Friday, May 18, 2007

Flashback: The Second Stans Breakfast and “Voluntary Giving.”

nixon2ugly
[Memoirs from fifty years in politics for my kids and grandchildren].

To make any sense out of this fragment of the memoirs, you have had to read the preceding…that Maurice Stans, the recently-resigned commerce secretary now Nixon finance chief…decided in late 1971 that he would show us neophytes how he would raise money for Nixon, and so he dictated that precisely one week from our present meeting (at the same hour, same place) we would have the kingpin of the Illinois Democratic party to breakfast, Joseph Block, retired CEO of Inland Steel. Inland was founded by grandfather Block in 1894. The Block cousins, Joe and Philip, had made it an outstanding company, the fourth-largest steel producer (by 1972) in the U. S. and the first to adopt a pension plan for its employees. When Joe Block retired in 1967 he was regarded as a maverick in the steel business, agreeing with President John Kennedy in 1962 that it was not opportune for the steel industry to raise its prices. He was succeeded by his cousin Philip.

To my surprise, as I relayed the invitation by phone, Joe Block said he’d attend. So precisely…all watches synchronized…we gathered at the very same smallish breakfast nook in the Merchants & Manufacturers Club of the Merchandise Mart. Block arrived fashionably late, about five minutes or so behind us.

It’s important to remember where we were in the presidential wars of 1972. When we met, the projected inevitable nominee by media and polling standards was reputed to be Sen. Edmund Muskie (D-Maine) who later self-detonated in the New Hampshire primary of 1972…but when we met Muskie was as sure of the nomination as, perhaps, Hillary Clinton is now.

With a barely recognizable greeting (“Hello, how are you?”) Stans, assuming the leadership of the breakfast for which we were paying, signaled all to sit down. We pre-ordered the breakfast and after it was served, Stans looked across the table like a dignified Boston Brahmin in the play “The Late George Appley” and said this, speaking directly to Block:

“Joe, before I left Commerce for this job, I checked with Bill Ruckleshaus.”

The words struck Block as if a pile of sewerage had been dumped on our clean tablecloth. Ruckelshaus was the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, the first head. A politically ambitious Indianan, he took the agency created by Nixon and made it a seriously-regarded watchdog and enforcer against pollution.

“…And,” Stans continued, “I happened to take with me when I left

Commerce this report, not for public attribution, that EPA is preparing. I brought it along and thought you might like to skim it as we eat.”

Block took it, read it as he munched. There was an uncomfortable silence among us, as we decided each of us inwardly whether we should remain silent at this embarrassing time or whether we should converse in whispers among ourselves as Block read. We decided to do the former; say nothing. The air was deadly quiet, punctured only by the slight noises our spoons and forks made.

I stole a look at Block and fancied I saw a hemorrhoidal air of slight concern as he thumbed though the document.

Stans said, “I’ve got to have that report back after you read it, Joe.”

Block handed it over and silently considered his grapefruit.

“What the report says in summary for the benefit of the rest of you,” said Stans, “is enough to threaten the economy of the Midwest significantly. It has to do with the heavily industrial area that includes the U. S. Steel plant as well as oil refinery and numerous other industries on which Inland, that fine company that Joe and his brothers run, is located. And it says that ninety percent of the water that passes by as industrial outflow or stormwater overflow is contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs. In addition it is filled with polycylclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAHs and heavy metals.”

Removing his spectacles with a flourish, he said: “The paper from EPA estimates that sediments containing 77,000 pounds of chromium, 100,000 pounds of lead and 420 pounds of PCBs are pouring into Lake Michigan each year through the Indiana Harbor and Ship Canal, the artificial waterway in East Chicago, Indiana connecting the Grand Calumet River to Lake Michigan, the 45th busiest harbor in the United States.” He added: “Not mentioned in this preliminary report is that Bill Ruckelshaus who ran once for governor of Indiana may try to run again and—though it pains me to say this—and may seek to become the anti-pollution archangel of Indiana.”

Silence.

“Now, Joe. You don’t have to worry about this because while I’m a private citizen, I still retain some influence with the Nixon administration…”

Block’s glum face eased up somewhat.

“…but you can imagine what would happen if Clean Water Muskie were to become president. Joe, we have to keep this country safe for private industry like Inland. And I know Dick Nixon is just as determined as you and I to do that. Realistically, to preserve free enterprise in this country means that we must get involved in protecting the system through our democratic processes. That’s why I left Commerce and am doing this without pay—to serve this country.

“Joe, we don’t want to keep you. You have a busy day ahead even though you are retired—a busy day with all your many civic responsibilities. I just want you to know that when you get back to your office, a lawyer from our Committee to Reelect the President will be sitting in your anteroom to help you and your cousin Phil and your other cousin Leigh—help you decide the proper way to make your contributions. I am quite candid in saying that we will hope that you and your cousins can give a total of $250,000—and there are relatively easy ways to do this which our lawyer will show you, dividing it up so to speak between you and your cousins. Joe, we’ve kept you long enough and I personally know the president of the United States will be very appreciative of your support.”

Having been dismissed, Block shook hands and left like a man who first had been greatly depressed, then relieved and now somewhat sobered at considering the bill to be paid.

After the door closed behind him, Stans said: “Gentlemen, I have just shown you the reality of what fund-raising in this campaign will have to become in order to match the opposition. Now you have a quota of $10 million. I have every expectation that the Blocks will participate and their contribution, roughly $250,000 which is what I’m counting on, will contribute to your quota. There are other similar names on this list I am distributing to you today. In every case, I want to be consulted by you as you go down the list because I have relevant regulatory or governmental data. McDonald’s for instance is worried about a sharp hike in the minimum wage. Well, we’re concerned about that and all you have to do is to consider what Mr. Muskie or any of the other possible Democratic candidates for the nomination will do and sell accordingly.

“But let me make this clear. I don’t want anybody setting up a $1,000 a person club with this list or any list. The thousand dollar club is for small donors. There is no limit in federal law on the size of a contribution as you know although all contributions will be recorded. Now, if you have any questions about how we are to proceed, ask away.”

Well, there were very few questions but my boss decided that he would have nothing to do with the Maurice H. Stans extortion game. At Stans’ direction, we referred certain big names on his list to him for his unique salesmanship. Concurrently we did begin a $1,000 club composed of people who wanted to participate in the Nixon reelection. Later, as result of the Watergate investigation, Stans was indicted on charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and perjury. He was accused of trying to influence the Securities and Exchange Commission to favor a $200,000 donor, Robert Vesco. Both Stans and his co-defendant, former attorney general John Mitchell was acquitted of serious charges although Stans pleaded guilty to minor infractions.

One of the “minor infractions” involved was for unknowingly accepting illegal corporate contributions although prosecutors took the position that he acted in “reckless disregard” of the law in assuming such corporate money, received from 3M and Goodyear, had come from an illegal source i.e. the corporation itself. American Airlines’ president, George Spater, contributed $20,000 from proper sources and $55,000 from improper i.e. the corporation. Ashland Oil contributed corporate funds but its lawyer said that the transaction was so complex “six certified public accountants working six months wouldn’t have been unable to uncover it.”

Stans made an excellent point that as he was on the receiving end of the contributions there was no way he could possibly vouch for inside practices that were undertaken to utilize corporate funds as contributions. He is right—but there is no doubt that the pressure he put on business types made it inevitable that some of the weaker-willed ones would be tempted to dip into improper funding to reach the required amount. In any event, Stans goes down in history as the most effective fund-raiser of his time, having raised nearly $60 million for the reelection campaign.

It is disheartening even to me that someone of Stans’ superhuman loyalty to Richard Nixon was treated harshly in the secret White House tapes. The ex-commerce secretary was engulfed in the campaign finance probe after the 1972 election and never was appointed treasury secretary. George Shultz continued to serve, followed by William E. Simon.

The lesson I came away with both while in Commerce and in the Nixon fund-raising concerning Stans was this: Never did one man struggle so slavishly to find approbation from a president and never got it, not fully realizing that the president in question was of low character and inferior in integrity. Notwithstanding this, while both were in private life, Stans ploddingly sought to slavishly impress his old chief, raising $27 million for the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California. Stans died in 1998 at the age of ninety. There is no rational explanation for the kind of master-slave relationship between the arrogant Richard Nixon and Stans who allowed himself to be degraded by serving this unworthy master.

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Personal Asides: Doug Whitley and Ralph Martire on “Political Shootout” Sunday…Who Won the 2nd Republican Debate?...Bloomberg May be the Perot of the Left.

Whitley and Martire.

Illinois Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Douglas Whitley will face Ralph Martire, executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability on “Political Shootout” and “Sun-Times” columnist next Sunday. Rarely has there been two more diametrically opposed exponents of divergent views on the economy as they on a radio program. That’s at 8 p.m. next Sunday on WLS-AM (890). Whitley has been Illinois director of revenue and president of Illinois Bell. Martire has been probably the most prominent supporter of the so-called “tax swap”—but both are opposed to the Gross Receipts Tax. They will discuss alternative means to be pursued by the state to meet its revenue obligations.

Who Won?

Bob Novak says Rudy Giuliani won. Wrongo. While the New York mayor adroitly rephrased Rep. Ron Paul’s statement that there should be a close look made of why terrorists attacked the U. S. in the first place…implying that perhaps extensive interventionist actions such as the bombing of Iraq night-and-day may have been responsible…Giuliani shrewdly but duplicitously re-phrased the Paul argument to imply that Americans brought the attack on themselves. I am not a Paul guy but com’on, Rudy, that’s not what Paul said. Giuliani showboated it by calling on Paul to withdraw his comments. It was a shrewd move on a par with something Rahm Emanuel would have done, but scoring that punch didn’t mean Giuliani won.

My friend Jeff Berkowitz said John McCain won. Wrongo. McCain was a more candid presenter than he had been earlier, but he is fated to be stuck with views anathema to conservative Republicans…i.e. McCain-Feingold…going easy on eliciting information from captured terrorists at Gitmo…and was a tad too cute in defending his anti-Bush tax cut votes by saying the cuts weren’t accompanied by spending cuts. He obviated his old class-war rhetoric that condemned the fact that “36% of it [is] going to the richest 1% in America” which he reiterated on CNN by complaining that “too much of the cut goes to the wealthiest of Americans.”

The best performer and winner was Mitt Romney. Made no mistakes, handled the issue of flip-flops very well even when he himself was cute when he supported his endorsement of “No Child Left Behind” as a case where the federal government stood up to the teachers’ unions.

