The History Book Club discussion

Helga wrote: "Chapter 3 The Muck Rake

I was impressed on how a progressive agenda of passing the Pure Food and Drug Bill got passed in the Senate finally. This shows how things move in Congress.

This bill was ..."

That Aldrich quote made me angrier than anything else in the chapter. You're right: it's exactly the kind of thing we hear today. People oppose deregulation and "the nanny state," but how else are people going to be protected from corporate greed?

Helga on the Author's thread I showed Lewis how to do bolding - use that.

As far as images - try first looking above the comment box at the green text - (some html is ok)

Kressel wrote: "Helga wrote: "Chapter 3 The Muck Rake

I was impressed on how a progressive agenda of passing the Pure Food and Drug Bill got passed in the Senate finally. This shows how things move in Congress.

..."

Yes, he reminds me of some current Republicans with their twisted logic. You wonder what planet they are from or are you living in an alternate universe. It should be as clear as black from white - but all a sudden they are making a comparison not to color but something completely different. Anything to twist the logic and confuse the people. In fact, there are many folks who believe everything they hear on television - we have all learned to investigate the source of the information whether it is a book, an author, an article, or now the media.

Bentley's Discussion Topics are excellent, as always.

In his speech, TR says "the wild preachers of unrest and discontent, the wild agitators against the entire existing order, the men who act crookedly...the men who preach destruction without proposing any substitute for what they intend to destroy, or who propose a substitute which would be far worse than the existing evils -- all these men are the most dangerous opponents of real reform." This is an excellent distinction. Demagogues who agitate the public do not solve problems.
I like the speech but can understand why journalists might be upset. Exposing misconduct is not inherently detrimental to "real reform." Investigative journalism by modern-day muckrakers can indeed be reformist and efficacious.

Bentley wrote: "Our people are too busy to be disturbed by professional agitators. They just go ahead attending to business and let the agitators howl." --- Uncle Joe

I disagree. Professional agitators MAY appear at inopportune times and draw attention _away_ from crucial issues. Sometimes, though, the howling is worthwhile and will be heeded. The Pure Food and Drug Act was serviceable to American society. If the public had been distracted from its exigency, Theodore Roosevelt may not have felt compelled to put his muscle behind the legislation.

Thanks, Got Bold but still trouble with image.

Thank you Bentley for all of the additional information on "The Jungle." I found this part of the chapter to be the most compelling and find the description of the conditions to be truly appalling. But, whats even more appalling is the constant push back that industry has against any kind of regulation. This itself certainly proves that with minimal regulations in place, industry will maximize profits over all things, even if the health of its consumers is at risk. Yet we see it to this day with the constant push back on environmental regulations or when situations such as the recent Detroit water problems come up. The Jungle has been on my TBR list for some time, I really need to tackle this one someday soon. I worry I might finish it a vegan though. :)

Bentley wrote: "Anything to twist the logic and confuse the people. In fact, there are many folks who believe everything they hear on television - we have all learned to investigate the source of the information whether it is a book, an author, an article, or now the media."

Yes, but the libertarian message does have a natural appeal to people. "Nobody's going to tell ME what to eat!"

Well not for me - it is not so much that the government is telling you what or what not to eat (which you state violated the libertarian creed) - but it is their fault if the public believes that standards are being maintained and then they discover that they have been misled - nobody wants to find out that what they "choose to eat" might be killing them without their knowledge and consent.

Think of the food recalls recently because of salmonella or other things - none of these would be occurring without the TR legislation that we are talking about today which was of course strengthened as time went on. Aside from what went on just recently where our Congress somehow did not think it was important for us to know anymore the country of origin or the source origin of our products; things have improved since the days of The Jungle.

Just think you could have been ingesting formaldehyde before then and not even have known it. Or prior to 1903 - having a Coke had other connotations.

More: (Source: Wikipedia)

History of passage
It took 27 years to pass the 1906 statute, during which time the public was made aware of many problems with foods and drugs in the U.S. Muckraking journalists, such as Samuel Hopkins Adams, targeted the patent medicine industry with its high-alcoholic content patent medicines, soothing syrups for infants with opium derivatives, and "red clauses" in newspaper contracts providing that patent medicine ads (upon which most newspapers of the time were dependent) would be withdrawn if the paper expressed support for food and drug regulatory legislation.

The Chief Chemist of the Bureau of Chemistry, Dr. Harvey Washington Wiley, captured the country's attention with his hygienic table studies, which began with a modest Congressional appropriation in 1902. The goal of the table trial was to study the human effects of common preservatives used in foods during a period of rapid changes in the food supply brought about by the need to feed cities and support an industrializing nation increasingly dependent on immigrant labor.

