Trashing the American Dream... a dream at a time
Three Iowa farm boys about the time of the First World War.(From left to right, the future superintendent of a large school district, a farm dog named, "Cap'n", the future Chief Operating Officer of Illinois Bell Telephone and my dad, "the babe" who went on to run a large chain of sporting goods stores and about twenty rug mills).
I read the following yesterday:
I showed the paragraph to my German wife and she said, "that's the classic way of perpetuating a class structure in a traditional society." That, perpetuating a class structure, is, of course, precisely what the United State is not supposed to be about.Here's a staggering statistic: According to the Education Trust, the U.S. is the only industrialized country in which young people are less likely than their parents to graduate from high school. Bob Herbert - New York Times
What is it supposed to be about?
Let me tell you a story.
With Obama's primary win there and the legalization of gay marriage a number of people may have been surprised to learn that Iowa is a "progressive" state.
It goes a lot farther back.
During the Civil War, a company of Iowa soldiers were captured by the Confederates. With the captured Iowans standing in formation, the rebel officer in charge ordered all the Iowans who knew how to read and write to take a step forward. The entire company took a step forward and the Confederates guarding them nearly panicked and shot them down, thinking that the Iowans were attacking them, because in a group of southern soldiers of that period, only perhaps ten out of a hundred would have stepped forward.
Iowa always has had good public schools. In a state of family farms and small businesses, education has always been seen as essential to prosperity and freedom.
An example from my family lore.
When my grandparents got married, they didn't have enough money saved to buy a farm, so my grandfather got a job running the dynamo at a gold mine in the jungles of Northern California named "The Sunny South".
As soon as they were married, my grandfather and his petite bride headed west. My two uncles were born in the mining camp. When my eldest uncle tried to find the mine in the 1950s, he and a local guide spent two weeks tramping around the dense temperate jungle of Placer County California using military maps and could find no more than some old wooden sluices hanging high in the trees.
Having made very good money for several years and with nowhere to spend it, my grandparents had saved up enough to buy a good farm. So with two baby boys in tow they went back to Iowa and bought the farm where my dad was born a few years later.
Happy ending? Not exactly.
For most Americans the great depression began in 1929, but for American farmers it had been going on for a long time. On my grandfather's farm there was a literal cornucopia of food: pork chops, bacon, corn on the cob, potatoes, tomatoes and gallons of strawberries drenched in fresh cream... but no cash money. My grandfather was lucky enough to stay out of debt, a dreamed of Christmas present for a little farm boy in those days might be a jackknife... with only one broken blade.
My father and my uncles went to a "little red schoolhouse", where they learned to memorize and recite speeches from Shakespeare and poems by Longfellow, to spell correctly and to do arithmetic. Later they went to the town high school and even learned Latin, a dead language, whose possibilities cannot be fully savored until you have heard it pronounced with an Iowa twang.
On graduating from high school they attended university at Iowa State in Ames.
This was all free.
Without going on and on, sufficient to say that my eldest uncle after graduating in electrical engineering was able to go on to be first, the financial vice president of Illinois Bell Telephone (when that was the only telephone company there was) and finally retire as the Chief Operating Officer of "Mother Bell". He also found time to be the president of Cook County Boy Scouts, (he was an Eagle Scout) and to found a small college.
If he had been born in Alabama, he probably would have ended up running a filling station and "speaking in tongues".
This, for me, is what America was supposed to be about.
How did America get where it is today? Spending half the taxes it collects on the military, fighting useless wars, while class divisions are hardening due to lack of education and health care.
During the primary campaign, Hillary Clinton made an interesting point when she said that Martin Luther King needed LBJ to change the face of America. What I don't remember her pointing out was that LBJ needed Martin Luther King just as much as King needed him.
LBJ was probably the only genuine social democrat to ever sit in the White House, but without the charisma of MLK and his struggle, Johnson could never have gotten wide enough support to pass his civil rights legislation, which he passed knowing that it would cost the Democrats the "solid South". We are talking about two men, King and Johnson, that had big, brass, balls. This is how change takes place, better believe it.
Many seem to think that voting for Barack Obama was "one stop shopping", Johnson and King rolled into one. That dog wont hunt.
