My column in the Daily Beast: “Not Much Passes the 100-Year Test. Will Trump?”

In my time running SundayMagazine.org, it’s become increasingly apparent to me and my readers just how few of the most prominent people, places, and things from 100 years ago are still well remembered tgoday.

What does this insight reveal about who and what from this era might still be well remembered 100 years from now?

My prediction: despite how big the biggest people, places, and things seem to us at the moment, almost nothing and nobody lasts 100 years in the public’s consciousness.

Will Trump? Will Obama? Will 9/11? Will today’s technology? What about the biggest movies or songs?

I tackle these questions in my new opinion column for the Daily Beast: “Not Much Passes the 100-Year Test. Will Trump?”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/not-much-passes-the-100-year-test-will-trump

 

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

June 4th, 2018 at 1:22 pm

Posted in Blog Stuff

False Splendor of Past Inaugurals

Ah, the days before microphones. This 1921 article described how “not a dozen men have ever heard a Presidential inaugural address.” That same year, Warren Harding became the first president with loudspeakers at his inauguration.

The people around him do not hear him. The newspaper men have seats nearer than the other invited guests on the platform, but they catch only a detatched word or sentence here or there. Down at their feet, below the platform, they see men with their hands at their ears, straining to catch a word and then giving it up. Perhaps the Vice President and some of the foreign Ambassadors hear the speech, but nobody else does. Having attended every inauguration since and including that of McKinley, I feel sure of my ground in saying that not a dozen men have ever heard a Presidential inaugural address.

As opposed to today, when we can hear presidential inaugurations but often wish we hadn’t.

The 1921 article also noted that the vice president was inaugurated in the Senate chamber, not on the Capitol steps as occurs today. That changed in 1937, during the second inaugural of Franklin D. Roosevelt with Vice President John Nance Garner.

 

False Splendor of Past Inaugurals (PDF)

Published: Sunday, January 23, 1921

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

January 24th, 2021 at 8:01 am

Posted in History,Politics

Our Japanese Question

In 1921, a Harvard government professor warned that “There has never been a time of such uneasy and hostile feeling between the two nations” of the U.S. and Japan. 20 years later came Pearl Harbor.

Albert Bushnell Hart noted that the animosity was a relatively recent development:

Can two countries be found with a longer record of international friendship? For half a century Japan has welcomed Americans, while the United States has been a land of pilgrimage for Japanese. The two countries have also been bound together by eight successive commercial treaties, and the United States in 1804 was the first nation to accept Japan as a full member of the family of nations.

The tension in 1921 primarily related to certain U.S. states’ restrictions on Japanese immigrants’ rights:

California by statute, and also by a recent referendum, has prohibited aliens who are not capable of becoming citizens (that is, in effect, Chinese and Japanese) from holding land directly or through forms of trust. Whether a State may legally thus discriminate between aliens is not yet settled by the courts, though there are precedents.

Here then is the case in a nutshell. The National Government prohibits Chinese immigration but not Japanese. It restricts Japanese immigration by a roundabout and makeshift method which allows thousands to sift through. The Pacific States are powerless to shut these people out, but are alarmed at their acquirement of lands, as an evidence of intention to form a permanent settlement. The Japanese Government dislikes any restriction, and formally protests against treatment of Japanese which is not precisely the same as that of other immigrants.

The issue wouldn’t be resolved legally for 27 years, until 1948’s case Oyama v. California — and even then, it would only be partially resolved.

Kajiro Oyama, a Japanese citizen living in the U.S., became de facto owner of California land which had technically been purchased in the name of his six-year-old son Fred, a U.S. citizen through birthright citizenship. The California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s law, declaring Oyama’s purchase an illegal evasive maneuver intended to circumvent the state’s ban on Japanese immigrants owning land. The Harry Truman administration disagreed and appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 in Oyama’s favor, finding that California’s law indeed violated the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause rights of six-year-old Fred, an American citizen.

However, there was a catch. The Court’s stances on issues related to the Japanese back then was firmly rooted in an antagonist World War II-era sentiment. Four years earlier, in 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Japanese internment in Korematsu v. U.S., which the Court didn’t formally overrule until 2018. So in a sly bit of legal maneuvering, while the Court ruled in Oyama’s favor for this specific case, they declined to actually invalidate or overturn California’s law outright. That wouldn’t occur until the California Supreme Court — which, keep in mind, had found against Oyama back in 1946 — reversed itself and declared the state law unconstitutional in a subsequent unrelated 1952 case. The California government itself formally repealed the law in 1956.

