In baseball, it’s often said that you have to be a good pitcher to be a twenty game loser. The reason is simple; if you weren’t good, the manager wouldn’t send you out to the mound twenty times with the expectation that you’d give your team a chance of winning.

Who is the last presidential candidate of either major political party who was good enough to lose two consecutive elections? The answer is Democrat Adlai Stevenson, Jr. of Illinois. He lost to Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956.

To get a sense of how progressive he was, we can examine his explanation of his religious views:

He classified himself as a Unitarian and said. “I think that one of our most important tasks is to convince others that there’s nothing to fear in difference; that difference, in fact, is one of the healthiest and most invigorating of human characteristics without which life would become meaningless. Here lies the power of the liberal way: not in making the whole world Unitarian [Universalist], but in helping ourselves and others to see some of the possibilities inherent in viewpoints other than one’s own; in encouraging the free interchange of ideas; in welcoming fresh approaches to the problems of life; in urging the fullest, most vigorous use of critical self-examination.”

This is clearly one of the main tenets of the progressive movement. He was open-minded and looked to bridge differences rather than fight over them.

Stevenson served as governor of Illinois from 1949-1953. He worked to protect civil liberties, but gained special recognition for cracking down on illegal gambling, improving state highways, and reorganizing the state police. He was remarkably popular, despite being described by many as an “egghead intellectual.” He charmed people with his self-deprecating humor.  In one speech, he joked, “eggheads of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your yolks!”

When President Harry Truman decided in early 1952 to run for a second full term, he met with Governor Stevenson and, following the meeting, Truman decided to support Stevenson for president. Others had initiated a “draft Stevenson” movement. Stevenson sealed the deal at the Chicago convention, where as host governor, he gave a welcoming speech that roused the delegates, because it was so energetic and thoughtful.

Stevenson lost to Eisenhower that year, and it was not a surprise to many. Had the Democrats had their choice, Eisenhower would have been their nominee. However, after much thought and consideration, Ike decided in 1951 to run as a Republican. Stevenson was a good second choice for the Democrats, but not good enough to win. A little insight into Stevenson’s campaign can be gained by viewing a photograph that revealed a hole in the sole of his right shoe. This became a well-known symbol of Adlai’s frugality and earthiness. Photographer William M. Gallagher of the Flint Journal won the 1953 Pulitzer prize on the strength of the image.

1956 was essentially an “instant replay,” as the popular Eisenhower chose to run for a second term, and Stevenson was a satisfactory candidate for the Democrats. The party was rather splintered, particularly between the northern and southern factions. Stevenson campaigned well, but garnered only 42 percent of the popular vote, and 73 electoral votes from a mere seven states.

Stevenson still had the presidential bug in 1960 and sought the nomination. However, the top two contenders were John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. Stevenson never really had a chance, as Kennedy garnered the nomination through excellent showings in the several primaries that existed at that time, as well as clever back room politicking at the convention. Kennedy then defeated Richard Nixon in the general election. The President then appointed Stevenson U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, where his oratory, laced with irony, shined, particularly in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

Adlai Stevenson lives deep in the memory bank of many Americans. The oldest amongst us are fortunate enough to remember Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal. Others go as far back as “Give ’em hell” Harry Truman, who among other things, integrated the U.S. armed services. The baby boomers remember Kennedy and Johnson. Lost in the shuffle is Stevenson, who truly was a positive force in the progressive movement, a “happy warrior” like FDR and Hubert Humphrey; not a “grumbler like Ralph Nader. In the 2012 election, Barack Obama, who like Stevenson is from Illinois, chose to wear the progressive mantle more than he did in 2008, and he exhibited much of the joie de vivre of Stevenson. It was a good time to be a progressive in the 1950s, even if we lost, because Stevenson gave us a lift. It’s certainly a good time to be a progressive now.

The post Adlai Stevenson, the last real progressive candidate appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Omaha, NE; Thursday, July 21, 2011. Traveling through America’s plain’s states, there is much to be learned about the distressing changes in both the Democratic and Republican parties. Some of it is reflective of the country-wide transition to the right; part is unique to America’s heartland, and part is just plain comical.

One of my first political memories is my father adorning me with “I like Ike” buttons. As a five-year-old, I applied all of my political acumen to advancing the presidential aspirations of Kansas’ favorite son. I was so successful at it that I did it again in 1956 and now was 2-0 in presidential races.