Just for argument's sake, let us imagine that president Obama is as committed to helping the disadvantaged in America as Johnson was and willing to take the risks to do it that Johnson was: this requires a good imagination when talking about a "pragmatic centrist", but let's take it as given.
OK, so where is Obama's "Martin Luther King" to hold his feet to the fire, to build the public support in the street?
Without effective activism outside the party system, nothing is going to happen and stories like my uncle's will soon be like the tales of Daniel Boone or Johnny Appleseed.
Advertisement
It always takes some effort from the grass roots to see change unfold in this country, as in others.
Great story. History.
May 27, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great story David! And good point. I was hoping to take a rest since doing what I could to resist - ever since November 2000 - (when Josh started TPM)
It's clear that the work is just beginning. We need someone to pull Obama BACK to where he was on the campaign.
May 27, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"During the primary campaign, Hillary Clinton made an interesting point when she said that Martin Luther King needed LBJ to change the face of America. What I don't remember her pointing out was that LBJ needed Martin Luther King just as much as King needed him."
Oh, wow, is that a great point!
Likewise, the Democrats need more than beancounting pragmatism. They need a heart and a soul and a vision and a voice capable of articulating the American Dream once again.
May 27, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a distinct memory that when Hillary Clinton made her comment about LBJ she was actually being her typical evil self, scaring voters away from Obama by hinting that he would be killed. And TPM, DailyKos and plenty of other "progressives" spent so much effort making sure everyone understood.
Similar truth was revealed when she said it was possible that there could be a dream ticket. Remember?
So why quote her out of context now? She didn't mean it the way you do.
May 27, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did she mean it, then? That's exactly how I remember her point--that it took a president to actually implement King's dream. People were offended because they thought it downplayed King's role. (And what's with the sour tone?)
May 27, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to progressives, all she meant was embellishing her own position and dimishing that of Obama, calculating her way to the nomination despite the shortage of delegates. (And yes, insulting the memory of King).
Or are you saying the progressives were falsely insinuating back then?
May 27, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing as how you've came up with two different versions of what happened in the primaries in the as twenty-five minutes, it's pretty rich you are accusing the "progressives" of "false insinuation."
May 27, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way I remember it, there was a contingent of Obama supporters who, in disgusting but human fashion, embraced any version of the truth that put Obama ahead of Clinton in any way. This pattern was exacerbated by the blogging environment, which encourages the constant formation of opinions and angles. So yes: false insinuations, sometimes with a good bit of malice, and very often based on off-the-cuff interpretations of Clinton's admittedly off-the-cuff remarks (she later clarified the remark in a speech).
I don't think David Seaton is trying to dredge up old antipathy; he's just taking a famous line from the race as the springboard for his own point, a point he's made before. For the common good, it's not enough to elect a president; that president has to be prodded by activists. (I hope that's an accurate summary.)
May 27, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
you got it right.
May 28, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you are quite right on that. She may have meant what you said but she was also talking about LBJ's record of getting the Civil Rights Act etc. through Congress. LBJ was politically finished by the time King was shot.
May 27, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't think you are quite right on that."
Or much of anything else, for that matter.
May 27, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary of course meant that her experience was necessary, even if Obama had charisma. The other comment, about things happening before the convention, referenced Bobby Kennedy's death.
Many of us Obama supporters argued that experience was a tool but not sufficient, either, and that LBJ was cornered by King and events, which had been building momentum since Brown vs Board.
May 27, 2009 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
King did not invent himself; there was a huge, inescapable logical flaw in our society, racism.
What is the equivalent compelling cause, that would call forth a Gandhi?
May 27, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought I made it clear in my post, America is no longer "the land of opportunity" or "the land of the common man". Social mobility is more impeded in the USA than in other advanced countries. A type of social exclusion that was once the patrimony of citizens of color is now the lot of citizens of all colors. The United States is squandering its dwindling wealth on useless wars instead of educating and caring for its citizens...
Gandhi-Shmandi. What America may need is a Robespierre.
May 28, 2009 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is the lack of clear target for that unhappiness. The very mechanism that promises achievement and mobility, accumulation of wealth through enterprise, is what now blocks most of us from joining the party since it pulled up the ladder after it.