Wiley recruited young men to eat all their meals at a common table as he added increased "doses" of preservatives including borax, benzoate, formaldehyde, sulfites, and salicylates. The table trials captured the nation's fancy and were soon dubbed "The Poison Squad" by newspapers covering the story.

The men soon adopted the motto "Only the Brave dare eat the fare" and at times the publicity given to the trials became a burden. Though many results of the trial came to be in dispute, there was no doubt that formaldehyde was dangerous and it disappeared quickly as a preservative. Wiley himself felt that he had found adverse effects from large doses of each of the preservatives and the public seemed to agree with Wiley.

In many cases, most particularly with ketchup and other condiments, the use of preservatives was often used to disguise insanitary production practices. Although the law itself did not proscribe the use of some of these preservatives, consumers increasingly turned away from many products with known preservatives.

The 1906 statute regulated food and drugs moving in interstate commerce and forbade the manufacture, sale, or transportation of poisonous patent medicines.

The Act arose due to public education and exposés from public interest guardians such as Upton Sinclair and Samuel Hopkins Adams, social activist Florence Kelley, researcher Harvey W. Wiley, and President Theodore Roosevelt.

Beginnings of the Food and Drug Administration
The 1906 Act paved the way for the eventual creation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is generally considered to be that agency's founding date, though the agency existed before the law was passed and was not named FDA until later.

"While the Food and Drug act remains a foundational law of the FDA mission, it's not the law that created the FDA. [Initially,] the Bureau of Chemistry (the precursor to the FDA) regulated food safety.

In 1927, the Bureau was reorganized into the Food, Drug, and Insecticide Administration and the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. The FDIA was renamed the FDA in 1930."

The law itself was largely replaced by the much more comprehensive Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938.

Enforcement of labeling and future ramifications
The Pure Food and Drug Act was initially concerned with ensuring products were labeled correctly.

Later efforts were made to outlaw certain products that were not safe, followed by efforts to outlaw products which were safe but not effective.

For example, there was an attempt to outlaw Coca-Cola in 1909 because of its excessive caffeine content; caffeine had replaced cocaine as the active ingredient in Coca-Cola in 1903.

In the case United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola, the judge found that Coca-Cola had a right to use caffeine as it saw fit, although Coca-Cola eventually lost when the government appealed to the Supreme Court.

It reached a settlement with the United States government to reduce the caffeine amount.

In addition to caffeine, the Pure Food and Drug Act required that drugs such as alcohol, cocaine, heroin, morphine, and cannabis, be accurately labeled with contents and dosage. Previously many drugs had been sold as patent medicines with secret ingredients or misleading labels. Cocaine, heroin, cannabis, and other such drugs continued to be legally available without prescription as long as they were labeled.

It is estimated that sale of patent medicines containing opiates decreased by 33% after labeling was mandated.

The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 is cited by drug policy reform advocates such as James P. Gray as a successful model for re-legalization of currently prohibited drugs by requiring accurate labels, monitoring of purity and dose, and consumer education.

by Upton Sinclair

Bentley wrote: "Steve I can see where he was coming from and for the most part he believed he was doing the right thing - and Baker did admit he may have gone a bit far in the piece but I think if given free rein ..."

After reading the speech and some of the comments by the group, I wonder if TR did not want to embarrass his friends and supporters.
TR came from the upper class in New York and he knew a lot of the upper class. Perhaps he saw this as a personal attack on those people rather than a solution to a problem.

Jim it could have been a little bit of both. He saw them differently of course. And personal attacks such as the ones he reacted to would have offended his sensibilities - you are correct.

Hi folks, one of the most difficult parts of this book to write about was the Hepburn Act. The battle over its passage was incredibly acrimonious and garnered much more press than the Pure Food and Drug Act, but what they were fighting over seems obscure, and the act itself dissolved into history. In my opinion, it stands as a counterpoint to the Meat Inspection Act. Both laws were products of compromise, but Meat Inspection was a success that remains on the books today, while the Hepburn Act was feeble and short-lived.

Question: Do you agree with the quote by Senator Joseph Bailey of Texas about TR, "Let us have no more talk in the Senate and in the country about this ‘iron man.’ He is clay, and very common clay at that." p67


"Hepburn Rate Bill" by Clifford K. Berryman, May 15, 1906

PS That's William Hepburn in the House and a Teddy bear standing in for TR. I don't recognize the senator peeking out in the background. Maybe Aldrich, but he's awfully smiley for Aldrich. Can anyone identify him?

I think Aldridge (white hair and mustache) - also he looks quietly smug.

No - I do not agree with Bailey. TR was always underestimated.

“I have just been shot, but it takes more than that to kill a bull moose.”

a) Why did you find that writing about this rate bill was more difficult than writing about the others?

Thanks for posting another great political cartoon.