Nearly 60 years after my first campaign, I find that Dwight Eisenhower holds a fascination among some of our youngest and most politically active citizens. His reputation as an honest, fair-minded individual has survived and to many he has become a legend. He directed American forces in Normandy, France on D-Day. He adroitly lead America through an endless series of tricky challenges during the Cold War.

Friends who are 40 years my junior seem to know of Ike and some are even fascinated with him. Why they cotton to Eisenhower and not John Kennedy is a surprise to me. Maybe Ike just seemed more earthy and genuine. The fact that Ike’s wife, Mamie, almost defined the term, “wallflower” made her a sharp foil to Jacqueline Kennedy and Camelot. This may have strengthened Eisenhower’s reputation as a man of the people. Couple this with the fact that he could have had the nomination of either major party in 1952 and it is clear that his popularity was wide and deep in America. Curiously, the only potential candidate since Ike’s time who conceivably could have been the nominee of either party was also a retired general, Colin Powell.

While we’re speaking of elderly Kansas politicians who seem to have a magical appeal to citizens fifty years his junior, let’s not forget Bob Dole. His name sounds so mellifluous as it rolls off our lips. Dole was one of four candidates for president and vice-president from 1988-1996 who had both one syllable first and last names: Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, Dan Quayle, and Al Gore. America was in a hurry and who had time for a polysyllabic name? I guess the supporters of Bill Clinton.

What truly has endeared Dole to people of all generations is his obsession with referring to himself in the third-person singular. “Bob Dole will always support our veterans.” “Bob Dole knows the levers to push to make Congress work.” “Bob Dole will not be bullied by any foreign power.”

Dole became a warm fuzzy to many even though his policies did not always reflect that. He seemed reasonable and affable 95 percent of the time. In the remaining 5 percent, his acerbic wit was entertaining as well as seemingly nasty. Bob Dole may have been contagious. If I’m not mistaken, John McCain often used the third-person when he was in a maverick stage, and then devolved to the first person when pandering to the right wing.

I truly long for the days of Eisenhower and Dole, and I imagine that many Kansans do too. Something happened to Kansas later, and it was chronicled by Thomas Frank in his 2005 book, What’s the Matter with Kansas? Its political leaders seem to have the conservative flair for nastiness, and unlike Bob Dole, they are very humor impaired. Pat Roberts, Sam Brownback, and others. Indeed something happened to Kansas, and Thomas Frank would argue that the whole country has become more bitter and unable to define its economic needs.

Nebraska has brought a variety of interesting politicians. My favorite is former St. Louis Cardinal pitcher Bob Gibson, but then again he never ran for president, or anything else political. But Democrat Bob Kerrey successfully ran for governor and senator and unsuccessfully for president. He was a Vietnam veteran who opposed most subsequent wars. He was compassionate but also had a sharp mathematical mind that helped him fashion Social Security reforms that,unfortunately, were not adopted. He may have been the only Midwestern governor who successfully cajoled a Hollywood starlet, Deborah Winger, to shack up with him in the governor’s mansion.

There was a time when Senator Roman Hruska was considered the bane of Nebraska. When Richard Nixon nominated Harrold Carswell of Florida, a rather ordinary man, to sit on the Supreme Court, Hruska said, “”Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance?”

Hruska was mocked at the time, and it was among the reasons that the voters of Nebraska soon had had enough of him. But maybe he was onto something. Perhaps we could use a few mediocre Supreme Court justices. Here’s a proposed trade: Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia for four mediocre judges to be named later. It could be one of the greatest transactions for human rights in U.S. history.

Comedian Johnny Carson was also from Nebraska. He truly bridged eras for stand-up comedians. Unlike Bob Hope or George Burns, he could have Dr. Martin Luther King or Senator Robert Kennedy as guests on his program and carry on an enlightening conversation. Jon Stewart could learn from Carson that if you have a strong guest, give him or her ample time to speak.

The political landscape in Nebraska seems to have sunk below mediocre. One Senator, Ben Nelson, is a Democrat who is best known for creating his “Cornhusker Kickback,” in which Nebraska would get a one-of-a-kind Medicaid reimbursement in return for his support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. His Republican colleague in the Senate focuses on balancing the budget, without much concern for who pays the price for spending cuts.

The so-called values of fairness and self-reliance seem to be very prevalent in the Plains States. However, as Thomas Frank suggests  these fine Midwesterners seem to put aside the economic needs when they enter the voting booth and succumb to the politics of distraction that conservatives have heaped upon them. Ah, for the days of Ike and even Bob Dole.

