History Repeating Itself

It was the dawn of a new century and across the United States, its citizens were angry. The U.S. military was fighting an insurgency in a country that many Americans would have difficulty locating on a map, sapping both the country’s youth and finances. Domestically, the national economy experienced a sharp downturn, causing unemployment and a deep distrust of Wall Street that extended to its influence on the nation’s politicians. The Supreme Court, too, came under attack, accused of promoting the welfare of corporations over that of Americans. In the media, tales of corporate corruption and monopolistic behavior appeared on an almost daily occurrence, leading to protests and calls for action from the public. This sounds depressingly familiar; however, it is a description of the problems facing the United States a century earlier; we, as a nation, have been here before. At the turn of the twentieth century, our nation was fortunate to have a strong, intelligent leader, Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who recognized the corrupting influence of corporate finance on the political system, and spent a lifetime attempting to level the playing field for all Americans. Who will play this protective role for contemporary Americans?

In The Bully Pulpit, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin described the conditions facing the new President:

“At the start of Roosevelt’s presidency in 1901, big business had been in the driver’s seat. While the country prospered as never before, squalid conditions were rampant in immigrant slums, workers in factories and mines labored without safety regulations, and farmers fought with railroads over freight rates. Voices had been raised to protest the concentration of corporate wealth and the gap between rich and poor, yet the doctrine of laissez-faire precluded collective action to ameliorate social conditions.”(Goodwin, 24)

Were Roosevelt alive today, his fellow Republicans would probably brand him a Republican in Name Only, or RINO (pronounced Rhino), because his political ideals ran counter to that of the party. He campaigned for women’s voting rights, eight-hour workdays, workers compensation for job injuries, federal regulation of industry, an end to political machines and cronyism, and the breakup of corporate monopolies. Americans were fortunate to have a leader such as Roosevelt at the turn of the century, when major corporations ran roughshod over the public’s political, economic, and social lives. He recognized the corporate domination of the Republican Party as a threat both to the party’s continued existence, and to the well-being of Americans. Winning the presidency in 1904 as a Republican, despite a ticket that was antithetical to Republican-machine politics, provides both a measure of Roosevelt’s leadership abilities, and his popularity with the American people.

The numerous biographies of Theodore Roosevelt, never Teddy, which he disliked, provide a consistent list of the qualities making him such a dynamic leader that include: extremely intelligent; boundless energy; near-photographic memory; a prodigious writer and reader of books; a willingness to seek out and listen to criticism; empathy for the lowest in society; and a disposition to personally investigate important political issues. During his long political career, Roosevelt applied these qualities to propel the Republican Party and American people into the twentieth century, while reigning in the dangerous excesses of corporations. An incident in his early career as a New York State legislator demonstrated these qualities when Roosevelt took on the city’s cigar manufacturers.

In 1882, a bill to ban the production of cigars in tenements began to circulate through the New York legislature. Introduced by the Cigar-Maker’s Union, it accused cigar manufacturers of running tenement factories that required entire families to eat, sleep, and work in filthy, cramped, and over-crowded apartments, resulting in a danger to public health. Ignoring his initial impulse to vote against the bill because it impinged on the rights of tenement factory owners, Roosevelt took the extra initiative to inspect several factories unannounced and the scenes he encountered decisively changed his opinion on the bill. Throwing his support behind the bill, it passed into law but was later challenged by cigar manufacturers and overturned by the New York Court of Appeals.

“It was this case,” Roosevelt later said, “which first waked me to…the fact that the courts were not necessarily the best judges of what should be done to better social and industrial conditions. They knew nothing whatever of tenement house conditions,” he charged, “they knew nothing whatever of the needs, or of the life and labor, of three-fourths of their fellow-citizens in great cities.”(Goodwin, 101)

In the collision, or what some critics label collusion, between government and industry, the corporate mandate won. Taking the lesson to heart, Roosevelt fought a lifelong uphill battle against the Republican Party machine to introduce progressive ideals that uplifted the American people, and returned the government to that of the people instead that of the corporation. It was a battle that temporarily divided the party and allowed the Democratic Party to recapture the White House in 1910, and one that Roosevelt would not live to see to its completion. His legacy lived on, however, when his cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, achieved the Oval Office and implemented a progressive agenda that was decades in the making. Today, when an American goes to work it is with assurance from government that the environment will be free of harassment based on age, gender, race, religion, or politics, and the workplace will be safe. If injured on the job, or as the result of unsafe working conditions, the employee is entitled to fair compensation. Additionally, the employer is limited in the number of hours it can require individual employees to labor. These were all tenets that Theodore Roosevelt fought to realize.