On a federal level, it wasn’t until Congress enacted 1952’s McCarran-Walter Act that Japanese immigrants were allowed to become U.S. citizens. The law also simultaneously upheld America’s quotas for immigration based on nation of origin, which weren’t discontinued until the Immigration Act of 1965.

To be fair, while all this did contribute to escalating tensions between the U.S. and Japan, none of this directly caused the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. Instead, the preemptive assault on a major U.S. naval base intended to hobble America’s potential deterrance capabilities in the Pacific, paving the way for Japan to carry out its planned aggressions against Pacific territories of the United Kingdom and Netherlands.

Still, these other tensions probably didn’t help matters. You don’t go to war against your friends.

 

Our Japanese Question (PDF)

Published: Sunday, January 16, 1921

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

January 17th, 2021 at 11:06 am

The Gentle Art of Newspaper Humor

A 1920 book by humor columnist C.L. Edson provided advice for the aspiring humor columnist. His biggest advice dealt with when — and when not — to make puns.

Mr. Edson has here laid down a code for the columnist, the first law in which reads: “Do not write Paragraphs with Puns on Names.” He gives as Horrible Examples: “The Russians are rushin’ the Finnish, who can see their finish” and “Austria is Hungary for a piece of Turkey.” Then he tells us that “this is the lowest depth to which humor could descend.” And certainly these Examples are truly Horrible.

Yet there are always exceptions to the rule.

A little later, Mr. Edson admits an exception to his rule — punning is permissible when it is not on a proper name and when at the same time it has what Mr. Edson terms a “news-slant,” that is when it possesses what Augustine Daly used to call “contemporaneous human interest,” when it is absolutely timely, not only up to date, but up to the very last minute. He cites as an instance of this legitimate use of what has been contemptuously called the “lowest form of wit,” this paragraph by Mr. Franklin P. Adams: “Homer Aids Boston to Conquer Giants. – TIMES headline. Yet the universities are abolishing Greek.”

Hopefully Edson would have approved of my timely pun routine in early 2019, punning on the then-current flood of Democratic presidential candidates entering the race.

 

The Gentle Art of Newspaper Humor (PDF)

Published: Sunday, January 9, 1921

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

January 7th, 2021 at 5:13 pm

Posted in Humor

New Forest Chief on Saving Our Forests

In 1921, the U.S. Forest Service director said he wanted to protect America’s forests. He succeeded.

The 1920s were the first decade in American history where total forest acres increased (slightly). The number has remained roughly steady ever since.

This graph from ThoughtCo., using data from the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program, tells the tale.

In this 1921 interview, William B. Greeley warned that forests shouldn’t be depleted, because demand for wood and lumber would still remain. If anything, given population growth, it would likely increase.

“This use cannot be appreciably reduced without serious injury to our agriculture, home building and manufacturing. We cannot cut per capita consumption — amounting to about 300 board feet yearly — to the level of European countries, where lumber is a luxury, if our resources are to be developed and our industrial supremacy maintained.”

The current chief of the U.S. Forest Service is Vicki Christiansen. Today the service is best known for their mascot Smokey Bear and the iconic slogan “Only you can prevent wildfires!” (Before 2001, “Only you can prevent forest fires.”)

 

New Forest Chief on Saving Our Forests (PDF)

Published: Sunday, January 2, 1921

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

January 2nd, 2021 at 12:23 pm

Posted in Nature,Politics

The Low Cost of Living

American cost of living peaked in June 1920, then declined for 12 consecutive months. It wouldn’t surpass its June 1920 peak for more than a quarter century, until November 1946 in the wake of the post-WWII economic boom.

In December 1920, this deflation was leading to such anecdotes as this one, relayed in the New York Times:

There is her mink coat, for which she paid $4,000 only a year ago. The furrier was haughty then when she had mildly asked whether that price wasn’t a bit elevated and had almost refused to wait on her. He had practically accused her of ingratitude in not realizing that he was doing her a favor to let her buy the garment at all, and she had really feared he was going to take her name off his books. Now she had seen the absolute duplicate at $2,400 and the salesman had showed a willingness to bargain at that! Could any woman be expected to keep her disposition after such experience?