Among the lesser lights, Mike Huckabee again scored and was an entertaining presenter; Tom Tancredo was too ineloquent; Duncan Hunter was pretty impressive; Tommy Thompson was flat-out awful only slightly better than he was last time when he excused his performance because he had diarrhea; and Ron Paul may well have seen his name go up in lights as inheritor of the paleo tradition. Winner: Huckabee.

Bloomberg.

As clearly as the nose on Tom Tancredo’s face…or the pockmarked skin of Tommy Thompson’s visage…is the evidence that Rudy Giuliani cannot possibly win the Republican nomination because of his adamant pro-abort position. For comparison one would have to imagine that Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, Jr., a pro-lifer would be the Democratic nominee. Impossible to imagine. Giuliani had one golden chance to finesse abortion if he had done another switch, stuck with his determination to name strict-constructionists to the Court (with strict construction meaning pro-life). Not having done that, he’s a sure loser in the end.

The likely entry of Mike Bloomberg, the New York mayor worth $14 billion as an independent may well duplicate Ross Perot with this exception. Perot’s conservative protectionism stance took votes away from George H. W. Bush. Bloomberg’s urban liberalism may well take votes away from either Hillary Clinton (in New York city Bloomberg is sky-high in the polls for whatever improbable reason) or Barack Obama. If the nominee is, let us say, Romney against Clinton with Bloomberg as the independent, the odds are the winner by an eyelash would be Romney.

Flashback: The Return of Maurice Stans and the Nixon Finance Committee.

stans


[Fifty years plus of politics as a memoir for my kids and grandchildren].

When I was fired by Maurice Stans as an assistant to the secretary of commerce and director of the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, I had no occasion to imagine that I would ever see him again. After all, how many times have you ever come into contact again by your old boss who fired you? But that’s not the way it was to be. As this memoir details, I went to the Peace Corps and then returned to Quaker Oats…arriving there in 1972. That was just in time for Quaker’s chairman and CEO Bob Stuart to be named finance chairman of the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP)…whose general finance chairman was, you guessed it, the man who resigned as commerce secretary to take the job, Maurice Stans. And it would be my job as the political officer of Quaker and a political assistant to Bob Stuart to help my boss raise money for Richard Nixon…and in doing so, cooperate with my ex-boss who canned me.

Stans, fresh from Commerce, still had not given up on his burning desire to become treasury secretary in Nixon’s next term. Like Captain Queeg whose preoccupation was rolling steel ball-bearings to keep himself calm, Stans, age 64, figured he was position just right for the job in the second term. He was grievously disappointed when Chicago’s David Kennedy of Continental National Bank became Nixon’s choice at the beginning of the first term [1969-71]. Then disappointed again when Nixon picked John Connally as Kennedy’s successor [1971-72] who resigned to head Democrats for Nixon. Anguished yet again when Connally’s replacement turned out to be George Shultz of Illinois in 1972. Stans figured that with the exception of Connally (with whom Nixon seemed to have an almost unnatural attraction) the political charm was Illinois—Kennedy and Shultz. But Stans had lived in Illinois most of his working career, having lived in Kenilworth. Maybe, just maybe…if he did an outstanding job of raising money for the second term—even better than he did for the first term—he would get a crack at treasury.

Raising money was duck-soup for Stans. That’s what he did really well. He pioneered a new style. Rather than ask money to support a free market, he would raise fear among potential givers that unless Nixon were to win, the confiscatory and regulatory policies of the liberals would bankrupt the potential givers. For the 1972 campaign, it was accepted wisdom that Stans would leave commerce for the finance job. Indeed, he has passed the word to those campaign people who were manning the Nixon headquarters that no one…absolutely no one…was to name state Nixon finance chairs until he, Stans, took over the finance command. The only senior official to move into the Nixon campaign headquarters at 1625 Eye street northwest, Washington, was John Mitchell who had resigned as attorney general. Stans had beseeched Mitchell whom he was deathly afraid of not to allow anyone to name finance chairs until he, Stans, took over. Mitchell said okay.

Accordingly, once Stans took over his old berth as finance chairman, he looked at the map and then his records to see who he would appoint as Nixon finance chairs in the states. But he was stunned to see that while all the state chairs on the map were blank, only one state finance job was filled—Illinois…and that was filled by Robert D. Stuart of Quaker Oats. Visibly upset, Stans trotted down the corridor to see Mitchell, the campaign manager and asked him who had named Stuart to the post. Mitchell looked dismayed. He said, “I did. I was told you wanted him, Maury!” Told by whom? “Told by Tom Houser, the Illinois Nixon campaign manager. Houser called last week and said the finance post should go to Stuart and that it was his understanding you approved it!”

Stans had not. How did Stans get that idea? Tom Houser, who had been Percy’s campaign manager, thought that Stuart’s appointment would be a good idea. But then two men were close friends…men who had similar names: Tom Houser and Tom Roeser. Stans trotted down the corridor again to see Mitchell. “Just asking,” he said with forced calm. “The guy who said I favored Stuart wasn’t a Tom Roeser, was he?” Mitchell, sucking on his pipe, checked his records and said, “no—Tom Houser. You know—the guy who was with the Peace Corps.” Stans said: “Roeser was with the Peace Corps.” “No,” said Mitchell, “I know Houser, don’t know Roeser. Houser is the campaign manager. Best in the state. He told me that you wanted Stuart as finance chairman.”

“Well I don’t!” said Stans, but said the hell with it and returned to his office. He called Houser in Illinois.

“Maurice Stans,” he said in his curt way. “I want to know who gave you the idea that I had suggested Bob Stuart for finance chairman. Who?”

“All kinds of people,” said Houser. “Chuck Percy first of all. Bob Galvin, Bob Ingersoll, Art Nielsen. Clem Stone most of all. Stuart’s the national committeeman. Why?”

“It wasn’t a Tom Roeser by any chance?”

Houser feigned a pause. “Who? You don’t want to make a change on that now, do you? Stuart’s name is absolutely golden. He’s the national committee--”

“Never mind,” said Stans. “Never mind. No, he stays. I was just wondering.”

So as he routinely did, Stans got on a chartered plane and flew the rounds to all the key states. He phoned Bob Stuart and said he’d be coming in for breakfast. The meeting would be in a private room at the M & M Club in the Merchandise Mart. 7 a.m. sharp. He wanted to have only a few people there—the campaign manager, Tom Houser, the Cook county chairman, Fred Zini, Clem Stone’s guy, Bob Athey—that was very important--and Stuart. Stuart said, yes and I’ll have our political guy there as well, Maury, Tom Roeser.

A pause. Then Stans said, “okay. Okay.”

So I greeted my ex-boss in the Quaker lobby at 6 :45 to take him in to see Stuart and together we’d go down one flight in the Merchandise Mart to the M & M Club.

“I am sure you will put aside our past disagreements,” said Stans stiffly, as we walked to Stuart’s office, “as I have.”

Yes indeed. Then an uncomfortable silence as we trod down the carpeted hallway to the CEOs office.

Once in the smallish room at the M & M Club, Bob Stuart in good humor said that he was going to check on us to see that we would order oatmeal. Everyone chortled and had comments except Stans who was lost in interior thought. His distance seemed to put a damper on everyone.

Without a word, Stans distributed to all a paper that showed the Illinois quota for contributions to Nixon. It was about $10 million in size but all of us breathed easy because in those days when there was no limits on the size of individual donations, Clem Stone was good for at least $2 million and perhaps more. Bob Stuart commented on this but Stans, sipping his coffee, put it down with finality and said:

“Nope. That’s what I want to tell you. Clem Stone’s not included in this. He and other major givers will be handled by me personally so what he gives is not in your quota. I’ll handle him personally.”

What about, let us say, Ray Kroc, the founder of McDonald’s?

“Not included. I’ll handle him personally.”

Well, Stuart said soberly, that’s a little different than we thought.

“That’s the way it is.”

There was a click of coffee cups and the waiter came in to see if we wanted more. Nope, we said, just leave us alone. Thank you.

“Well,” said Stuart, “I was thinking of starting a $1,000 Club. Every who wants to join contributes at least $1000 to Nixon.”

“No good, Bob,” Stans snapped. “Politics has grown far bigger than that. That was okay way back then. Not now. I want you to do something for me.”

We sat like we were being tutored. Indeed, we would be.

“Bob, I will be coming back here next week at this time.” He checked his watch. “Next week at this very time. We will meet here for breakfast next week at this time. I want all of you to be here—and, Bob, I want you to invite Joe Block to this breakfast. Tell him I’ll be here.”

Joe Block? All of us started. Joseph L. Block was the 70-year-old retired chairman of Inland Steel, the nation’s seventh biggest steelmaker which had consistently outperformed its bigger rivals in return on invested capital and withstood recessions. The only major steel producer in Chicago, Inland dominated the lucrative Midwest steel market, concentrating on itsd huge Indiana Harbor complex in East Chicago. It sold 70% of its output within a 200 mile radius.

Stuart said what was on all our minds.

“Nice try, Maurie but Joe Block is a Democrat. A liberal Democrat. He and his family have been tied to Democrats and to Democratic initiatives for years, since Adlai Stevenson was governor.”

I added: “And Joe Block is not just a Democrat but has been celebrated as a liberal paragon, playing a prominent role in the state’s fair-employment law, pushing a redevelopment program for East Chicago. He and his brother Philip are on the Democratic party’s A-List of high donors.”

Stans looked at us as if we had been babbling irrelevancies.

He said slowly, without a trace of smile, with simple words as if he were talking to retardates. Since I was the last to speak he directed his words to me:

“I-know-who-Joe-Block-is-and-he-knows-me. You-didn’t-hear-me. I-simply-said-invite-Joe-Block-to-breakfast-next week-at-this-very-time. Tell-him-I-will-be-here.”

We were all sickened at being reduced to stenographers but that was it. The meeting was concluded. We broke up and Stans trudged off down the Merchandise Mart corridor to the entrance to catch a cab.

Bob Stuart telephoned Joe Block who wasn’t in. Bob was going out of town so the return call came to me.

“This is Joe Block. Bob Stuart left a message?”

Yes sir. The message is that former commerce secretary Maurice Stans was in today and invites you to have breakfast with him…and us…at the M & M Club at the Merchandise Mart one week from today at 7 a.m.

“Maurice Stans?”

Yes sir.

“Very well.”

Very surprising. I was expecting him to say: Maurice Stans? Why would I want to have breakfast with him?

The week couldn’t pass fast enough for me to see what old Maury had up his sleeve for the patrician of the liberal Democratic party.