Roosevelt’s administration did succeed in rendering Americans safer from the proclivities of industry on a number of fronts, beginning with a pure food and drug act, and a meat inspection act that required the industry to implement sanitary conditions in all food-processing stages, and to stop selling rancid or adulterated meats. In arguably his greatest legacy to the American people, Roosevelt placed 230,000,000 acres of land under federal protection with a view to preserve the nation’s natural wonders from the creeping exploitation of industry in its search for resources. At a time when government policies skewed toward that of big business, his stance revealed a streak of political bravery that is rarely found in the contemporary Republican Party. After all, Ronald Reagan’s insistence on party unity that included an imperative not to criticize a fellow Republican precludes any opportunity for critical discourse or compromise on important issues facing the nation. Unwilling to reach a middle ground with the Democratic Party, the contemporary Republican Party stands unified, while doing nothing.

When Roosevelt died at home in his sleep, a contemporary noted that death had to sneak up on the former president, because if awake, a fight would have broken out. In addition to his political record, his noted accomplishments include winning the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering peace between Russia and Japan, the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in the Philippines, and authorship of 18 books. In contrast, who has the Republican Party offered by way of leadership in the twenty-first century?

George W. Bush, an alcoholic and failed business executive who achieved sobriety and found religion on the way to becoming the Governor of Texas, reached the presidency after losing the popular vote and intervention by the United States Supreme Court. Unlike Roosevelt, Bush was a mediocre student at both Yale, and at Harvard’s Business Administration program. Bush, too, served his country as a pilot in the National Guard; however, he did not seek out the challenge of combat in Vietnam as Roosevelt did in the Philippines. The Bush presidency was racked with controversy, such as White House officials signing off on a program of rendition and enhanced interrogation that a century earlier Roosevelt would recognize as kidnapping and torture, and the unjustified invasion of Iraq based on specious intelligence that it was a national threat because it harbored weapons of mass destruction. When Joe Wilson challenged the administration’s rationale in a New York Times op-ed, top White House officials leaked information that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a Central Intelligence Agency operative, a crime punishable under United States law, but federal officials held no one accountable. Moreover, Bush signed into law the deeply unpopular Patriot Act of 2001 that allowed unwarranted searches of Americans, and the targeted assassination of U.S. citizens without due process of the law.

Perhaps more disturbing was the role Dick Cheney played as the Chief Executive of Halliburton, and later as second in command to the president, in providing the company with no-bid military contracts during combat operations. In 2004, Cheney still owned stock options in the company worth eighteen million dollars, leading Kentucky Senator Rand Paul (R) to openly accuse the Vice President of war profiteering. In contrast, Theodore Roosevelt recognized the dangers of corporate influence on politics and frowned upon politicians using their office to give corporations an unfair advantage over small-business owners and individual Americans.

Roosevelt and Bush each confronted the threat of catastrophic economic collapse caused by Wall Street’s greed. In 1907, two men attempted to corner the market on copper leading to the collapse of New York’s second largest investment bank. To keep the system from ruin J.P. Morgan used his considerable fortune, in cooperation with other leading bankers, to prop up the market. Roosevelt promised twenty five million in funds, but in the true laissez-faire system, government expected financial institutions to accept the losses. Alternately, Bush responded with upwards of four trillion dollars to keep financial institutions afloat during the 2007 subprime mortgage scandal, and collapse of the housing bubble, and while fines were issued to the worst offenders by federal regulatory agencies, no one was held criminally accountable for actions that cost untold numbers around the world their life savings. In a comparison between both men as leaders of the Republican Party, Bush casts a dim shadow next to that of Roosevelt.

Following in the Bush administration’s tumultuous jet stream, the Republican Party chose a genuine former combat jet pilot who endured years of torture after his plane was shot down during the Vietnam War, Arizona Senator John McCain. Accentuating his reputation as a “maverick” politician, McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign against Democrat Illinois Senator Barack Obama stumbled on a number of occasions, notably when a reporter asked McCain how many houses he owned, and the Senator appeared unsure, but guessed that he and his wife probably owned about six. Furthermore, McCain chose Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as a running mate without properly vetting her as a viable candidate. In response to the Democrat’s selection of a black candidate, the Republicans attempted to secure the female vote by choosing Palin, however the strategy failed when her numerous limitations and inexperience as a political leader became apparent. She did prove a boon for late-night comedians who lampooned Palin mercilessly over her perceived lack of intelligence; her brand of “maverick” was found wanting by the American people, signaled by Obama’s 2008 presidential election win.