In theory, the more money that circulates in an economic system, the less each individual dollar would be worth — leading to inflation. So when tons of money is pumped into the economy, inflation should skyrocket. Yet despite the $2.2 trillion CARES Act enacted in March and last Sunday’s $900 billion stimulus package pumping absurd amounts of money into the economy, the inflation rate throughout 2020 has actually remained stunningly low. In November, the year-over-year inflation rate was only 1.17%, which is actually lower than at almost any other point during the past three years.

Current Inflation Chart

Copyright: Tim McMahon, InflationData.com

 

The Low Cost of Living (PDF)

Published: Sunday, December 26, 2020

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

December 22nd, 2020 at 12:01 pm

Posted in Economy / Finance

The Rising Tide of Immigration

World War I had significantly reduced U.S. immigration. But by 1920, “they are pouring in as they have not done since 1914,” an article that year wrote. “For America is not merely the land of freedom now. It is the land of peace.”

“As it is, nearly thirty thousand immigrants are being handled at Ellis Island every week. More are coming through the gates in one month now than during the entire war period… And it is only the beginning. Were it not for the lack of shipping accommodations, ten million foreigners would be battering at our doors.”

As it always does, price correlated with demand, as U.S. Commissioner of Immigration Frederick A. Wallis was quoted explaining.

“Before the war a steerage passage could be had for $25. During the war it was possible to cross for $10. Now the rate from Hamburg to New York ranges from $120 to $160, and, in addition, there is a head tax of $18. This is a considerable sum for the European peasant.”

Immigration numbers might have been up for the year 1920 specifically. But over the course of the entire 1920s decade, immigration actually declined relative to the 1910s, though the numbers were still the highest they would be until the 1980s.

 

The Rising Tide of Immigration (PDF)

Published: Sunday, December 19, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

December 15th, 2020 at 1:28 pm

Posted in Development

The Downtrodden Sex

In 1920, the year women were given the right to vote, this column argued it was unfair that women now had equal voting rights as men without the same potential military draft obligations.

In this the newly enfranchised female citizen enjoyed a distinct advantage over the male. The latter must with his citizenship assume military and other burdens, while his sister is called upon to assume no unpleasant and dangerous duties as compensation to the State for the advantages that citizenship undoubtedly confers. To that extent citizenship to women is all gain and no loss.

Whether men were then — or are now — “the downtrodden sex” (to use the 1920 column’s title) can be debated. But those aforementioned facts remain the same. All U.S. men, but not women, are required to register for the Selective Service upon turning 18. I remember doing so myself, my senior year of high school. The stated rationale was always that men could serve in combat roles while women were legally barred, but in 2015 the Defense Department opened all combat roles to women. Yet the military draft rules remained unchanged.

A federal district court struck down the male-only draft as unconstitutional in February 2019, but the policy hasn’t actually ceased because the Selective Service says it can’t change absent congressional legislation. In March 2020, the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service — a bipartisan advisory group created by Congress in 2016 to advise the legislative branch on military matters — officially recommended that Congress add women to the draft. The commission’s recommendation was put on the backburner, though, as the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown occurred the very next week.

The real news this month about a national military draft law comes not from the U.S., but South Korea. The country requires 20 months of military conscription for all men between ages 18 and 28, but 28-year-old Jin from the boy band BTS was granted a two-year extension until age 30. Nice work if you can get it.

Other laws cited by the 1920 article as more burdensome to men have since ended. For example, the column mentioned that many states only allowed men to be called for jury duty. By 1968, all states allowed women to be called for jury duty as well, when Mississippi became the last state to do so.

 

The Downtrodden Sex (PDF)

Published: Sunday, December 12, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

December 9th, 2020 at 10:01 am

Posted in Life

Turning Tide in the Domestic Servant Market

In 1920, New York City “domestic servants” like cooks and houseworkers cost $65 or $75 a month, down from $80 or $90 a year prior. Why? Workforce supply was catching up with customer demand, due to immigration and women losing factory jobs they’d temporarily held during World War I.

For the New York housekeepers, it would seem, are on strike. They have not exactly got together in a closed shop or yet engaged walking delegates, as is the way with our best unions, but somehow a great many of them have decided that the “flood of immigration” is bringing them over Olgas and Gretchens at the dear old $35-a-month-figure, if not $25 — and that, therefore, Delia and Agnes can go hang or come down.