Personal Asides: Jay Doherty’s Great Mission.

jaydoherty


Jay Doherty.

Jay Doherty, president of the City Club of Chicago and probably the most influential Democratic government relations advocate in Illinois, is one of my best friends…and it was to him that I bequeathed the City Club of Chicago when I decided to retire from its presidency after seventeen straight years. Jay insisted I remain active and that I continue as Chairman which I am happy to do given Jay’s marvelous leadership that this venerable civic institution. But it is not of the City Club that I write. Some time ago I wrote about the stunningly courageous and farsighted decision of Jay and his wife to welcome into the world their second child who was born with Down syndrome. One of the most memorable events of Lillian’s and my life was to witness the baptism of the baby and to attend a wonderful christening party at Gibson’s where the crème de crème of city society attended (we would never be included except though Jay’s patronage).

At that event, Mrs. Doherty gave what probably was the most eloquent off-the-cuff sermon on motherhood and parenthood that it was possible to give, saying that every life is truly valuable and that they are indeed blessed to have a child of such beauty and innocence which they were privileged to care for always.

Now there comes via the “New York Times” the news that is truly bad for children with Down syndrome in that it could spur thousands of deaths each year by abortion. Until this year, only pregnant women age 35 and older have been routinely tested to see if their unbo9ren babies have the extra chromosome that causes Down syndrome. Many couples were given the diagnosis only at birth. But now under a “humanitarian” recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and gynecologists says “The Times,” doctors “have begun to offer a new, safer screening procedure to all pregnant women regardless of age.”

“The Times” reports that “about 90% of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.”

This means a floodtide of deaths of Down syndrome unborn children if the statistics continue. “Convinced that more couples would choose to continue their pregnancies if they better appreciated what it means to raise a child with Down syndrome, a growing number of parents is seeking to insert their own positive perspectives into a decision often dominated by daunting medical statistics and doctors who feel obligated to describe the difficulties of life with a disabled child,” says “The Times.”

Many parents “see expanded testing as a step toward a society where children like theirs would be unwelcome. The Newsweek columnist George F. Will labeled it a `search and destroy mission’ for a category of citizens that includes his adult son, Jon Will.

Not long ago a group of parents of Down syndrome children called a meeting at Henry Ford hospital in Detroit to insert their own positive perspectives into a situation that they confronted—and to encourage other parents to continue with the pregnancy and welcome the children when they come with tenderness and love. Says “The Times”: “They are pressing obstetricians to send them couples who have been given a prenatal diagnosis and inviting prospective parents into their homes to meet their children. In Massachusetts, for example, volunteers in a `first call’ network linking veterasn parents to new ones are now offering support to couples deciding whether to continue a pregnancy.

“We want people who make this decision to know our kids,” said Lucy Talbot, the president of a support group associated with the hospital. “We want them to talk to us.”

Apart from ending the life of an unborn child with Down syndrome, it means that the population, now reaching 350,000 could mean less institutional support and reduced funds for medical research—and a lonelier world for those who survive.

I write this to again congratulate the Dohertys on their decision and to point out to prospective parents of Down syndrome their great example, as well as to cite that there is a support system out there which is eager to show how important it is to continue human life in every contingency.

Flashback: Legislative Strategy and Teaching at the Wharton School.

roeserandmom
upenn
[Memoirs of fifty years in politics for my kids and grandchildren].

If it seems like all I did at Quaker was have fun, engage in my own personal projects and get paid for it, I hasten to say that this was not the case. A full lineup of legislative activities would take me to Washington, D.C. every week…usually leaving on Tuesday and returning on Thursday…with attendant duties in Chicago for the remainder of the days in the week. The only reason I don’t concentrate on all the issues I covered is that items of legislation that concerned Quaker and the grocery products industry thirty-five years ago are not vividly memorable—although to be sure, performing these tasks in the Congress did pay the bills. However one issue was of signal worth and tells much about the reaction of industry to liberalism…a reaction that is not salutary.

Ralph Nader was at his zenith in the early `70s and launched a crusade for an independent consumer protection agency with interventionist powers. In other words, if the Federal Trade Commission were to balk at bringing an action for consumers…or the Federal Communications Commission…or any regulatory body…under the law Nader wanted passed, an independent Consumer Protection Agency would have the power to intervene and take a second bite from the apple.

It was a choice item for the Democratic agenda in Congress and a number of liberal-leaning Republicans such as Illinois’ John B. Anderson were distinctly favorable to it. Support for the independent Consumer Protection Agency marked an increasingly leftward move for Anderson, leading to his co-authorship of campaign finance reform, then running for president, then running as an independent for president and finally joining the Democratic party. (It was the height of irony that Anderson as an independent candidate was hobbled by the restrictions levied by his own campaign finance act).

The job before the grocery products industry was whether to flat-out oppose the new proposed agency or not. The major industry trade association, Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) postulated the theory that it was fatal to oppose the new agency without making a counter-proposal.

So the GMA espoused the idea of the industry supporting a toothless entity called the independent consumer protection agency. I opposed this because I felt it was the height of cynicism—creating a duplicative agency to the 27 others that had responsibility for protecting consumers…and a toothless agency at that which would mean a waste of money. Then there was the danger that the toothless agency would be passed with industry support but an amendment could be offered and adopted that would give it teeth…with the result that the industry would have out-foxed itself.

But the GMA went about its own strategy and I went on my own, viewing the idea that a flat-out opposition was more sincere that the Machievellian creation of an agency that would do nothing at taxpayers’ expense.

In opposing the idea of a new independent agency, I again came into contact with consumer advocate Robert B. Choate, Jr. He had received a good deal of press for testifying that the average ready-to-eat cereal (a) was filled with empty calories and (b) used beguiling cartoon characters to “seduce” (his word) children to pressure their mothers to buy sugar-filled treats in the guise of dry cereals.

He then dramatized the fact that Saturday morning television was filled with cartoons that were heavily advertised by cereal companies…and postulated as a diabolical plot the fact that a cartoon character like “Cap’n Crunch” (our product) was created by Hanna-Barbara, Inc. which had also a hand in creating kid cartoon shows. Thus he unveiled a “Seduction of the Innocent” campaign against cereal companies and against production of Saturday morning TV shows which he called “the Saturday morning ghetto.” There were lengthy hearings before relevant House and Senate committees and the creation by a group of liberal activist women in Boston called “Action for Children’s Television” which rated the shows and aimed to reform them.

Of course Choate was on his high-spirited white horse charger again as Don Quixote…first having begun a vitamin horsepower race in the early 1970s with the baseless charge that the cereal companies were exploiting the young with empty calory-meals…and now seeking to “reform” the cereal companies’ presentations on Saturday morning. His crusade didn’t do much more than get a lot of television coverage for him which was necessary since his crusade was to be funded by foundation monies.

In the middle of the campaign, it turned out that he had to make a presentation at the Wharton School of Finance at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia…but the Dean wanted someone from the cereal industry to balance the presentation—so Choate asked me to come. I did and it turned out we put on a modestly entertaining performance. Then the Dean asked if we would be amenable to co-teaching a course for the Wharton business students, teaching them the rudiments of how modern business interacts with consumer advocates.

We agreed and in Choate’s office in Washington one day we sat down and scripted a 13 week course called “Influencing the System.” We decided we would ask guests to come. The school produced a foundation grant to allow us to do it. Thereupon I sketched out a list of nine constituencies that affect public policy…which Choate assented to…and we invited representatives of each constituency to come. The foundation agreed to pay them modest honoraria and put them up for the night at a hotel—which, ironically, was the ancient but honorable Bellevue Stratford in Philadelphia which later was to be the site of the infamous Legionnaire Disease, spawned by an inadequate air conditioning system that bred virus.

The course worked this way. I would come in to Washington on my regular Tuesday to Thursday assignment. On Wednesday night I would take a train from Washington to Philadelphia paid for by the Wharton School, stay at the Bellevue Stratford (paid by Wharton) and in an evening session instruct, with Choate, the business students on the guest who was to arrive the next day. Their grades were determined on the quality of the questions they were to ask and a major paper at the end of class where they were to pick an issue in Congress and sketch out the strategy for either defeating it or enacting it.

The guests we had at Wharton were the forerunners of others I would work with at subsequent universities…including former U. S. Senator Eugene McCarthy who would talk about Congress…David Stockman, the top aide to Congressman John B. Anderson (who ultimately became a Congressman himself, and then Ronald Reagan’s head of OMB, then a multi-millionaire investment banker and now, sadly, an indicted entrepreneur awaiting trial for fraud in a federal court).

One of the classes was held on an April 12 which was the anniversary of the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. About the time I had met James A. Farley, Roosevelt’s postmaster general in New York, I also met, quite by chance on a California trip (where I attended a Conference Board session on corporate advocacy) one Rexford Guy Tugwell who was a senior Fellow at the then potent Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions in Santa Barbara. As an old FDR student, I knew who Rex Tugwell was although I was dismayed to find that my business colleagues did not. Tugwell was a legendary far-left New Deal planner who gave FDR most of the details on his agricultural reforms.

He was along with the better publicized Harry Hopkins, one of the architects of the New Deal. I was impressed that here he was…a little, wizened fellow of 83…and we chatted a good deal about Roosevelt. He ended up being too hot a radical for the New Deal and so they got him out of town by making him the governor-general of Puerto Rico. There Tugwell did what he could to foment an economic statist revolution but it didn’t take. Now he was at the Center swapping great thoughts with, all kinds of other radicals including Robert Hutchins, the famous former president o the University of Chicago and Bishop James Pike, the radical former Episcopal bishop of California who was almost defrocked for his heresy but who was a thoroughly delightful character.



It turned out that Tugwell had received a Ph.D from the University of Pennsylvania but because of his radical teaching in the late 1920s was thrown off the faculty as a Communist. He regarded this as a great insult. After talking to him, however, I decided inwardly that Pennsylvania was 100% right. While he wasn’t a subversive or a threat to the nation, there was no doubt that Rex Tugwell was philosophically and spiritually a Communist, embodying the belief in state ownership. But I thought he was a great treasure because here at 83 with a cane he was still as radical as he was while a young man with FDR. He asked shyly about Jim Farley one of his great critics but he spoke tenderly about him in retrospect.

I got the idea that for our class on April 12 it would be great to have Rex Tugwell come back to the University of Pennsylvania from which he had been so summarily ejected as a communist…and on the anniversary of the death of his great patron, FDR. The university became excited and volunteered to pay a handsome honorarium. The old man accepted but then called me in Chicago and said hesitantly that he could not accept it. He never told me why. I reluctantly said okay but an hour later my phone rang again and it was Mrs. Tugwell.