Behaving as if it learned nothing about the nation’s priorities after losing the 2008 presidential election the Republican Party nominated Mitt Romney to lead it in the 2012 election. The former-Governor of Massachusetts earned his fortune in private equity and campaigned on a promise of bringing fiscal responsibility to government. After contradicting himself on key issues on a number of occasions, opponents labeled Romney a flip-flopper whose ideals changed in chameleon-like response to public opinion. Critics also questioned the manner in which Romney earned his fortune at Bain Capital, describing him as a corporate raider who benefitted by predating off weak companies. Just four years after the worst economic turndown since the Great Depression, the Republican Party offered Americans a prime example of the despised Wall Street everyman, and it lost another election. It is difficult to imagine Theodore Roosevelt telling an audience, as Mitt Romney did, “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That’s an entitlement. The government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49…he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.”

Romney voiced the beliefs of a Republican establishment that increasingly view the U.S. citizen in terms of taker or producer, and corporations as the only American entity truly deserving of being propped up by the government. In one hundred years of political maneuvering, the Republican Party remained true to its ideology of associating wealth with success, and the taxation of said wealth as anti-American. The Luddite-like attitude of the Republican establishment appears in its interpretation of scientific evidence to deny climate change, and its banal understanding of women’s health issues, such as the rights to seek a safe abortion, and to access affordable contraceptives. Proudly voicing its pro-life ideals to protect unborn children, the Republican Party offers little support for a child after leaving the mother’s womb, and later castigates the child for being a drag on society. It is a stagnant ideology that resists change in a continuously evolving nation, with leaders who see the rest of society in terms of units. And just as they did a century earlier, Americans recognize the tune, and tire of the song.

When the 2016 presidential campaigning begins in earnest, the Republican establishment will trot out the usual suspects: Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Do any of the individuals listed possess the political courage of a Theodore Roosevelt to address the pressing social and economic inequalities facing Americans? Do they understand the full spectrum of American society wrestling with barriers to economic advancement, and voice realistic and humane solutions to the problems? Perhaps the Republican establishment is too dependent on Wall Street to change, but were Roosevelt alive today, he would relish the fight to level the political playing field between individuals and corporation, and the nation would benefit in the process.

In what American social class do you or your family reside: the wealthy, middle class, working class, or poor?

In what American social class do you or your family reside: the wealthy, middle class, working class, or poor? I posed this question to a classroom of San Diego State University students taking an introductory course on American history from the Civil War to the present. This was my third semester working as a teaching assistant, and experience taught me that students understood history concepts best when explained by connecting them to real life experience. At this point in the course, we were discussing the social upheavals that buffeted American society from 1900-1930, particularly in the labor movement, and paved the way for President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies.

To make the polling as shameless as possible, I instructed students to close their eyes and raise their right hand above their heads if they were members of the wealthy class. If they identified as members of the middle class, students were told to raise just their left hands, and if they considered themselves part of the working class to raise both hands. Finally, I instructed those who identified as poor to not raise their hands.

As I counted the students, noting the number in each category, the majority identified themselves as being in the middle class. A smattering of students polled from the wealthy and working class, while one brave soul claimed a place among the poor. The results, however, did not conform to the statistics provided by SDSU administration that showed the majority of its students came from San Diego’s working class. To explore this statistical anomaly, I placed a student at a white board that listed the four social class groupings, while the class provided suggestions for the identifying characteristics of each social class.

Students began with a debate about the fiscal boundaries of each social class before moving on to define the economic factors important to all Americans. While on the surface determining the components that characterize an individual’s social class appeared simple, students struggled with this concept because Americans rarely think about class differences, with most simply believing they fit within the middle class. To really flesh out this problem, I asked the class to think about the major economic factors they will probably face while growing older. What services, I asked, will you need in day-to-day life, and which resources do you consider indulgent?

That simple question brought an avalanche of ideas forward and the class settled on eight factors that delineated each social class from the other: housing, transportation, healthcare, salary, savings/stock ownership, credit, profession, and the access and affordability of a college education for both adults and their offspring. Using these boundaries, the students’ produced a table (see below) that they believed reasonably defined each American social class.