Interesting that Gretchen was used as shorthand for an immigrant’s name in 1920; I know a Gretchen now, and she’s American-born.

The article also featured this antiquated minstrel-style quote from a housekeeper responding to an employment request from a woman with two children.

“Oh, thank de Lord!” breathed the respectable-looking negro woman who had stopped me on the street just outside the door of another agency. “Honey,” she said, “I jes’ naterly can’t stand no house without its got chillen runnin’ ’round ‘yellin.’ ‘Aunty, ain’t them cookies done?’ Sure, I been cookin’ cookies ‘fore you born. Yes’m, I’ll work for $12 a week. It ain’t what I been gittin,’ but I wants a good home for Winter.”

Different times.

 

Turning Tide in the Domestic Servant Market (PDF)

Published: Sunday, December 5, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

December 2nd, 2020 at 11:58 am

Posted in Life

Hagenbeck’s Closes Its Doors

During WWI, so many animals starved to death at Germany’s famous zoo Hagenbeck’s that the park was forced to close in 1920. Fortunately, it reopened two years later and remains an attraction to this day.

In 1907, Hagenbeck’s originated and pioneered the concept of the open-air zoo, with animals separated from human visitors by moats, rather than trapped in cages, so as to more realistically mimic their natural environment. By 1920, the spectre of potentially permanent closure was all too real:

After seeing scores of its most valuable animals perish of hunger because Germany’s drastic wartime food regulations precluded their getting enough to eat, after losing scores of others because lack of coal caused them to freeze to death, the Hagenbeck firm has given up, for the time being at least, the struggle to keep in business. And, in view of the fact that Germany’s loss of colonies and merchant marine makes it difficult for the firm to meet competition from other countries, there is a possibility that Stellingen may remain closed permanently and the name of Hagenbeck, for years renowned throughout the universe, become only a memory.

As Mark Twain once said, “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” Tierpark Hagenbeck closed for only two years, then reopened in 1922. While the original site was bombed in 1943 during World War II, it was rebuilt and operates to this day, still run by the Hagenbeck family. (Although, in a 1956 incident, 45 monkeys escaped.)

 

Hagenbeck’s Closes Its Doors (PDF)

Published: Sunday, November 28, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

November 24th, 2020 at 3:20 pm

Posted in Animals,Business

The Pent-Up German Flood

Not long after Germany lost World War I, a 1920 article predicted a coming surge of German immigrants to the U.S. While German immigration did increase that decade, it still fell well short of the numbers from a few decades prior.

German immigration peaked at more than 1.4 million during the 1880s, plummeting to less than 200 thousand during the 1910s as the U.S. fought Germany during World War I. It increased again during the 1920s, approximately doubling to just under 400 thousand, though that was still a fraction of its prior peak.

Source: Immigration to United States, based on statistics from the Department of Homeland Security.

As the 1920 New York Times Sunday Magazine article predicted:

In all classes there is evident a mighty urge to flee from the burdens pressing upon the losers in the World War. Emigration is today the one beacon of hope for thousands of Germans, who are convinced that they can no longer find in Germany the possibility of a satisfactory livelihood.

All hindrances and hardships are disregarded. Anything to get away, to put the Fatherland behind them. The value of the mark, making what once would have been regarded as a fortune a beggarly sum in most of the markets of the world, does not hold them back. Neither do difficulties of travel, the multiplication of frontiers — with endless harassments at each — the lack of facilities, due to restricted means of transportation, the perils of ventures into the unknown — not even the uncertainties of their reception into the known state of hostility to Germans existing in a large part of the world.

German immigration to the U.S. has actually been at its lowest recorded numbers in the past few decades, likely owing to most Germans not wanting to escape, as their country has been at peace with the largest economy among European Union members.

 

The Pent-Up German Flood (PDF)

Published: Sunday, November 21, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

November 18th, 2020 at 3:00 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

How to Live for More Than a Hundred Years

French doctor L.H. [Louis-Henri] Goizet published a book in 1920 claiming a surefire trick to live past age 100: massaging your head. Let’s just say that’s not the prevailing scientific consensus today.

Now for the treatment. He sits us on a stool, and, beginning at the top of the head, for, he says, the brain is the home of the Ego and the centre of gravity of our being, and all physiological evolution takes place around its extreme axis, he begins with slow, gentle, rotary, tractile motions, from west to east, since that is the course of all nature’s movements, both internal and external, as exemplified by the course of the planets around the sun, to rub the top of our head with the palm of the hand.