But we are not ready for insurrection; we are not desperate as were the French, mainly because we still think we can get an invite to Versaille. Before Gandhi or Robespierre can get traction we may have to decline further. And if we stop declining, and simply hold on in somewhat reduced condition, we will just muddle along.
I am hoping we will replace the pecuniary Dream with the social one, which was the true goal of free enterprise.
May 28, 2009 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Geez, David. You're just oozing empathy.
The real question is, how to make empathy gush again! I know it's in bad taste to use profanity and it doesn't get us anywhere and it's impolite and all of that, but when the Right suggests empathy is a bad characteristic, a flaw, I get all Dick Cheney and want to scream, "Go f&ck yourself!" Seriously, maybe the folks on the street ought to tell the Right, or at least respond to their anti-compassion campaign, that we despise their perspective and since they have no solutions to the present problems they can STFU!!!
As always, great story to underscore an important point. Thank you, Sir!
May 28, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poverty? Every bit as pervasive as racism and affects all races equally.
May 28, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does not affect all races equally, but poor demographics continuing to be poor throughout generations is certainly a stronger trend.
May 28, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know about that, Karl. There are as many poor whites as there are poor anyone else. More, I would wager, being the majority race in America percentage wise. I say class trumps race in America, though race issues have been the only Achilles Heel most people acknowledge.
May 28, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not so much. But, as I mentioned, it is largely a function of generational poverty than anything else.
May 28, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I misspoke when I used the word poverty. I am mainly speaking Haves versus Have Nots, of which those in poverty are truly on the bottom rung, but not that much removed from those in the "middle class" given the precarious position of that endangered species in America.
From a generational perspective, we are the first generation to be worse off than our parents and have less of a chance to realize our dreams since the end of World War II.
May 28, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not in the U.S., it doesn't. It affects each member who is impoverished equally, but the races that are present in the U.S. aren't equally impoverished.
May 28, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If every race is represented, how can any one race be more affected?
If white Americans are still the majority population, it stands to reason that the bottom 80 percent of white workers represents more people that bottom 80 percent of other races. This is a per capita question, not who has historically been worse off.
That is the fiction that keeps us divided. We have been all equally screwed, despite our relative percentage of the nation's population.
May 28, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not really talking about Hillary or any sub-text of hers. I am talking about the importance of activism in making politicians do the right thing.
May 28, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anecdotes are entertaining but they ain't data.
This story is short on facts (not David's fault; he isn't writing a family history), but I'm guessing that the brothers' exemplary outcomes had more to do with the birth cohort they found themselves in and the particular careers they chose than it did with Iowa's progressive educational policies.
In the 1920s what percentage of workers had college degrees and of those, how many had engineering degrees? When the economy's greatest growth for the next 30 years occurred in electrification and telephony?
How many men went into teaching in the 1920s (Uncle #2)? And how many women -- the bulk of their competitors for the job -- got to be superintendents in the following 30 years?
These success stories bespeak an absence of competition, not an excess of education. Don't expect giving everyone a college education today -- and thus, increasing the number of competitors for the good jobs -- to produce the results described in this blog.
May 28, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
"These success stories bespeak an absence of competition, not an excess of education."
That line is priceless, Ellen.
May 28, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? Oh sure, as is the case right now, there will be overeducated people who cannot find work, but the ones who do will be better then if there was less competition for those jubs. I like the idea that we chose the best of a million people more then choosing the bet of 100,000.
Not only will higher education levels provide better upper level managers, but those who failed to get the decent jobs will find work somewhere and be better employees. It is a myth the the uneducated can do menial jobs as well as educatd people. An educated person sees ways to improve things and says something. The uneducated, if they see a problem at all, or a better way of doing something, usually lacks the initiative to say something, or the ability to express the change sufficiently. It would even be probable that the uneducated would be ignored, to their employers detriment, but that's a totally different social issue.
May 28, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
My uncle was a canny man and was interested in new technologies from childhood. He constructed a radio out of junk that was lying around the farm using plans he found in Popular Mechanics from the public library and installed in the smokehouse. He made the earphones and even the generator (the farm didn't yet have electricity) to run it himself. So, yes he had a lot of "get up and go". But he was only able to fully develop it thanks to Iowa's free, land grant educational system.