The post Curious history of politicians in Plains states appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The 1952 and 1956 presidential elections between Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Democrat Adlai Stevenson might stand as the last time that the American people had a choice between two capable candidates with clear and reasonable philosophies of government.  During World War II, Eisenhower had been Commanding General, European Theater of Operations.  Somewhat like Colin Powell following the Vietnam War, Eisenhower did not have an affiliation with a political party and both the Democrats and Republicans were ready to hand him their nomination in 1952, almost regardless of his views.

Eisenhower did not declare himself a Republican until shortly before entering the presidential race in 1952.  Ike and the GOP seemed like a good fit.  It may be hard to understand now, but back then, Republicans liked their candidates to be reserved, cautious, thoughtful, deliberate and amiable.  That was Ike.

Democrats preferred a cerebral spark.  Franklin Roosevelt inspired Americans with unorthodox policies in the New Deal. Harry Truman “gave ’em hell” while steering America back to prosperity.  Adlai Stevenson had been a reformer while governor of Illinois and was ready to protect, preserve and continue the New Deal.

The 1952 election was of an era very different from today.  It was two years before Brown v. Board of Education and 12 years before meaningful civil rights legislation.

For most Americans, 1952 and 1956 presented a choice between two fair and competing philosophies of government.  Each in its own way reflected viewpoints that characterized the approaches of previous presidents.

Eisenhower won handily in both 1952 and 1956.  As an affable paternal figure, it was more than coincidental that he received the electoral endorsement of the American people three years after the “Father Knows Best” program became a popular radio show and before it became a mainstay of American television.  Ike was the battle-tested grandfather; America had a long history of electing military generals.  His victories made him the last in a line of 12 former generals elected to the Presidency.  Perhaps this is part of the reason why the 1956 election reflected the end of an era.

In 1948, four years before the first Eisenhower-Stevenson election, Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina had walked out of the Democratic convention and formed a third party, the Dixiecrats.  The signature issue of the Dixiecrats was racial segregation.  The party actually carried four states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina).  But the South came back into the Democratic party in 1952, and we had an election that essentially reflected the two prevailing lines of political thinking in the U.S.  Republicans presented cautious compassion with fiscal restraint.  Democrats were more fervent in their compassion and saw an activist federal government as the key to meeting people’s needs.

The Eisenhower-Stevenson races presented clear-cut choices, very capable candidates, and connection by both parties with mainstream thinking in America.

In 2010, the concern is that the third-party aberrations of 1948 and 1968 may soon become the norm.  The 2010 Florida senate race pitted Tea-Party backed Republican Marco Rubio against Independent Charlie Crist (the  moderate governor who left the Republican party after losing the primary to Rubio) and progressive Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek.

What is happening to the stability of our two-party system of the 1950s?  Quite possibly the problem is that 1956 was the last time that America was presented with two personally stable candidates with clear agendas that were compatible with America’s mainstream.

Beginning in 1960, each election seemed to have at least one candidate with significant character flaws, serious intellectual limitations, or ideas that were too radical for America.  Here’s a quick list:

1. 1960: Richard Nixon
2. 1964: Barry Goldwater
3. 1968: Richard Nixon and George Wallace
4. 1972: Richard Nixon and George Wallace
5. 1976: POSSIBLE EXCEPTION – Gerald Ford vs. Jimmy Carter
6. 1980: Ronald Reagan
7. 1984: Ronald Reagan
8. 1988: George H.W. Bush (with Dan Quayle as V.P.)
9. 1992: George H.W. Bush (with Dan Quayle as V.P.)
10. 1996: POSSIBLE EXCEPTION – Bill Clinton (pre-Monica) vs. Bob Dole
11. 2000: George W. Bush (with Dick Cheney as V.P.)
12. 2004: George W. Bush (with Dick Cheney as V.P.)
13. 2008: John McCain (with Sarah Palin as V.P.)

Many saw the presidential election of 2008 was as a mandate for resuming the progressive agendas of the New Deal and Great Society.   President Obama has chosen to govern more from the middle of the road.  But his desire for harmony may well have planted the seeds of intense discord.  President Obama has  tried to make his move to the center a reflection of bi-partisan cooperation and collaboration.  But the Republicans wanted no part of that, partly because their goal number one was to see President Obama fail.  The situation is exacerbated by the frustrations of difficult economic times in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  These factors coincide with the latest incarnation of a new anti-government, anti-intellectual, anti-collaboration party, the Tea Party.

What Florida 2010 represented was a somewhat lop-sided three-party system:

1. Intense, fervent, rigid conservative candidate with Tea Party support (Rubio)
2. Middle of the road “mushy” candidate with no solid base (Crist)
3. A progressive candidate who was abandoned by many in his “home party,” the Democrats, because his chances of winning were slim.

If the lessons of history prevail, the Tea Party will come and go.  But these are different times; our electorate may have more apathy and less critical thinking skills than ever before.  So an intense right wing party could be with us for a long time.  The “centrists” who Charlie Crist represented may actually have a strong following, but currently they have no anchor.  The so-called moderate or even liberal Republicans can’t even buy a seat at the table of the Republican Party and the Democrats will probably continue their standoff between “Blue Dogs” (moderate to conservative Democrats) vs. progressives.  Progressives no longer see the Democrats as their anchor party.  They are looking for ways to regenerate their energy.  The biggest asset Progressives have is that they have the most reasonable and cost-effective solutions to the nation’s problems.

Our electoral system, with the Electoral College, is designed to keep a two-party system intact.  But we seem to currently have three very different philosophies of governing, each with a significant number of followers but no clear base within a party.  We may have to go through the dysfunction and chaos of a three party system for the foreseeable future.  If we move back to a two-party system such as in the 1950s, the jury is out on which of two of the current three parties will survive.

As an unabashed progressive, I would gladly trim my sails to return to the world of 1956 with a moderate liberal Democrat vs. a stable, mainstream Republican.  How we would return to such a scenario is difficult to determine; definitely fodder for more discussion.  In the meantime, we would do well to spend a little time reviewing what may have been the last “good election,” 1956.

The post 1956: A presidential election to remember appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Sixty-five years ago (August 6, 1945), the first of two atomic bombs “dropped in anger” fell on Hiroshima, Japan. The nuclear bomb “Little Boy” was released from the bay of the propeller-driven Enola Gay. The immediate result was the death of approximately 80,000 people. Injury and radiation brought total casualties to 90,000 – 140,000. It is said that there are still people dying prematurely from the effects of the radiation.

Besides the human carnage, nearly 70% of the buildings were destroyed. Not so well known is that just 42 days later, on September 17, Typhoon Ida struck Hiroshima, resulting in another 3,000 deaths and injuries and the destruction of half the remaining bridges.

Some may believe that the late summer of 1945 was the end of Hiroshima. Virtually everything in the city was destroyed or contaminated by radioactivity. The psyche of the community was equally contaminated. No one knew how long the effects of the radiation would continue.

The intensity of the radiation poisoning decreased, perhaps at a rate faster than expected. In 1949 the Hiroshima Peace Memorial City Construction law was passed, providing financial assistance for construction, with land donated by the government, because it had previously been used for military purposes.

An atomic bomb “dome,” conceived in 1949, provided a reason for Hiroshima to reverse course, aided by the Japanese Parliament, which designated Hiroshima as a “city of peace.”

Difficult as it was for some to believe, a spirit of renewal developed and reconstruction began, both of the infrastructure of the city as well as the mindset of its people. It may be cruel to say, but the city benefited from the sense of guilt that others (not just Americans) felt about the bombing. Hiroshima received international attention as a desirable location for holding international conferences on peace and social justice.

Most of the world’s people who were alive at the time of the bombing are now gone, and with them, memories of the event.  “Hiroshima Day” events still take place every August 6, but generally their presence is not on the radar screen.

The debate about whether or not the bomb should have been dropped has also subsided. The conventional wisdom was that the United States would have suffered at least one million casualties had it forgone the bomb and instead invaded the island chain.  Furthermore, the war in Europe had ended three months earlier, and America and its allies were mired in war fatigue and wanted to move on.

However, some notable Americans, in 1945, had reservations about dropping the bomb. Among them was Dwight Eisenhower, commander of allied forces in Europe and soon-to-be president of the United States. In July 1945, Eisenhower was informed that the government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. Eisenhower later wrote, “I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.” He later stated in Newsweek, “…. the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn’t necessary to ht them with that awful thing.

Another powerful military figure who opposed the bombing was General Douglas MacArthur. Norman Cousins was a consultant to MacArthur and he later wrote,

“When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.”

Albert Einstein’s reservations were recorded by his biographer, Ronald Clark:

“As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. ‘I made one great mistake in my life,’ ‘…when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification – the danger that the Germans would make them.'”.

Not dropping the bomb is one of those hypotheticals that cannot be answered. Hiroshima was devastated by the bomb on August 6; Nagasaki by another bomb on August 9,and Japan surrendered on August 15.

It is important that Hiroshima keeps monuments to that fateful day, because now it is a bustling city of well over one million. It has a major commercial port, verdant parks, shopping arcades, and vibrant night life. Residents can go to the symphony orchestra one night and see the Hiroshima Toya Carp play baseball the next evening. The city also has one of Japan’s strongest soccer teams. Hiroshima University, established in 1949, represents the unification of eight previous institutions of higher learning; degrees are offered in most areas of arts and sciences.

The physical remnants of the damage of August 6, 1945 are almost all gone, replaced by a modern city. Some people, both in and out of Hiroshia, want to remember that fateful day; others prefer to forget it. What remains true is that it was one of the most significant days of the 20^th Century and a reflection, in the 21^st Century, of the human spirit’s ability to heal.

The post Hiroshima: then and now appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Franklin Roosevelt gave us the New Deal; Lyndon Johnson gave us the Great Society, and Barack Obama gave us a stimulus package of more than $700 billion.  So which president brought us the largest public works program, and how is it doing?

The answers to these questions are: 1. Dwight Eisenhower, and 2. It depends on your perspective.  In 1956, Eisenhower steered the Interstate Highway System through Congress.  In an era of true bi-partisanship, a Republican president worked with a Democratically controlled Congress to initiate a program that eventually cost $425 billion in 2006 dollars.

Eisenhower was open to the idea of a massive new highway system because he had crossed the country in 1919 as part of an army convoy, and found that U.S.  highways compared poorly to the German Autobahn that he saw following World War II.

The plan that Congress passed was an outgrowth of a system that President Franklin Roosevelt had asked the Bureau of Public Roads to research.  The final plan authorized by Congress (and only modestly altered after 1956) calls for 65,000 miles of interstate with routes in all 50 states.

How did such a large-scale program gain bi-partisan support and actually proceed continuously for thirty-five years?  The reasons include:

1. Eisenhower and leaders of Congress overcame the opposition, because road-building and maintenance had previously been the province of states and localities.  They referred to the “commerce clause” of the constitution, specifically Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 that states that the United States shall “have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States.” The highway system was clearly designed to know no state boundaries; it met the definition of the commerce clause as interstate in nature.
2. In an era when the Cold War was “hot” (the Soviet Union had detonated its first atomic bomb in 1949. and by 1956 there were some who thought that the Soviets had both more powerful bombs and Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.  Bomb shelters (of little use) were being built throughout the U.S., amd children in schools were going through the charade of practicing hiding under their desks in the event of a nuclear attack.  Clearly, new ideas were needed  to give the American people either a more practical or psychologically relieving sense of security from a nuclear attack. A big selling point of the interstate highway system was that it would provide metropolitan residents with ways to leave their cities and head for parts unknown, where missile strikes were less likely.
3. Lest we be naïve, there were some rather large industries that stood to gain by the proposed interstate highway system, including automobile and truck manufacturers, and producers of petroleum, concrete, steel, and heavy machinery.  In addition, organized labor was thrilled to have so many new jobs become available.

In the fifty-four years since construction on the interstate highway system began, we have not had the scene (except in a few movies) of cars jamming highways to avoid a nuclear attack.  However, we have found that the system provides a much improved capacity for people to leave areas of natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods and forest fires.

Most of the system’s use comes on a daily basis as people and goods move back and forth across the country. During holidays, people enjoy the system so much that they are willing to spend hours in gridlock, as they inch to and from their destinations.

If we assess the project, there are clear pros and cons:

Pros and Cons

So, as you lament the presence of the interstate system and how the ribbons of concrete have torn cities apart and polluted our environment, remember that it provided a much needed stimulus for the economy.  It’s also a big part of why you can order almost anything in the United States today and receive it tomorrow.

There is an inescapable irony:  As the “Party of No” opposes stimulus packages, unemployment benefits, etc., many of its politicians crow to their constituents about the jobs that they have brought to their communities.  When is the last time that you heard a Republican praise Dwight Eisenhower for bringing us the interstate highway system?  Don’t hold your breath waiting.

The post Which president created the largest public works program? appeared first on Occasional Planet.