Goizet claimed all sorts of amazing transformations on patients as a result:

“It seems extraordinary, at first, that rubbings so light could produce effects of such importance that under their conscious and reasoned action one sees the enlarged mouth shrink, the commissures contract, the nostrils appear, the jaws relax, the teeth loosen, the wrinkles disappear, the contracted and elevated shoulders descend to their normal place, the neck gets clear, the head, stooping forward, becomes erect, the wrists become refined, the fingers taper and stretch out…”

I’ll stop it there, but that one sentence continues on for dozens of more words.

What’s the secret to old age, according to today’s most up-to-date scientific knowledge? In 2015, Scottish 109-year-old Jessie Gallan told the Daily Mail her key to remaining alive so long was “staying away from men.” Maybe she has a point: of the 28 people currently alive who have been validated as age 110 or older, all 28 are female. Seeing as I am a man, alas, it will be hard to stay away from myself.

 

How to Live for More Than a Hundred Years (PDF)

Published: Sunday, November 14, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

November 12th, 2020 at 1:35 pm

Posted in Health

Sunless Temples of New York’s Movies

In 1920, electric lighting was starting to become more popular than natural sunlight for shooting movies.

See, sunlight had a few problems.

The trouble with the sun, as viewed by the efficiency experts of New York’s many picture studios, is not only that its illumination is of an inferior quality, but also that it is undependable. Some days it functions not at all, at other times raggedly, it stands not still upon Gibeon [the ancient Israelite city where the Bible says God made the sun stand still], as it should do during the “shooting” of a big scene, but moves relentlessly across the heavens. It indulges itself in pale reds and yellows (requiring orthocromatic emulations) in the early morning and in the late afternoon; and its elevation even at midday in latitude 40 degrees north has never given satisfaction to discriminating producers. And never in history has the sun been known to function properly when needed for a retake of a bad piece of film.

By contrast, electric light had several advantages.

Thus, in this business, in every respect except the matter of expense, electric light is coming to be regarded as superior to sunshine. Electricity works day or night, at the touch of a switch. An artificial sun can be lowered or elevated at will, and the equality of its rays is absolutely dependable. Your modern picture director, when he is working indoors, can assume a patronizing attitude toward Joshua. In fact, some of the cinema men so much prefer artificial sunlight to the natural product that they bar the sun from doing any more work around their studios.

Yet despite Hollywood’s creation in the first place primarily to utilize yearround filming conditions, the switch to artificial light never moved the global center of film production from the Los Angeles area for a century afterwards. Inertia probably helped. After all, most of the largest modern L.A.-area studio lots weren’t created until after 1920, such as the Paramount lot in 1926, the Warner Bros. lot also in 1926, and the Walt Disney Studios lot in 1940.

 

Sunless Temples of New York’s Movies (PDF)

Published: Sunday, November 7, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

November 7th, 2020 at 12:11 pm

Posted in Movies

Cox or Harding?: Each Answers the Question for the New York Times

The Sunday before Election Day 1920, the New York Times asked both presidential candidates for a short essay explaining why they deserved the White House. Here’s what they each wrote, and how their promises stack up in 2020.

Democratic candidate and Ohio Gov. James M. Cox:

There has been no time in the history of the United States in which a political party presented more of a non-partisan appeal than does the Democratic Party in 1920.

That is definitely not true of the Democratic Party in 2020 — nor, to be fair, is it true of the Republicans. Which exact party/year combo had the most nonpartisan appeal in American history can be debated, but it’s surely in the past, rather than the present or future. Alas.

The election of one man or the other, the choice between one party and the other, is of little consequence except for the purpose of securing the earliest affirmative action.

Cox here did not use “affirmative action” to mean racial preferences, as the term is used today. According to Merriam-Webster, the phrase was first used in that context in 1961. Instead, Cox referred to the U.S. potentially entering the League of Nations, the international organization created in 1920 in hopes of preventing another world war. Although Democratic President Woodrow Wilson was one of the League’s architects, the Senate would never officially approve U.S. membership, fearing encorachment on American sovereignty.