She said, “Rex is too embarrassed to tell you this but I will. At his age of 83, he has to go to the bathroom at least once every half-hour. Your class lasts for 2 hours and he is ashamed to give you these details.” Accordingly I called him back and said, “Dr. Tugwell, let me ask you to reconsider but as I do so, I want to tell you about our class. You see the people in the class are young business types who have an attention deficit. Therefore Bob Choate and I usually hold our classes in half-hour intervals so as to keep the attention of the class. That’s the way we run the course. Now having said that, I still wish you’d reconsider.”

You could almost hear the old man emit a sigh of relief. He said he would reconsider; then five minutes later called me and said he had reconsidered and that he would attend…and would certainly respect the half-hour durations of the class. He would lecture for a half-hour…there would be a break…then there would be questions for another half-hour…then a break…then a renewal. We agreed and he flew out there.

I have the tape of his remarks and they were singularly revelatory about the struggles within the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s. The Wharton School experience lasted two years; then I took the course to the Kellogg School of Northwestern University. After that: the Kennedy School, Harvard; the Woodrow Wilson school, Princeton; Loyola University of Chicago; DePaul University; the University of Illinois (Chicago) and Roosevelt University.

When news got out in Philadelphia about Tugwell’s forthcoming appearance, I received a call from a reporter at the Philadelphia Inquirer who wanted to cover the event. He showed such a knowledge of the New Deal that I said sure, come ahead, wondering how old this guy was to have such an incisive knowledge of times long before his birth.

He showed up and had the face and shyness of a boy.

His name: Steve Neal…later to become the White House correspondent for the Chicago Tribune and the political columnist of the Chicago Sun-Times who wrote several excellent books on history which were originally researched…including a landmark contribution on relations between Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower (which was far what conventional wisdom has held) and a thoroughly enjoyable candidate-by-candidate replay of the memorable Democratic national convention of 1932 which nominated Franklin Roosevelt. He was more than a commentator but a dynamic participative force—exceeding the role of journalist-- for liberalism in Chicago. I am not sure I ever met a man…in academia, journalism or politics… who was more intimately acquainted with more fascinating, unknown pieces of political history than he.

Steve Neal’s tragic death at an early age was a great loss to Chicago journalism. That meeting began a friendship which was improbable…Neal a liberal Democrat and I a conservative Republican…that lasted to his untimely death.

***********

Nineteen-seventy-two was the year Mother died. She was 76. The photo of us was taken at my Commerce swearing-in. She was in many ways the politician in the family. Born in 1896, she was so eager to get in a career that she quit high school after only two years…getting her parents rather upset. She landed a job as a steno at J. Walter Thompson and quickly moved up to the point that when she left to get married, she ran the Production Department there…which supervised the production of a print ad from the time the Creative Department got the idea…through the writing stage…following through to see that the necessary art was produced…sending the art out for transference to engraving…checking the engraving when it came back…running it by Creative and copy-writing…then out to the publication—this done many times each week.

She was an instinctive Democrat whose party left her. In her seventies, as a widow, she landed a job with the Cook county treasurer as paymaster for the county. I was in Washington, D. C. when she was found dead in her home, the phone off the hook (she was obviously attempting to call us). When Lillian checked, the telephone company reported that the phone was not off the hook but that in fact “the line is in use” which delayed us seeing what was wrong. But autopsy showed she was dead before she hit the floor. She was a natural partner for my father, a gifted writer who was always sure pestilence and disaster was about to strike; she was happy, optimistic, witty, brilliantly pragmatic, a risk-taker. Who do I take after? More her than he, I am told.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Personal Asides: A Lockean Flaw in Our Polity Which Means all the Difference in the World

Locke_John

The Flaw.

Later on in this website, I discuss the “Roe v. Wade” decision and a great weakness in our polity that could some day have fatal consequences. The weakness is, of course, lack of adherence to an absolute prescription of Natural Law rather than the John Locke version embedded in our documents. The Locke theory upholds Natural Law that squares with the view of the majority. That is the variant of Natural Law that has permeated the system, not the original view of Alexander Hamilton who believed in absolutes. Basically a skeptic in metaphysics, Locke could not attain certainty in moral philosophy, an extension of metaphysics. His moral philosophy, had he worked it out, would have been a barren utilitarianism identical to that of Jeremy Bentham. If one follows Locke, one cannot say for certain what is right or wrong when the majority says otherwise.

This has explained much about the Supreme Court’s rocking from side to side throughout our history. In the Court’s most recent partial birth abortion decision, the sliding scale came down in our favor. Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor who was solicitor general under Ronald Reagan from 1985 to 1989 is a conservative who supports “Roe.” When John Roberts was named chief justice in 2005, Fried testified at the Senate Judiciary committee of what Fried said some time later was Roberts commitment to “clarity, consistency and stability in the law—qualities that includes respect for precedent, essential if a Supreme Court is to be the guarantor of legality under the Constitution and not as unnecessary third political branch of government.”

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked if in Fried’s opinion, Roberts would vote to overturn “Roe.” Fried said he thought he would not because the “Casey” decision of 1982 protected governments from imposing an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose abortion before what the Court had ruled was the fetus’s viability. Then Fried testified similarly for Sam Alito and gave the same assessment to Sen. Feinstein. But it is clear to Fried now that the Supreme Court is moving toward ditching “Roe.” That is good to a pro-lifer like me but in a nation where absolutes are less than perfect, further indication that our government is based on shifting sands, due to the less-than-perfect application of Natural Law by our founders.

In 2000 in a similar case, the Supreme Court stuck down a Kansas partial birth abortion ban because there was medical opinion that sometimes the procedure was less risky for the mother and that the ban posed an undue burden. The federal ban that followed prescribed that the procedure was never safe for the mother. To Fried, Justice Anthony Kennedy doesn’t come to grips with his own jurisprudence, “going so far as to say that because Congress was acting under its power to regulate interstate commerce, it needed only a rational basis to justify its decision.” He cites the continued tendency of the Court to bob and weave, first with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor who contradicted positions she had earlier agreed-to, like affirmative action and campaign finance. He wonders if the Court is not up to its own tricks, “simply reflecting its changed political complexion, not reasoning carefully and promoting stability and clarity in the law.”

Fried is entirely right. The fault lies more with our founders, brilliant men but most of whom in the age of Enlightenment, relied on Locke. The philosophy of Hamilton was diluted by others who unlike Hamilton did not regard human law in the context of a divine order knowable to man. Some things are always unjust no matter what a majority will say. Locke did not see things that way; as an empiricist he did not believe he could really know the essence or nature of anything.

Because Locke’s uncertainly governs, it’s why all of us pro-lifers want to win the next presidential election. If we had a Court running on the absolute principles of Natural Law as Hamilton envisaged it rather than Locke, we might not be so concerned. But that’s not the way it is…which is the reason why as Mr. Dooley so rightly said, “th’ Supreme Court follows th’ election returns!” .

January 23, 1973: A Revolutionary Change in Direction for the Country and Me as We Take to the Streets.

blackmun
burger
[Fifty years of politics written for my kids and grandchildren.]

While creating and running a small federal agency changed my outlook from so-called moderate to conservative…and the defeat of Richard B. Ogilvie which convinced me the best political practice was to be the practitioner of a small, efficient state government that did not duplicate the federal government (as Ogilvie’s did with a separate EPA and various auxiliary branches)…yet another convulsion put me irrevocably on the social conservative side: that was the landmark decision by the U. S. Supreme Court that snatched the issue of abortion from the purview of the states where it belonged and enacted it as a federal constitutional right.

The fact that the Roe decision was written by a Republican appointee, Harry Blackmun of Minnesota and supported by such Republican appointees as Chief Justice Warren Burger of Minnesota made me wonder why—since I had known both slightly at an earlier time (Blackmun who was around Rochester and a supporter when Quie was in Congress and Burger who had been a big shot in the Minnesota Republican party)--I had not perceived their gross insensitivity to (a) the biological facts of life, (b) the genesis of the U. S. Constitution, Natural Law and (c) plain and simple humanity. Some time ago I launched an Internet conversation with some people in Minnesota who knew both Blackmun and Burger better than I. We delved into the strangeness of their friendship…ranging from their early days in St. Paul to Blackmun’s in Rochester as a lawyer for the Mayo Clinic and beyond.

In addition, we know from Linda Greenhouse’s (Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times) valuable biography of Blackmun and Bob Woodward’s “The Brethren” something I in all my years previously had not sufficiently understood. That was the propensity of the human condition to be corrupted by jealousy and flattery which can shape great federal policies…documented further by my contacts in Minnesota.

Why I didn’t perceive this when I had been all my life involved in political negotiations of one sort or another, I don’t know—but my research has satisfied an inner need I had to find out how two people, originally fast friends (with Blackmun the best man at Burger’s wedding) could have supported such an egregious error. At the bottom of it was collusion by mischievous liberals William Brennan and William O. Douglas working on Blackmun’s insecurities at being overshadowed and dominated by Burger and Douglas-Brennan telling Blackmun he was smarter than Burger…not the other way around…and he should rebel against Burger’s autocracy so as to bring out legalized abortion which Brennan and Douglas favored.

By writing into the law a constitutional “right” to abortion, they said, Blackmun would show Berger what’s what and get his attention: no longer would Harry be regarded as a back-bencher on the Court. That and stand tall in Georgetown, the wealthy suburb where liberals abound and where Blackmun and his socialite wife passionately desired to be loved.

We are told that with Brennan and Douglas’ best wishes (“we trust in your scholarship, Harry!”) went with Blackmun as he flew back to his home town of Rochester, Minnesota and researched his opinion at the Mayo medical library.

How could such a miserable job be done researching human biology at the nation’s foremost medical center? Everybody knew —as all of us had learned in high school biology—that a child’s life begins at fertilization, the joinder of the male sperm and the female ovum. After 18 days…18 days…the unborn child’s heart starts to beat. At six weeks, when the child weighs 1/30th of an ounce, he/she has every internal organ he/she will have as an adult: mouth, lips, tongue and twenty buds for his/her milk teeth.

At 43 days his/her brain waves can be detected by electroencephalogram but this does not mean that he/she begins life at that point: he/she has begun life much earlier. At 6 weeks the unborn child has recognizable fingers, knees, ankles and toes. If you could stroke his/her lips, he/she will bend his/her body to one side and make a quick backward motion with his/her arms—a “total pattern response” which involves most of his/her body. At 8 weeks his/herbrain is fully present; a stomach that secretes gastric juices and if you could tickle his/her nose he/she will flex his/her head backward from the stimulus.

At 9 weeks, electrocardiogram recordings of his/her heart can be taken; he/she squints, swallows and moves his/her tongue. If you could stroke his/her palm he/she will make a tight fist. At 11 weeks he/she has fingernails, all his/her body systems are working and he/she sucks his/her thumb. He/she has spontaneous movement without stimulation. He/she breathes fluid steadily, gets oxygen through the umbilical cord. At 10 weeks he/she feels pain. At 12 weeks he/she will kick his/her legs, turn his/her feet and fan his/her tones, bend his/her wrists, turn his/her head, squints, frown, will open his/her mouth and press his/her lips tightly together. At 16 weeks he/she has eyelashes and at 18 weeks he/she cries, although we hear no sound because there is no air in the womb.

At 20 weeks he/she will react to loud noises and his/her mother’s voice. If he/she is given an intrauterine transfusion, frequently two people have to do it; one to hold him/her, to keep him from jumping away from the needle and the other to make the injection.

How did it happen that with outstanding medical research at his fingertips at one of the nation’s premier health centers, Blackmun did not take into account the biological truth? Easy. The guidance Blackmun received from Mayo from a younger cadre of physicians wasn’t biological; it was political, my contacts at Mayo confirm. Such medical authorities whom Blackmun consulted couldn’t deny the biological facts—nor did they. They sublimated them with liberal pragmatic philosophical theory. Doctors and scientists there were, like many in academe, influenced by the residual experience of John Dewey’s “Humanist Manifesto” which has been the foundation of liberalism at its outset in the 1930s--not fully digested by the old liberals such as Hubert Humphreys and others who ran in the post-Depression years but which has sprouted with McGovernism since.

Dewey dictated that “man is a part of nature and he has emerged as result of a continuous process” since “moral values derive their source from human experience.” Thus support for abortion and unrestricted sexual behavior “between consenting adults.” Also, “an individual’s right to die with dignity, euthanasia and the right to suicide.”

Those scientists were not different from many of the intelligentsia educated at modern universities…in scientific laboratories and political science seminars...or in law courses taught by those who had absorbed the identical views of Hans Kelsen…all of whom who were swayed by the dogma of Sir Julian Huxley who said “all belief in absolutes, whether the absolute validity of moral commandments, the authority of revelation, of inner certitude or of divine inspiration” is subject to intellectual evolution.

Or as Humanist Barbara Wootton has written, “We ask no longer what is pleasing to God but what is good for men.” Thus the physicians and scientists at Mayo…as have modern legal theorists, modern theologians and philosophers... did not deny that human life is present in the womb. They could not. They did deny that what is present is a person. Thus they influenced Blackmun to postulate that an unborn child is not a person and therefore has no right to live. Tax lawyer Blackburn took that down in almost stenographic style. In his decision he said that an unborn child, even in the third trimester of life, is something other than a human person—but has “the potential of life.” What was essential, the Mayo scientists said, was the a woman shall have control of her body. The contradiction is ironic: it was a new absolute to replace the timeless absolute about life…only it dealt with a woman and her body.

How Blackmun could have bought the humanist philosophy cannot be appreciated until one reads his writings, Greenhouse’s commentaries and Woodward’s book…as well as my research…which instructs about his human condition. He was born in tiny Nashville, Illinois and whose family moved to St. Paul where they lived in the poor Dayton Bluff area (I know Dayton Bluff, having lived near there in a rooming house as a bachelor—and it had not progressed much since Blackmun’s time; now, however, it is upscale). Lonely, a young recluse, Blackmun’s only joy was academics; he chafed at his inability to make friends. Indeed by young manhood he had made only one close friend, his old high school classmate.

He was the stronger- willed Warren Burger with whom he went to high school in St. Paul. Burger was the one who dominated basis his having excelled in football, baseball, swimming and track at their high school, who worked building the Robert street bridge over the Mississippi summers and who sold insurance while going to the St. Paul College of Law. Blackmun, the more introverted, who shunned fast friendships except Burger’s, got the more fashionable education, winning a full scholarship to Harvard for undergrad and proceeding from there through Harvard law school. Still all the while he felt insecure before Burger and Burger unintentionally rubbed it in…glorying in his gregariousness, his participation in campus athletics, his growing circle of friends.

Rubbed it in by doing what often a friend should not do—he sought to dislodge and upset Blackmun’s comfortable life by pressuring him to abandon the lucrative tax law career he had initiated and become a federal judge so as to be a colleague of Burger. In fact, goad the brilliant but insecure tax lawyer to become first an appellate federal judge and then join Burger on the Supreme Court. Evidently Burger needed to have Blackmun around to impress…and Blackmun, knowing that he was the weaker of the two, didn’t want to repeat the old stance of being a nebbish who was fated to be impressed by Burger.

Burger did more than entreat Blackmun; he lobbied the White House to appoint Blackmun to the federal district court of appeals. Then after two disastrous appointments to the Court which were voted down, to the Supreme Court where he could work with Burger. Blackmun tried to resist; in fact he pointed out his livelihood was much more affluent than Berger’s. A federal judge’s pay was far below his standard. Burger wouldn’t hear of it and Blackmun gradually assented. First to the Court of Appeals he went and then to the Supreme Court. In fact, the whole tale of one strong willed judge pushing a boyhood friend to join him sounds…well…odd. And the reclusive partner allowing himself to be pushed sounds…well…just as odd. There may be a deep psychological need underlying Burger’s wish to be with Blackmun and Blackmun’s agreement to be with Burger—but I don’t want to think about it now.

Once on the Court, Burger did what he had done in their youth—dominate Blackmun. Their rulings were so identical, the two were called disparagingly by the media, “the Minnesota Twins.” Being junior to Burger may have been all right for Blackmun as the two grew up but now, as a Justice, Blackmun felt the comparison bitterly, believing people thought him by far the junior partner. Now Brennan and Douglas moved like Iagos to Macbeth, whispering treason to the old friendship, telling Blackmun that he was too as good as Burger…even brighter…and that they were confident he would “grow” and “mature” on his own. Essentially this was the serpentine cooing of lascivious praise in Eden’s garden.

The goal was to get Blackmun to take the lead in an issue they knew would come before the court—legalized abortion. Burger had indicated he would oppose legalization and had expected Blackmun to go along as well. Burger’s sole preoccupation was to preserve the political balance, to keep as much unity in the Court as was possible to maintain. Then, in conference, Blackmun astounded Burger by saying he favored legalized abortion. Burger still wouldn’t give up. He did an unusual thing. He said he would join in the decision! Why? Because a Chief going along meant he could name the one to write the majority decision…and Burger named Blackmun with the intention of moderating the decision when it was finally written. Douglas, the Iago, whispered to Blackmun later: He still thinks he can roll you and soften the decision! Blackmun became enraged—but quietly.

Thus to show Burger that he, Blackmun, was a man and his own man, Blackmun in his draft not only circumvented human biology and adopted Huxley’s and Dewey’s humanism as explained by the young doctors--but re-wrote constitutional law as Brennan and Douglas applauded from the sidelines.. The fact that a court, not a legislature, was entrusted to make the decision and to overrule legislatures was unconscionable. Blackmun was repeating the Humanist dogma by stating the Court need not decide whether the unborn child is a human being, he/she is a non-person and therefore not entitled to the right to live. Since then the Supreme Court will be nothing more than a free-floating constitutional convention on the issue of abortion. A convention because of a weakness in the U. S. intellectual framework behind the Constitution. The weakness of U.S. law has always been that there was no room for an external moral interpreter—and John Locke who believed in Natural Law but Natural Law as defined by a majority, is not the source which is God.

Thus are we driven to morality by consensus. When a Supreme Court says unborn babies can be killed, objecting citizens ought to be able to cite a source acceptable to the community as the interpreter of Natural Moral Law. Unfortunately we cannot because of the Lockean influence on our founders. But it is erroneous. Natural Law stands alone and is not what a bare majority says it is. The conclusion: If the state which possesses the power of coercion is its own interpreter of natural law, it is really not subject to it and people are at its mercy.

The decision written by Blackmun in which Burger half-heartedly concurred marked the end of the trail for the two. When Burger died…his one-time best friend, the man who served as his Best Man at his marriage, Blackmun…did not even go to his funeral. Blackmun felt that he had finally shaken off the figure who had dominated him for most of his life.

****************

Once one makes a decision that the Supreme Court has erred…as it did with Dred Scott…a prudent man will seek to move heaven and earth and do what he can to change it back—at least I did and still do. Just as Lincoln refused to accept Dred Scott and labored mightily short of war…and then utilizing war to undo it…Americans who disagreed with the abortion became enlisted not in politics but a movement, spanning demonstrations…legal briefs…plans to pass constitutional amendments…plans to elect pro-life presidents and congressmen. The U.S. political scene has not been the same since. Where once liberals and conservatives could disagree and drink with each other after hours, the chances grew less likely after “Roe.”

Normally, my inclination would have been to support Republicans or various types and exercise the luxury of endorsing this or that variant of them regardless of shading of legal view. Not now. The situation changed.

The Old Order changeth. Richard Nixon,we are told by Monica Crowley (Nixon’s own Monica), a bitter-end feminist whom I know, that he was in sympathy with “Roe” to the end of his days. Certainly Monica who worked with him in his exile made sure he stayed firm. Gerald Ford was in sympathy until pressure got him to change over the strident objections of his wife. Ronald Reagan signed California’s severe abortion law and changed, over the objections of his wife and her physician father. George H. W. Bush favored abortion and changed over the strident objections of his wife. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both original pro-lifers and changed. George W. Bush always was a pro-lifer and is so now…over the private objections of his wife. So the fight goes on.

Although I was a the political officer of Quaker Oats, a corporation whose officers normally supported the ruling as a matter of course…and whose wealthy wives were predisposed to it…I did several things to advance the pro-life cause. First, I got active in pro-life activities through education and training sessions on political action. I joined the board of the Illinois Right-to-Life committee and ultimately headed two different groups.. I formed a new group—the Illinois Pro-Life Coalition (IPC) which endorsed candidates. When the IPC went the way of all flesh and disappeared for lack of funding, I joined with a few others and formed Friends for Life, a 501 © (3) with excellent foundation backing which we obtained from a sympathetic heir to the Miller brewing fortune. We went to Milwaukee often to importune him for funds which came through in a huge amount. I even held informal pro-life sessions off-hours to train pro-life volunteers at the Merchandise Mart until we were tossed out on our ear by a fellow officer who was so opposed to the effort he couldn’t contain himself.

Secondly, I formed a specifically Republican organization of grassroots activists, the Republican Assembly of Illinois. While working to reform the Republican party, I found it necessary to support Democrats who were pro-life against Republicans who were not. Sen. Charles Percy was a pro-abort. Normally I would be his supporter. Not any more. So when he ran for reelection in 1972 without making a great fanfare of it, I voted for Roman Pucinski, the Democratic nominee…even though in line of political duty I had to debate Pucinski’s daughter, Aurelia, in the suburbs. In 1978 Percy was opposed by Democrat Alex Seith who while not pro-life was markedly less pro-abortion than Percy: so he it was whom I supported. Third, I served as chairman of Family PAC, a funding mechanism that supported pro-life candidates for state office.

In 1984 I favored State Sen. Phil Rock, a pro-lifer, Democratic leader of the Senate and chairman of the Democratic state party for the U. S. senatorial nomination but as a Republican, I voted for Rep. Tom Corcoran of Illinois who challenged Percy in the primary and the RAI endorsed Corcoran. In the general election when the candidates were both pro-abort—Percy and Paul Simon—I abstained. In 1998 I voted proudly for Rep. Glenn Poshard for governor over Secretary of State George Ryan, having been told from discreet inside sources that Ryan had made a deal with pro-abortion forces to support their cause once he went to the governorship. A good friend of mine, Bob Kustra, started out as a pro-lifer in the legislature but he determined his career would advance more quickly if he abandoned the position and became a pro-abort. He was named Illinois lieutenant governor and the day he was named, he announced his switch.

Before he switched, he phoned me at Quaker and said that despite my earnest advice, he was doing so. I said flatly—more in sorrow than anger-- that I would do everything I could to defeat him…a neighbor whom I once served as finance chairman. We never spoke after that. When as lieutenant governor he determined to run for the U. S. Senate against Dick Durbin, I chaired a meeting in the suburbs…we called it “The Council of Trent”… to find a primary candidate against Kustra. One was found and I worked in a leadership position to fuse conservative grassroots movements together: pro-life, home schoolers, 2nd amendment people, tax cutters, even motorcycle riders who disdained mandatory seatbelts (they belonged to a group called “Abate”). We defeated Kustra with State Representative Al Salvi. We did not win the general. Republican regulars said: “see? Now because of that primary split, you’ve got Durbin who is much worse.” That cuts no ice with a true movement conservative.

Another “Council of Trent” I served on recruited Peter Fitzgerald who went on to defeat the pro-abort Republican state comptroller, the favorite, and to defeat the incumbent Carol Moseley Braun. Fitzgerald’s single term was more accomplishment-filled than many other Senators who have served decades…in that he found a U. S. District Attorney who convicted Governor George Ryan—who angered all pro-lifers by abandoning his position. That’s how movement politics works. The movement takes precedence over the party.

Within the corporation, the going was somewhat difficult because the leadership of Quaker seemed unanimous in favor of abortion rights. I had to tiptoe many times but I never had the feeling that the company was out to punish me for my stand; far from it, it was generous and supportive of me in all my activities. Still, I had to be careful that I was not flying the flag of defiance in the corporation’s face since I was the officer to whom most listened to on political matters.

In addition, I resolved to demonstrate and with Lillian we marched many times in the spirit of the earlier civil rights marchers. To learn how to participate in and lead a demonstration, I called upon my earlier knowledge of civil rights actions and even talked with some local leaders who wondered what in the world I wanted to learn their techniques for. It was both exciting and dangerous since I felt strongly that were I to have been arrested, I might well have had to leave my job. Several times I came close to being arrested—one time when our little regiment was picketing the home of Ruth Rothstein, the venerable pro-abort head of Cook County Hospital who helped move the hospital to practice abortion after the pro-life tenure of George Dunne ended.

It so happened about fifty of us were picketing her luxury apartment building…marching in an orderly fashion down the street, turning at an alley, making a “U” and returning, carrying our placards. I looked up at her window at the 5th floor and saw the elderly lady standing there on the phone, hopping mad and shaking her gnarled fists. I deduced she was calling the cops. Sure enough about ten minutes later the Chicago Police wagon arrived. As it pulled up with a screech, I had just approached the alley where we were to make the U turn. Not me.

I stood there and watched my colleagues being loaded into the police wagon very willingly, but thinking of my job and the support of my family, I just kept on sauntering away, watching the wagon, its lights flashing on and off and its horn blasting, roar away loaded with my friends. Staying out of jail may condemn me forever as coward; it was also a prudent action for the breadwinner of the family. Earlier my reporting relationship at Quaker had switched to an executive not nearly so favorable to my independence of action and I had every reason to think that going to jail, even overnight, would have been the end of my career—with three kids in college to support and a little one in high school.

It was with some strained relations that the next morning, Ruth Rothstein was to appear before a City Club of Chicago meeting at which I presided as president. When an intermediary tried to introduce us, she said tartly, “yes, I feel I know Mr. Roeser very well having seen him in action yesterday when he was directing the picketing of my house…and I marveled as his nimble adroitness as he hop-scotched his way down the street avoiding the police wagon. Jail is where he should be this morning if the police had truly done their work well.” I had no objection because the lady was correct. Hop-scotch is what I did; rather nimbly, too, as she said.

There was other examples of anomaly. I picketed Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge which sanctioned abortion where one of our fellow picketers was Virginia McCaskey, owner of the Bears, no less. Not long after, I was driven there in the middle of the night to have its surgeons operate on me to save my life by relieving pressure from a brain hemorrhage sustained in a fall. Ah yes. And once having recovered, I picketed it again.

I was disturbed at no other aspect of my corporation than its continued donations of large amounts of philanthropic money to Planned Parenthood which has a thriving abortion referral division…and which also receives support from the federal government. How to get the corporation to cut down if not eliminate entirely its donations was the point. My immediate supervisor…the new one…was, of course, in full and passionate support of the contributions to placate his superiors—but he was also frenetic about the orderly process of the corporation for which he was also corporate secretary.

So it happened that a group of pro-lifers came to an annual meeting and raised the roof about the donations. Dealing with a grassroots movement for a corporation is vastly different than with other dissident stockholders or even critical politicians. Intriguingly enough (and I use that word advisedly), I was asked to negotiate with the pro-lifers since alone in the company I was recognized as its only pro-lifer.

After some time spent in meeting with them…interesting because they were all friends who had been involved with me in forming the pro-life group…I returned and reported that there was one way to heal the breach which was that the company refrain from so conspicuously providing large contributions. Was I sure they would calm down if this happened, I was asked. Well, pretty sure but of course I couldn’t guarantee anything. The contributions shut down and the company was not bothered further. I don’t know if my supervisor fully understood that in the negotiations I had switched one hat for another. My sympathetic secretary knew and she murmured within my earshot, “duplicitous little devil, isn’t he?” I murmured back: “Duplicitous, yes. Cowardly, too. But prudent.”

I don’t want this to seem as if I have no political friends but pro-lifers. Indeed, some pro-lifers are so cantankerous they drive me crazy. Other pro-choicers like Jack Franks will always be friends no matter what they run for. But this long article happens to give the only explanation of my politics—because the Supreme Court on January 23, 1973 made me a movement conservative irredeemably… rather than a corporate one.

Monday, May 14, 2007

Personal Asides: The Trinity of Eddies…The Eddie Charisma that Attracts Both Women and Men…The Giuliani Factor.

edwardvrdolyak
rudyg


Trinity of Eddies.

Cowboy Wally asks a good question in Reader’s Comments. He says there were three Eddies who were allied against Harold Washington. Indeed there were: Eddie Vrdolyak, Eddie Burke and Ed Kelly…aka “Coach Kelly”…the head of the Chicago Park District and 47th ward Democratic committeeman. Of the three, the first two Eddies were far more potent in opposition to Washington.

The Eddie Charisma.

My support of Eddie Vrdolyak last Friday elicited a good response from readers—but there is more to say about this fascinating man. Nothing I wrote implied that he was infallible in the handling of his politics and ethics. In fact, I believe—and he has acknowledged—that he was wrong politically on the bitterness with which he and the second Eddie handled Harold Washington. On ethics, he agreed to a suspension of his law license, acknowledging that he over-billed on some occasions as a lawyer. Strategically, I think it’s pretty clear that if he hadn’t gone to the Republican party when he had, he could have been considered for mayor and may well have won the nod. Whether he would have been a great one cannot be known—but what can be assumed is that he would have been an extraordinarily memorable one. Still none of the foregoing matches Eddie in élan: he stands alone.

Eddie’s imperishability is linked to the perception of him not as a Democrat but a classic neighborhood political leader categorized as a representative of “Chicago working class conservatives” not withstanding the fact that his law skills made him rich. In Chicago history Eddie is one of those who never became mayor but who was more colorful than many who did. You could list working class conservative John Hoellen, liberal-turned-conservative Bob Merriam, socialist-turned-urban pragmatist Paul Douglas, Vito Marzullo (who had a 4th grade education) in that category; also the brilliant Leon Despres (although Despres, nearing 100 years old now, was and is a liberal and didn’t have the finesse to “get a dog out of a pound” according to Marzullo who assuredly did).

There is a national standard for men like Eddie…with a kind of pirate’s flair and brilliance… as well.

Nationally, I would identify him with John Randolph of Roanoke, the debater and rebel who would stride into the House wearing riding togs and spurs (his horse tethered outside), became a Republican (in the Jeffersonian sense of limited government) and who broke with Jefferson because the party was embracing nationalism with too much fervor.

Probably in urban governmental history, Eddie could be compared with New York Mayor Jimmy Walker (excepting, of course, Walker’s skirt-chasing). Walker, born poor, began as a Tin Pan Alley songwriter, became a lawyer, elected to state House and Senate, later Democratic majority leader of the Senate, an ally of Al Smith who became mayor of New York in 1926, winning reelection by defeating both Fiorello LaGuardia and socialist Norman Thomas, lost his popularity during the stock market crash when, although married, he was running around with chorus girl Betty Comden. Patrick Cardinal Hayes, the archbishop of New York, said he was an insult to Catholic family life.

Hayes’ condemnation meant a lot in those days. In the heart of the Depression, the Cardinal said that Walker’s personal immorality as well as his toleration of girlie magazines and casinos brought down the wrath of God on New York! The grossly unfair denunciation saw Walker became an object of church and political opprobrium which led to the politicians of the state, including the governor, FDR, trying to take him down. Forced to testify to the Seabury Commission, Walker resigned. He left the country and married Betty Comden in Europe. No indictments which never came, actually--but it was clear that he offended some public sensibilities in those Depression-somber times. Even today New York legends record that the fun and zest of being associated with Mayor Jimmy Walker is still unforgettable, renewed when Bob Hope played him in the film “Beau James.”

Vrdolyak’s flare for leadership…the capacity to draw others to follow him…can’t be erased because of too abrupt, short-term snap judgments and political mistakes…and if he beats the rap on the Patrick Fitzgerald indictments (as he well may) his name in Chicago politics will not be diminished.

One other thing about his oratorical abilities and phrasing. He is probably the best communicator of his era and has a particular resonance to the working class. When I had a daily show on WLS-AM I once played contrasting audio tapes—one of Frank Sinatra doing an interview and the other of Eddie talking on his own show. The verbal phrasing of both were identical. In fact I played them over again and it was remarkable how similarly they sounded. Both have the very same appeal…Sinatra from Hoboken who mastered a jaunty air, Vrdolyak the same.

When I saw Eddie last week, two days before the indictment was announced, I found him older looking but still wiry and jaunty. I will not name her but some years ago Chicago’s ranking senior woman editor who served on both “Sun-Times” and “Tribune” and who received a Pulitzer prize…a woman not known for entertaining anything less than an orthodox liberal view and who could be counted to look down on neighborhood types like Eddie…went to a City Club function at which Eddie was the speaker. A somewhat sedate, married woman of middle age, she told me that Eddie has a magnetic hold on women (and confessed on herself) and found it phenomenal that among her acquaintances, he had an equally magnetic hold on men. Usually, she said, a man who is attractive to women is not beloved by men. I thought about it and agreed with her.

Very few men whom women admired also appeal to men. Women adored Tyrone Power; men despised him (too pretty; they were right as it turned out); same with Cary Grant. Men like John Wayne; most women feel he was a klutz. Probably the only actor who had an equal pull on men and women was Bogart.

Much has been made in the news media prior to the indictment…a push given by Channel 5…that as his law firm represented Cicero, Eddie made a great deal of money—something like $3 million—representing the village which came from overbilling. That story was given a great push followed by oohs and ahs. I don’t know anything about how he billed Cicero but I do know that this community was awash in legal problems. And I do know, basis my earlier experience in business, that extensive work with law firms doesn’t wash down easily. At Quaker we had an inside corporate law office that cost millions to try an historic cereal oligopoly case along with outside firms that cost millions as well. We were pitted against the FTC which had an unlimited public budget. And the billing went on for years, when court was in session or out. If we were in public life then perhaps someone would have questioned the bills from blue-chip firms.

Maybe he over-billed Cicero although this hasn’t been proven. Certainly he did when his law license was suspended earlier this year and for which he repented. But a TV anchor getting $1.2 million a year for simply reading the news that someone else writes and who feigns disgust at payments to his law firm for undeniable legal troubles besetting Cicero is a little too much for my usually iron-clad stomach.

Vrdolyak assuredly had…and to many still has…that magnetic pull over both men and women. Understand now when I talk about a magnetic pull over men, I’m not talking whatsoever of the fruity kind that engages gushy effeminates—but real manliness qualities. Remember when the great big lumbering Texas transplant urban radical Slim Coleman jumped over the railing of the council chamber and Eddie smiled coolly, raised both fists expertly and said, “com’on ahead, sweetheart!” My colleague Pat Hickey wrote about it very well. That’s the kind of man men instinctively want to recognize and follow…and the same quality that mesmerized the sedate woman Pulitzer prize-winning editor I talked about earlier.

Another story I just heard today deals with his quickness of repartee. Some years ago, Channel 2 featured a two-man anchor team of Bill Kurtis, a nice appearing guy and Walter Jacobson who specialized in purveying a snotty liberalism. Bill Kurtis saved a child from drowning in a lagoon and was awarded a medal for heroism from the City Council. After the mayor bestowed the medal and great praise for saving the kid from drowning, Eddie piped up and said in a voice heard across the chamber: “He ought to get another one for keeping Walter Jacobson afloat all these years!” I’m told that prima-donna Jacobson burned.

That’s what I mean. That’s the fun-quality that will never die.

The Giuliani Factor.

Rudy Giuliani has taken the stance that he will by running on a (a) pro-choice and (b) pro-gay rights charter…and that he will defy the Democrats to match a Republican party which has a tent big enough to embrace pro-life, traditional social values and his own. Well and good. That will allow us to make a definitive choice…and of course that leaves me out of any Rudy campaign until and unless he is nominated which will require another scrutiny at the two party choice.

Several things remain clear, however:

  • The GOP cannot afford a lot of internecine arguments given the status of its health and the fact that George W. Bush’s low popularity ratings will play a decisive part in determining whether the party wins or loses next year.

  • There is no doubt that Giuliani, still the poll-leader, has been wandering all over town taking alternately one position and then another on abortion…saying a good number of confusing things—that “Roe v. Wade” being the law of the land, public funding of abortion is a constitutional right. Then when the absurdity of that position became clear, saying that he supports the legal right to the procedure but abhors it. So if he’s formulated a definite stand, all the better.

    Given the Democratic party’s stance on all issues that concern me, if Rudy is nominated, I’ll probably cross my fingers and vote for him. But I doubt seriously if he can be nominated with his liberal social views.
  • Friday, May 11, 2007

    Personal Aside: Why I’m Soft on Eddie and Why I Think He’ll Beat the Rap.

    edwardvrdolyak

    The indictment of Eddie Vrdolyak on one count of mail fraud, two counts of wire fraud and one count of bribery in an alleged scheme to collect kickbacks in exchange for sale of Gold Coast property means that he’s still officially innocent…and that’s okay by me. Most of the papers say this is his first indictment but that’s not true. One reason why he’s a pinwheel of color in Chicago politics is that when he was a law student he defended himself on a charge of manslaughter and beat the odds. I’m pulling for him this time as well.

    Why, do you ask, am I soft on Eddie whom I’ve known for many years? First, because he is not and has never been a liberal, his demeanor has been free of self-eulogization; he’s been non-hypocritical; he presents no bluster, no bravado associated with the worst cons in the game—liberals whose eyes are raised to heaven as they pretend that they’re only interested in “serving the pee-pul.” That’s because Eddie not being a liberal is as straight-talking, as tough, as quippy as seemingly no one else in the political generation t hat has followed his. But that doesn’t mean he’s not compassionate. I’m not at liberty to tell you all the good things he’s done for people who cannot pay him back—good things he did without any hope of recompense…things he sloughs off.

    Second—and you’ll have to take my word for this—because he’s an intellectual, an idealist without illusions. I’ve known him for many years, have talked with him often…including just this Monday when I visited his office on a matter that had no earthly benefit, use or relevance to him. For one thing, he’s as unlike another Eddie as it’s possible to be and I count that a great asset. This Eddie grew up in South Chicago and he hasn’t left it…hasn’t regarded himself with awe or surveyed his own greatness. His father had a tavern for fifty-one years, an immigrant from Dalmatia in Yugoslavia, the place his mother came from. Old people in the neighborhood still think of him as Pete’s boy and he’s proud of that. He went to a seminary in the first three years of high school, went to St. Joseph’s College in Renssalaer, Indiana and then to law school. Law school’s an interesting story. Eddie won a scholarship full-time to Harvard on the basis of superb grades. He turned it down in favor of a scholarship to the University of Chicago so that he could be around to tend bar for his Dad who needed him.

    The other Eddie, if he had had a chance to go to Harvard, would have taken it in a minute, would have come back, never seeing his old man’s tavern again but to cite his comeuppance to his Harvard fellows with his nose up higher than it is now. As it is when that other Eddie strides up to Communion at St. Peter’s late afternoons in Lent…immaculately attired with flowing green tie and white hair that can be seen even if the lights go out… it’s like he has agreed to consult with God as a lawyer gives obligatory time to a client. Not my Eddie. Where do I get the idealist without illusions part? I have spent more than a half century talking to politicians and other types…poets, cops even some un-canonized saints…in two states and D. C. I ask them different things…things other than issues or politics because I know how most of them—not all--can twist and turn.

    I once asked Eddie as we rode along in a car (him driving): what are the basic inclinations of man? Can you imagine if I asked George Ryan that…or the other Eddie…or Rod Blagojevich? Or Richard M. Daley? Or Mike Madigan? Or Emil Jones? Or Todd Stroger? Or Forrest Claypool? Or the Reverend Dick Simpson?

    Eddie said, “what is this?” and looked at me. No, Eddie, I said: you’ve been around, you’ve lived: I’ll ask again—what are the basic inclinations of man?

    “Well,” he said, looking out the window, “the first is to seek the good.”

    What’s that?

    “His highest good which is eternal happiness.”

    Anything else?

    “Yeah. To preserve himself in existence.”

    Any more?

    “Yeah, to preserve the species—that is to reproduce himself.”

    Is that it?

    “Almost. Then to live in community with other men.”

    Is that it?

    “Yeah—no, wait. To use his intellect and will to know the truth…because there is an absolute truth, not what you think is truth or what I think…to know the truth and thereby make his own decisions.”



    Why are they put into human nature, Eddie?

    “Huh? By God, you dumbbell!”

    What you just described is known as what?

    “Whatd’ye mean?”

    It’s known as what?

    “Now you got me.”

    It’s known as Natural Law. You’re a Natural Law man, Ed!

    “Of course! Enough already. We’re almost there. Shut up and let me find a parking place.”



    I don’t know anything about the charges but I think that in the end…I mean in the end where we all have to end up…he’ll come out all right.

    All the same, I’ll be praying for you, Eddie.

    Flashback: As Ogilvie Struggles for Reelection, Billy the Kid Offers Some Thoughts…and I Do Too, about BDSA.

    danwalker
    [Fifty plus years of politics written for my kids and grandchildren].

    It was well into the fall of 1972 when Billy the Kid (aka former Illinois governor William G. Stratton) and I sat down again for lunch in the Merchants & Manufacturers Club of the Merchandise Mart where we both worked. Governor Dick Ogilvie was behind in the polls for reelection; the choice Democrat, the candidate of Mayor Richard J. Daley, Lt. Governor Paul Simon who had cooperated with Ogilvie on getting a state income tax, had been defeated by an insurgent, Dan Walker.