Poor	Working Class	Middle Class	Wealthy
$11,000-single $15,000-couple $18,000-one child $22,000-two child	$23,000-single $28,000-couple $32,000-one child $38,000-two child	$46,323-single $67,348-couple	$1,000,000 +
Rent/Own home/apt	Rent/Own home/apt	Own home/multiple homes	Own multiple homes
Car/Public transportation	Car/Public transportation	Multiple vehicles	Multiple vehicles, ships, aircraft
High school education/some college	High school education/some college	BA/MA/PhD	BA/MA/PhD
Lives month-to-month on paycheck	Lives month-to-month on paycheck	Adequate paycheck	Ample economic growth
Dependent on credit cards or doesn’t own cc	Dependent on credit cards	Less dependent on CC	Use CC as convenience
No savings or stock ownership	Scant savings and some stock ownership	Monthly savings and stock ownership	Stock and corporate ownership
Limited access to healthcare	Limited access to healthcare	Access to healthcare	No limits on healthcare
Work more than one job	Work more than one job	One job or both working	Single job that utilizes work force
Cannot pay for child’s college education	Limited ability to fund child’s college education	Can pay for a child’s portion or complete college education	No barriers in paying child’s college education

Assigning class designation based on salary was the most sensible place to start because the data was readily available on government websites. I challenged students to find the data in less than five minutes, and pointed them to census.gov where they discovered the necessary figures. The paycheck remains a vital economic indicator for most Americans, and a deciding factor for where they will live, their means of transportation, and whether they will go to college. It determines the individual’s access to healthcare and credit, and the amount of savings, if any, for future retirement. More importantly, pay ascertains how much time and resources parents can spend on their children.

The prime domain for minimum wage laborers, the lowest paid workers often needed more than one job just to break even on a month-to-month basis, and depended on credit cards to afford vital services such as food, clothing, rent, and bills. With nothing left over at month’s end, savings are diminutive and limit educational opportunities. Unless employers provide healthcare plans, the poor’s access to medical aid is restricted to emergency hospital visits, or low cost community health centers that only deal with symptoms and not long-term solutions. Affordable housing eats up the largest portion of pay, and families often find themselves forced to live in gang controlled, crime infested neighborhoods. Faced with such a steep economic climb, families endured an overwhelming number of obstacles to escape generational poverty, the students decided.

To move into the working class required an almost doubling in pay based on economic figures, but it also opened up greater educational opportunities. Students posited that, although access to education improved, the other economic factors remained relatively stagnant, leaving the individual susceptible to employment downturns solved by increasing dependence on credit card or taking multiple jobs. Accruing savings was possible, but affordable college education for both the individual and offspring was only possible by accepting student loans. Housing opportunities also improved for members of this social class, lessening the incidents of crime and environmental pollution. The working class, students complained, was the most difficult to define and the least discussed by the nation’s politicians.

Advancement into the middle class required almost a doubling in salary relative to the working class, but students also decided that this group drew fiscal benefits from investing excess wages in stock markets. Access to higher education, and the professional connections derived from the experience, provided greater access to high-wage job markets, a benefit passed on to offspring through private schools and tutors. Credit card use among this well educated group was seen as more convenience driven than as a necessity, and members were able to pay the cost of college for offspring, both tuition and housing, without reliance on student loans. Without the negative effects of burdensome student loans weighing down on them, this group’s offspring were empowered with the advantages necessary to succeed on a generational basis.

The wealthy class, students decided, was the easiest to define because literally no obstacles, other than greed, constrained its members opportunities. Advanced education, fiscal abundance, and political adroitness provided this group with the power to manipulate legislative rules to influence beneficial tax and economic policies. Although President Barack Obama identified $200k as the low-end of the wealthy class, students decided that true financial freedom only occurred for those individuals earning a minimum of one million dollars annually. Wealth accumulation for this class ensues not only from the individual’s earnings, but also from the labor provided from the social classes below it.

Armed with this new understanding of contemporary socioeconomic class, I conducted another secret poll asking where my students believed they fit in the nation’s fabric. This time no one identified as wealthy, while the number identifying as middle class dropped dramatically, replaced by a rise in students claiming working-class and poor status. Class identification among my students brought home the reality of obstacles facing contemporary individuals to economic advancement, something readily apparent to American citizens living during the period from 1900-1930. Now, ask yourself, where do you fit in today’s American social class?