Republican candidate and Ohio Sen. Warren G. Harding:

Most of their [the Democratic Party’s] attention has been spent upon an insolent suggestion that America shall accept without change of form a membership in a particular League of Nations, as to which Americans were not consulted, and which they have long ago rejected. The election of a Democratic President, provided he kept faith with his program, would mean four more years in which a President and the representatives of the people would each be able to block action upon the part of the other.

At the time, the idea that the Senate constituted “the representatives of the people” was a fairly new concept. Senators were only elected by the popular vote nationwide starting in 1914.

The American people, therefore, will turn to the Republican Party because it offers assurance of an end of wasteful, willful and inefficient government.

And government was never wasteful or inefficient ever again.

 

Cox or Harding – Each Answers the Question for The New York Times (PDF)

Published: Sunday, October 31, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

October 29th, 2020 at 8:01 am

Posted in Politics

Dead Letters Among the Laws

In 1920, it became illegal to drink alcohol. But during ancient Greek times, at certain celebrations it was illegal to be sober. How far we’d come.

From a 1920 New York Times article:

Laws which have been nominally enforced for decades have became dead letters, some of them without going through the form of repeal. Is it any wonder that the cynics among us are speculating whether prohibition will fall into this class?

Today, with the Volstead Act [the main law enforcing Prohibition] trying to be effective, it is refreshing to recall that at certain Bacchanalian festivals in pagan Greece it was a punishable offense not to be drunk, because a state of sobriety showed gross lack of reverence for the god of the grape.

Prohibition did “fall into this class” of largely unenforced laws, but it didn’t remain a dead letter permanently, getting repealed in 1933.

When a law is a dead letter, it can be funny. The real problem is when these troublesome vestigal laws are enforced.

In my home state of Virginia, a state law dating back decades still required couples to each fill out their race when applying for a marriage license — with the listed race options including such bygone terms as Aryan, quadroon, octoroon, and moor. In 2019, after three engaged Virginia couples filed a lawsuit against the state, the law was struck down as unconstitutional.

 

Dead Letters Among the Laws (PDF)

Published: Sunday, October 24, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

October 23rd, 2020 at 10:51 am

Posted in Life,Politics

How Woman Goes to Vote

When women could first vote in 1920, the resulting atmospheric changes at polling locations included no more fights, profanity, or smoking.

“And no trouble, never no trouble any more,” the Veteran regretted. “In the old days we could always run in a couple of guys, there was always rows. There’s nothing doing any more. Since the women’s been mixing in, politics ain’t the same.”

….

The proceedings everywhere had a most domestic flavor. Parenthetically it may be recorded that not a bit of profanity did [people] hear all evening, and in only one place did they see an election official smoking. “And he’s an old man — been with the party for years,” an official hastened to explain.

In 2020, you never really see physical fights or smoking at polling locations, and any profanity is surely murmured under one’s breath rather than shouted loud. Another change at polling locations from a century ago is the NRA-inspired prevalence in recent years and decades of open carry laws. According to an August article from the National Confederence of State Legislatures, 11 states explicitly ban guns and other weapons at polling places. That number is apparently now 12, since just yesterday Michigan joined their ranks.

In other words, 38 states have no such explicit ban — including a surprising number of blue states such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, New York, Illinois, Washington, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut. And the list of states which have instituted such a ban includes such surprising red or red-adjacent states as Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas.

 

How Woman Goes to Vote: Her Ways at Polling Places, as Observed in the Recent Registration Lines (PDF)

Published: Sunday, October 17, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

October 17th, 2020 at 1:01 pm

Posted in Politics

Changing Fashions in Presidential Campaigns

At some point, the presidential “campaign biography” gave way to the “campaign autobiography.” 1920 fell between those two eras, with this contemporary article noting the demise of the former though the latter hadn’t yet become the norm.

From 1920:

At least four of these campaign biographies were written by authors of standing. No less a man of letters than Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote the campaign life of Franklin Pierce in 1852; William Dean Howells prepared in 1860 a campaign life of Lincoln, and in 1876 a campaign life of Hayes; and in 1888 Lew Wallace [a biography of Benjamin Harrison]. There were a host of others in other elections, [including] E.D. Mansfield’s Scott, W.A. Crafts’ Grant, James S. Brisbin’s Garfield, G.F. Parker’s Cleveland, B. Andrews’s McKinley, [and] R.L. Metcalf’s Bryan.

At some point, that morphed into the modern-day tradition of the campaign autobiography. At what point did this change?