May 28, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm constantly saddened by the apparently ubiquitous belief that education has no design or utility other than advancing career prospects.
I mean, is there something fucking wrong with a plumber who can quote Shelley? Or Gibran?
A landscaper who can tutor grad students in diff EQs?
And to Ellen's question about women school superintendents in the 30 years after 1920?
I've been told by my grandmother, that at the time, only one or two higher education institutions offered degrees to women, beyond a bachelor's degree.
Simmons, which she attended in the late 1920s, offered two Master's programs.
Nursing and Home Economics.
Education was not an option. (both as a path and as a Master's degree program). So in that particular case I think it may have been both an absence of competition and lack of education.
May 28, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
If holding a graduate degree was a condition of employment as a school superintendent in the 1930s and 1940s (doubtful), I'm confident that Iowa State offered that education to women as well as to men.
What the establishment didn't offer women was equal access to administrative jobs -- discrimination pure and simple.
And I'm guessing that Uncle #2 owed his success more to his preferred status as a male and less to his educational accomplishments. To say it simply -- the vast majority of his peers weren't permitted to compete for the job.
May 28, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen,
I think you are really reaching for it. Because of your generation and perhaps because of your geographical location, it is improbable that you have much of an idea of the "old" Middle West. To get more of a feeling for it I suggest that you read the transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Remember that the only education Lincoln ever he literally picked out of the Middle Western air. On the other side of the family, my maternal grandmother from a small village in West-Central Illinois who was born not long after the Civil War, could recite reams of poetry to her dying day and spelled perfectly in a beautiful copperplate hand. Incidentally she was once the youngest manager of an Insurance agency in the country and one of the few women at that time.
Good free public education right up through university and self-improvement were once a religion there.
May 28, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thing all these farm boys had when they hit the world of business was the capacity to work harder than anybody else. Farming is a seven day a week fifty-two week a year job.
When my dad was only four years old he was expected to feed the chickens and when he was only eight, before he walked to school, he was expected to feed and water and muck out his share of the cows and pigs and milk his share of cows. It's cold at five AM in an Iowa barn in February.
May 28, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great blog, David. You are quite right that we continue to lose the best of what we are while paying homage to that which constantly fails us.
It is indicative of the greatest American tragedy. Not just the dwindling of opportunity, but that opportunity has always been so localized. It comes as a surprise to me to find out Iowa is a lot more progressive than I would have guessed. The more I learn, the more I am impressed.
So, it isn't as if we don't have examples to follow, yet somehow there never seems to be a sustained effort at transformation of American society as a whole. We continue to allow intransigent special interests to impede every sensible solution or sustainable strategy.
I suspect you are right. Another MLK will need to rise from the masses to articulate a progressive America for the 21st century that forces the grassroots to put down the cheeseburger and take a stand for a change. One man at the top, no matter how talented or committed, cannot move a country of this size and diversity.
Odd how one man at the bottom actually can, though.
May 28, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the People lead, the Leaders will follow.
May 28, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been much too long since the People had a real voice.
I feel as if the Internet is becoming a million taprooms and street corners where pamphleteers (bloggers) ply their trade once again, bringing at least the common narrative to counter the official one.
We do live in interesting times. I think perhaps the most pivotal since our founding.
May 28, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I am worried about who controls the tubes of the internet. We have this glue holding us together, yet there are those who could pull the plug. Then where would we be? We need to remain in the taprooms and connect locally as well. Then maybe encourage our locals to read here too, or other local polical blogs. Here we have a great one, BlueOregon that keeps the conversation lively, trolls and all! :-{)>
May 29, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no one person or group who could "pull the plug" which is why I am confident (and rarely worried about anything) that the Internet was a total game changer. We are just starting to see the possibilities.
I actually think it is leading to a renewed interest in things local. The grassroots are starting to grow, which is exciting and a key component to building a sustainable system. If that can turn into primary voters, we just may able to keep this whole house of cards from falling.
That worries me more than someone controlling the Internet. Society is in a pretty precarious position that we may not evolve quick enough to keep from imploding.
May 30, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink