republican House majority, mainly because of redistricting.

Going back decades, Republicans "tend" to be more in accord over major issues, although they have marched from being just conservative a few decades ago, to very conservative now. Democrats have always been more divided, although they too are more similar in many views today than they were in the past. Part of this is because the once "solidly Democratic South," a generally conservative area, has switched to become much more Republican,**** leaving Democrats with much more of a progressive side. Further, liberal/progressive Republicans are virtually unheard of today, whereas they once formed a major part of the GOP. Some of these people became Democrats (see note ****), others became independents. For Democrats to win control of the House, they will need to win in many more conservative tilting or outright conservative districts. That means they will need right-leaning candidates to win in these areas, something "true believing" progressive Democrats may have a problem with. With more conservative districts on the election map now, Republicans, on the other hand, don't have to worry much about unseating Democrats in progressive-leaning districts with what the "true believing" Republicans contemptuously call "RINO" candidates; that is, "R(epublican) I(n) N(ame) O(nly)." So, barring some major event that shakes up the electorate, Republicans will be very difficult to dislodge from control of the House of Representatives. That's why 2010 was so important. 

* Democrats took five governorships away from Republican control, but Republicans took eleven governorships from Democratic control. In addition, Republican turned independent Lincoln Chafee took the governorship of Rhode Island from Republican control. Chafee, while an independent, has leaned toward Democratic and progressive ideas. In a sense, Republicans also retained control of the statehouse in Florida, where Charlie Crist had been elected as a Republican, only to become an independent (he has since become a Democrat). If my numbers are correct, Republicans went from controlling 36 state legislative chambers prior to the election to 57 after the votes were counted. There are 99 state legislative chambers, with 49 states having two chambers, a house and a senate, and Nebraska having only one chamber. Nebraska, a pretty solidly Republican state, has a non-partisan legislature; that is, candidates do not technically run under a party designation, but I'd have to believe a majority of delegates there are Republicans or Republican leaning. 

** That's not to say all of this happened in a vacuum, as I'm sure states under Democratic control saw Democrats do similar.  

*** "Gerrymandering" comes from the early 1800s, when then Governor Gerry of Massachusetts supported and signed redrawn districts to gain advantage for his own Democratic-Republican Party. One district supposedly had the shape of a salamander, thus the Governor's name was coupled with the second part of salamander to give us, "Gerrymander."

**** Just for example, Richard Shelby, a senator from Alabama, was once a Democrat, as was Governor Rick Perry of Texas. On the other hand, former Florida governor, Charlie Crist was elected as a Republican, then declared himself an independent, then registered as a Democrat. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was a liberal/progressive Republican, but then became an independent.

WORD HISTORY:
Peace-This word, closely related to "pact," goes back to Indo European "pak," which had the notion of "fasten, fix in place." This gave its Latin offspring "pax," which meant "peace," with the idea being "a fixed condition of harmony;" that is, an agreement (a pact). Old French, a Latin-based language, inherited a form of the word as "pais," which then was carried to England by the Normans as "pes." It was borrowed by English as "pece" during the 1100s. It then displaced English words used to express "peace," one of which was "freod," whose relatives in the other Germanic languages live on as: German "Friede(n)," Low German Saxon "Freden," West Frisian "frede," Dutch "vrede," Danish, Swedish and Norwegian "fred," Icelandic "friður" (the 'ð'= 'th').