While a few presidents before 1920 had written autobiographies, such as Ulysses S. Grant, they were generally written after their presidency had concluded. John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage was released in 1956, four years prior to his successful 1960 presidential run, but that book was about other people rather than himself. (And besides, it was actually primarily written by Kennedy’s speechwriter Ted Sorensen.)

It appears the autobiography trend may have started when Jimmy Carter released Why Not the Best? in 1975, in preparation for his successful 1976 run, as Carter hoped to boost his then-little-known national profile. Others followed suit: George W. Bush released A Charge to Keep in 1999, in preparation for his successful 2000 run, while Barack Obama released The Audacity of Hope in 2006, in preparation for his successful 2008 run.

In the past few years, though, the trend has become a full-scale onslaught.

Within two years prior to their 2016 runs, Hillary Clinton published Hard Choices, Bernie Sanders published Outsider in the White House, Donald Trump published not one but two books (Time to Get Tough and Crippled America), Ted Cruz published A Time for Truth, Marco Rubio published American Dreams, and Rand Paul published Taking a Stand, among others.

Same thing in 2020. Within two years prior to their 2020 runs, Joe Biden published Promise Me, Dad; Kamala Harris published The Truths We Hold, Bernie Sanders published Where We Go From Here, Elizabeth Warren published This Fight Is Our Fight, Cory Booker published United, Pete Buttigieg published Shortest Way Home, Amy Klobuchar published The Senator Next Door, and Andrew Yang published The War on Normal People.

And without books by presidential candidates, how else could we get such intellectual thought-provoking passages as this one from Donald Trump in The Art of the Deal: “I punched my music teacher because I didn’t think he knew anything about music.”

 

Changing Fashions in Presidential Campaigns (PDF)

Published: Sunday, October 10, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

October 8th, 2020 at 11:01 am

Posted in Politics

A World Ruled From the Air

Three 1920 predictions by the British Air Ministry’s Cuthbert Hicks about the future speed, carrying capacity, and military influence of aircraft — two predictions proved wild underestimates, while a third proved a wild overestimate.

At the moment the fastest officially recognized speed attained by aircraft is one hundred and eighty-seven miles an hour — three miles every minute. What it will be in ten years’ time no one can say, but, remembering that ten years ago the record speed was barely fifty miles an hour, I do not feel that it would be extravagant to prophesy a three-hundred-mile-an-hour rate in 1930. In other words, aircraft could reach from Europe in ten hours.

This prediction proved an underestimate. A 300 mile per hour flight airspeed was surpassed in 1928, and by 1930 the record stood at 357.7 miles per hour. The modern-day record: 2,193.16 miles per hour.

It is well to remember, also, that there are machines being built today that will carry one hundred men or their equivalent in weight or bombs. Perhaps in ten years’ time it will be possible to carry two hundred and fifty men or their terrible equipment. Why not?

The prediction was that in 1930 planes could carry approximately 50,000 pounds. That was a considerable underestimate as well. 1929’s Dornier Do X aircraft had a maximum takeoff weight of 123,460 pounds.

The time is coming when aircraft will be so perfected that land and sea forces will cease either to be useful or necessary, for a squadron of aircraft will have more value than an army division or a navy squadron… So I repeat that aerial supremacy will rule the world; and when that supremacy is temporarily in the hands of an unscrupulous nation, then flying will be a curse. For an invincible air fleet will be able to force its will upon any country, however large, with ease.

Land and sea forces hardly ceased to be useful or necessary. Today, the U.S. Air Force has fewer active duty members than the Army, or about the same number as the Navy. And although some nations certainly maintain greater air power than others, no one single country gained true “aerial supremacy” or “an invincible air fleet.”

 

A World Ruled From the Air (PDF)

Published: Sunday, October 3, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

September 30th, 2020 at 12:01 pm

The Anonymous Roosevelt

As an ex-president, Theodore Roosevelt wrote an anonymous monthly column for one of America’s biggest magazines, Ladies’ Home Journal, under the recurring column title “Men.”

His authorship wasn’t revealed until 1920, after Roosevelt’s death, by the 30-year editor of Ladies’ Home Journal Edward Bok in his autobiography The Americanization of Edward Bok: The Autobiography of a Dutch Boy Fifty Years After. The next year, the book would win the Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography.