    Walker gave every sign of being a nonconformist: having walked the entire state, 1,197 miles zig-zag in 116 days. Downstate, he noticed popular discontent as with Ogilvie’s new environmental agency that thoughtlessly banned the burning of fall leaves which angered farmers and small town residents. Walker agreed with them and railed against regulatory excess. In Chicago he noticed great neighborhood discontent with the proposal to build a Crosstown Expressway so, heedless of antagonizing Daley, he opposed it.

    He was charismatic and a lone wolf; he had a reputation of being a reformer-populist, combining elements of conservatism and anti-machine liberalism. He had the required intelligence and drive, rising from a California truck farm with no money for college education to the U. S. Navy, service in World War II on a destroyer, taking an exam for the Naval Academy that was open to all seamen, finishing third in the nation and going to Annapolis.

    He put in two additional years in fleet duty, then resigned to enter Northwestern University law school where he edited the Law Review. He moved swiftly to become a lawyer on the Little Hoover commission set up by Governor Adlai Stevenson to reorganize state government, then on to Washington where he became law clerk to Fred Vinson, chief justice of the United States. In the Korean War he was recalled by the Navy for fleet duty but it didn’t last long, got back to private life as deputy chief commissioner of the U. S. Court of Military Appeals.

    Back to Springfield to serve as an administrative assistant in the state capitol. Then a litigator with the blue-chip law firm of Hopkins & Sutter in Chicago where he dabbled in free time as a reform Democrat, founding a group that was anti-Daley, the Committee on Illinois Government, a Stevenson legacy. It went out of business so he formed the Democratic Federation of Illinois, a liberal group which Mayor Daley smothered. In 1960 he appeared before Democratic slate-makers, asking to be tapped for state attorney general.

    They refused, picking William G. Clark instead. After serving as secretary to Businessmen for Kennedy, he attracted the attention of William (Tom) Brooker, head of Montgomery Ward which had been amalgamated into Marcor; he became vice president and general counsel for that holding company. I talked with him often in the mid-1960s as he would regularly fly to Washington on the early Monday morning red-eyes with me. We often sat together.

    Right away I was alternately enthused with, and still terrified of, him. His eyes had a burning mesmeric quality and his diction was practiced even in private conversation as if he were before a jury. Born with no sense of humor and an abiding sense of his own destiny, it was rather like riding above the clouds with an embryonic Adolf Hitler. Occasionally our conversation dealt with Catholic theology since he, a Methodist, had married a Catholic, Roberta Dowse, whose grandfather had been a state rep from Lake county and whose great uncle had been an early president of the Chicago Board of Education. Walker was interested in the hierarchal nature of the Church, the fact that it is not a democracy which plainly mystified him. I take it Roberta was a believing Catholic as they had seven children.

    By 1967 Walker had become a senior officer with Marcor and I saw very little of him on the red-eye. Instead, since the company had no objection to his civic activities, he became president of the Chicago Crime Commission and the last chairman of the Illinois Public Aid Commission. Then with the Grant Park melee which ruined the Democratic National convention in Chicago in 1968, Walker got himself named to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, then maneuvered so that he could head up a subcommittee to report on the causes of the disorders at the convention.

    In the much-publicized “Walker Report,” he affixed total blame on the Chicago police, saying that the violence there was prompted by a “police riot.” That angered Mayor Daley which was exactly what Walker wanted. He parlayed his celebrity into a national reputation with liberals who sided with the demonstrating kids. But Walker was far from an orthodox liberal. As we flew along together he was very much interested in Ronald Reagan who had been elected California governor.

    As I tried to doze on some of those flights before he became a celebrity from the “Walker Report”, Walker would talk about the need to craft a new party in place of the old Democratic one, composed of equal parts of (a) civil rights dedication, (b) anti-tax fervor (c) anti-patronage and (d) to some extent, anti-big corporation (although he represented one) and (e) anti-labor union bossism. I told him that his view fit more neatly into the Republican framework than his own Democratic one but it was plain he wished to stay a Democrat.

    I was not surprised when he cobbled together as much money as he could from his savings and the help of others and decided to challenge Paul Simon. Frankly, never a fan of Simon’s who to me was a charade (working very hard to craft a humble-pie image but inside a down-the-line undeviating liberal) I wished Walker well. I still think he would have been in a good position to run for president had he not goofed up the governorship by concentrating on fighting with the legislature, insisting most of them were crooks, fighting with Daley and refusing to bargain as governors are wont to do on legislative matters.

    The idea of walking the state, tied to his name Walker, was not his but shrewdly borrowed from Florida’s Lawton Chiles who as an unknown state senator and U. S. Senator wannabe walked the length of Florida—1,003 miles in 91 days in 1970--earning statewide celebrity and the moniker “Walkin’ Lawton.” I remember Norton Kay who became Walker’s press secretary telling me that Walker made a special trip to Washington to talk to then Sen. Chiles to get tips on how to do it.

    So wearing a bandana around his neck as a scarf, wealthy suburban lawyer Dan Walker started out as a kind of Johnny Appleseed. Once he got nominated, I bumped into him and for the only time that I can remember he was actually funny, telling me how he would drive off dogs that came running at him from farmers’ yards as he strolled along. As the mutts would roar out of the fields toward him, he remembered how Chiles would do it and would stop…pull his pockets inside out in his dungarees…extend his arms and yell “rrrrrrrororororwwww!” He said nine times out of ten the dogs would skid to a stop, turn tail and roar back home.

    ****************

    When I sat down to lunch with Billy the Kid (former two-time Congressman at large, two-time state treasurer, two-term governor of Illinois who like most governors was mentioned at least as a potential presidential or vice-presidential aspirant), Walker had won the nomination over a disconsolate Paul Simon and was cruising to election. Walker was performing heresy by liberal standards, criticizing Ogilvie for the state income tax. Stratton who knew Illinois’ fiscal condition was beside himself with exasperation, pointing out that Ogilvie had indeed been a good, even great, governor because of the courage he exhibited in passing the income tax.



    I said: Why do you think it’s courageous to do what Ogilvie did, Governor—not mention a peep when he ran about his intention to introduce an income tax, springing it on the people after he was elected which resulted in both he and Russ Arrington losing control of the legislature? Why was that courageous?

    “Because Illinois government sorely needed more revenue. Listen, I had hoped you would have been the same kind of moderate Republican you seemed to be when you left here and went to Washington to start your own agency. Instead, you sound like Charlie Barr. What is it: `that government governs best that governs least?’”

    Yeah. Kinda like that.

    “Well to follow that to the logical conclusion it means that no government is the best system of all, right? Where do you get this stuff?”

    I got it by being in the federal government. Listen, after I was fired I had a few days time to walk around the Commerce Department still with the rank of assistant to the secretary but with nothing whatsoever to do. One day I came to a door marked BDSA. BDSA. I asked a guy passing by “can you tell me what BDSA stands for?” He said: “Yes. It stands for Business and Defense Services Administration, a division of Commerce.

    I then asked him: Hmmm. What does BDSA do? He said it would be rather complicated to describe. I said, go ahead, I have all the time in the world. He said, “well, do you remember World War II when President Roosevelt set up the War Production Board?” I said: yep.

    “Well, the WPB as you recall was set up in 1942 by executive order of FDR. It was supposed to regulate the production and allocation of materials and fuel during World War II, rationing such things as gasoline, heating oil, metals, rubber and plastics. To do this, the WPB set up a large bureaucracy to study the industries of the U. S. Like the food industry, for instance but also industrial plants. Roosevelt wanted to be sure that industry wouldn’t continue making refrigerators and cars when it should be making tanks and Jeeps. So the first talk of the WPB was to study all industry in preparation for an even greater emergency when in case we were attacked, the president could take over the direction of the entire economy.”

    I said: That’s nice. So we’d have a government-run economy created in the fight against fascism and Nazism similar to the government-run economies of the Axis powers.

    “I didn’t say that. You did.”

    The WPB. I remember it well. A Chicago Sears-Roebuck executive, Donald Nelson, was hired by FDR to run it. How did it do?

    He said: “Depends. We dealt with the three most important industrial materials—copper, steel and aluminum. The WPB would issue regulations that gave priority to wartime needs. For example, we stopped all production of automobiles; we issued regulations regarding clothing. We banned double-breasted suits, vests, cuffs, ruled that suits could only have so many pockets. We banned pleated skirts, long hemlines on dresses and adopted the two-piece bathing suit; we created a new synthetic rubber industry with a 77 –acre plant in West Virginia which produced 10% of the total synthetic rubber. Then Senator Harry Truman came forth with his investigation committee and charged that we were favoring big industry too much. Donald Nelson left and more liberal people came in. That’s what we are today—the old War Production Board.”

    But after we won World War II it was dissolved, wasn’t it?

    He said: “Technically yes. But all the people and records were tucked away here and we were given the name BDSA—Business and Defense Services Administration.”

    Wait a minute. You mean the War Production Board which was created to regulate American industry still exists and it’s here?

    “That’s right. And I work for it. I’m the assistant deputy director of the Food division of BDSA.”

    And what do you do?

    “Well, we continue to research in case--.”

    In case the same World War II conditions recur and we’re possibly attacked by German Messerschmitts and Japanese Zeros?

    “Now you’re being funny. No, we’re still ready to serve if we are attacked. The only problem is our budget is at a lowly $300 million and we cannot update our files very well. For example, I understand you come originally from the food industry? Well, our research stopped in 1945 and we don’t have the funds to update it so there’s no provision for, say, frozen food like Birdseye which came in after World War II.”

    Well wouldn’t that be a good reason to disband?

    “You’re being funny again. In government there is no real disbanding. The names are changed, the mission is changed just as every thirteen months or so we get a new name. I can’t even remember all the names we’ve had. Now we’re BDSA.”

    Why do you change the names every thirteen months?

    “Well, it’s a strategy. On an average we get a new secretary of commerce every thirteen months. We change the name to--.”

    You change the name so to confuse the new people so you can--.

    “Endure or persist. The bottom line of bureaucracy is `to endure or persist.’”

    I told Billy the Kid: Not long ago on a trip to Washington, I dropped by Commerce to see how BDSA was making out. Sure enough, I had to look at the directory and ask a few old hands. I asked `em: where’s BDSA now? They told me. And I walked in and saw the same guy who nodded to me and said, “ah, you found us, I see!”

    Billy the Kid said: “Now I understand. The Washington experience radicalized you. That’s a shame.”

    I said: yes it did. And no it isn’t.