As this book excerpt which ran in the New York Times Magazine told:

It was natural that the appearance of a department devoted to men in a woman’s magazine should attract immediate attention. The department took up the various interests of a man’s life, such as real efficiency; his duties as an employer and his usefulness to his employes [sic]; the employe’s attitude toward his employer; the relations of men and women; a father’s relation to his sons and daughters; a man’s duty to his community; the public school system; a man’s relation to his church, and kindred topics.

Reader speculation regarding the author’s identity centered on either popular minister Lyman Abbott or former 40-year Harvard President Charles William Eliot. According to Bok, “In not a single instance was his [Roosevelt’s] name connected.”

Roosevelt once said of Bok, “[He] is the only man I ever heard of who changed, for the better, the architecture of an entire nation.”

Now if only we could find out who wrote the anonymous New York Times op-ed “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.”

 

The Anonymous Roosevelt (PDF)

Published: Sunday, September 26, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

September 23rd, 2020 at 10:21 am

Posted in Journalism,Politics

Party Allegiance as Good Citizenship

In 1920, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Robert von Moschzisker argued that America had become too big to govern effectively without political parties.

To my mind, the maintenance of the present system and the development of party fealty are matters of prime importance at this time in America. How, with our vast electorate, scattered over a wide domain, can any issue of general interest be determined other than by a systematic method of educating, and registering the will of, the people? If democratic government, by majority rule under constitutional restrictions, is accepted as right, then it is almost incomprehensible how the scheme can be carried out in any really big and intelligent way other than through party sponsorships. If we abandon that system, and divide into political groups according to special interests, or our liking for or antipathy to candidates, on our acceptance or rejection of their personal views on minor issues, it will become practically impossible for a multitudinous people like ourselves intelligently to determine at the polls any issue which requires consideration by the whole electorate.

One wonders whether he would still agree in 2020. The political parties have become polarized and uncooperative at an unprecedented level, perhaps irreparably. (Not to mention untethered from reality — on both sides.) In 1998 almost every Republican voted to impeach Bill Clinton while almost every Democrat voted not to, then in 2019 almost every Democrat voted to impeach Donald Trump while literally every Republican voted not to. Political parties increasingly seem less a force for “good” and more a force for just “cohesion.”

Maybe the answer is to keep the party system, but just have more parties to choose from. A 2018 Gallup poll found 57 percent of respondents say a major third party is needed, including 72 percent of independents and a record high 54 percent of Democrats, though only 38 percent of Republicans.

Line graph. Independents are consistently the most likely partisan group to support a third major political party.

 

Party Allegiance as Good Citizenship (PDF)

Published: Sunday, September 19, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

September 18th, 2020 at 1:51 pm

Posted in Politics

The First Woman President

Weeks after women gained the right to vote, a satirical column predicted a future female president since “Millions of us men will be compelled to vote for her with the threat of losing our home-brewed meals if we don’t.”

In 1920, the country was still 12 years away from its first elected female senator, Hattie Wyatt Caraway of Arkansas, and a full 54 years away from its first elected female governor, Ella Grasso of Connecticut. With such concepts laughable at the time, this column suggested a female president “will commemorate the triumph of the soprano over the baritone.”

The column also suggests that a female president would care little for any policies beyond “women’s issues,” with the leader taking “the oath in which she will promise on her sacred impulses to love, honor, and obey the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the rest of the document if the plot suits her.”

After all:

Nothing is too fantastic or improbable for the mind of woman. This constitutes her grandeur. She is a poet. She waves facts aside with the same disdain that a male Congressman waves aside intellectual honesty.

What she feels constitutes the truth. Historical facts are of no more importance to her than last year’s hat bill. Justice is getting what she wants. Logic is a mere instrument to prove the invulnerability of her prejudices.

The author also implies that men would vote for the first female presidential nominee against their will because “Millions of us men will be compelled to vote for her with the threat of losing our home-brewed meals and other things if we don’t.” In fact, the opposite occurred. In 2016, when the first major-party female presidential nominee ran in the form of Hillary Clinton, the gender gap in candidate preference was the widest in the history of the polling dating back to 1972, at 24 percent. Men, clearly, didn’t care about the possibility of losing their home-brewed meals.

 

The First Woman President (PDF)

Published: Sunday, September 5, 1920

Leave a comment

Written by Jesse

September 6th, 2020 at 4:01 pm

Posted in Future,Politics