Folks, remember the author is in the house and if you have any questions about any event, person, bill, or anything else for that matter dealing with the book Unreasonable Men or Theodore Roosevelt, Bob LaFollette, etc. - please please post questions for the author Michael Wolraich who has been so giving of his time.

Here is the link - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

All, we have some spoiler threads which I want you to be aware of because they can be a great help to you while reading the book:

a) We have the Weekly Non Spoiler threads - we open them up every week and we discuss the assigned reading for that week in depth - we have conversations on all of the people, events, laws, bills, etc. so please join in.

b) We have the Author’s Q&A thread (a spoiler thread) where you can ask Michael Wolraich any question you would like about his wonderful book - Unreasonable Men. This is an excellent opportunity for you and the author to interact. Please take advantage of it.

Here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

c) We have the Bibliography thread - a spoiler thread - where we have listed and cited all of the books, articles and research material that Michael Wolraich has listed as research materials for his book. This is a wonderful list of other books and research material worth reading and looking at. Also if you have ancillary books and articles to add - this is the thread.

Here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

d) We have the Glossary thread - a spoiler thread - where every day the moderators are putting together formal glossary entries on all of the important personages, events, bills, etc. in the book. We add them chapter by chapter every day and they make very interesting reading. Also please if you have ancillary material that you would like to add - please feel free to add your material, links, etc on this thread. It goes without saying that there is no self promotion. But this is a very important and useful thread for our readers. Please take advantage of this thread and use it often.

Here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

e) We have the Table of Contents and Syllabus thread which is a spoiler thread and where you can find the layout of the book itself and its chapters and pagination. You also can find the timeline and reading schedule for the book itself.

This is an important thread and here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

f) We have a thread showing samples of citations and how to do them. This could be very helpful to you.
Here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
or if you need more detailed help:

Here is the link to the Mechanics of the Board thread - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

g) If you are confused about what to do next or how to jump into the conversation - this is the thread for you - What Do I Do Next?

Here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

h) If you are reader or group member who has not yet started the book and would like to read the reviews and watch the videos and the media regarding the book and its author - by all means go to the Introduction thread and read and watch what is there. There are a lot of links and reviews added.

Here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

i) If you are interested in free book offers coming up and you want to find out what the criteria is for being considered and what are your responsibilities - then please by all means visit this thread which maps out our criteria and process:

Here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

j) If you are shy and would like to learn how to jump into a discussion and read like an historian - by all means visit this thread - How to Jump Into Discussions

Here is the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

k) At the end of our discussion we will ask all readers and all recipients of the free book offer to review the book briefly and also to give their independent rating - this is part of the t’s and c’s - here is the link to the Book as a Whole and Final thoughts thread which will be opened up at the end of the discussion - this is of course a spoiler thread.
Here is the link: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

First, I am really enjoying this book and the discussion. I have read a lot of biographies on US Presidents, but I like this book because it gives you insights into the issues of the day and the reactions around issues. I am looking forward to the rest of the book.

I read The Jungle when I was in high school or college. It is one of the books I will remember the impact it had on me. I was hard to believe things were that bad and ugly. Last December, we had an event in the Michigan Capitol showcasing student projects. One of the projects was based on "The Jungle." It was good to see that this book is still relevant to students.

Secondly, in response to Michael's question about the quote "He is clay and very common clay at that." (Page 67) I was taken back by that comment. I had always viewed TR as a person who was strong and forward thinking. I viewed him as an "iron man." I went back and read this section again. It is hard to understand why he compromised on the issue. I can only assume that he saw this as a step forward and it was a bill that could be passed.

Compromise does not make you weak - that is what troubles me about the assumption that holding your ground and doing or getting nothing is better. But some view things differently I surmise. But the wise man knows what he can accomplish and strikes while the iron is hot.

The conflict between the public's right to know in a democracy and respect for institutions existed long before TR and Hearst. Lincoln suppressed pro-Confederate speech and publishing during the Civil War (under the banner of wartime emergency, granted) and Davis acted similarly in the South. What we see during the period of the early 20th century known as the Progressive Era is the confluence of unchecked business power and practices, competitive news markets, and a state finally becoming active enough to do something about either.

What really interests me about TR is despite his domestic reputation as a lion of progressive policy, he declares in every speech the need to enact such reform so as to make sure that the ever-ready "mob" is kept at bay. This patrician sentiment is similar I think to Franklin Roosevelt/Barack Obama, who assuaged the concerns of bankers by reassuring them that their policies were made to preserve capitalism by "keeping the pitchforks at bay".

Bentley wrote: "Compromise does not make you weak - that is what troubles me about the assumption that holding your ground and doing or getting nothing is better." But some view things differently I surmise.

Thanks, Bentley. I may have pointed in the wrong direction with that quote from Sen. Bailey. I certainly agree that compromise doesn't make you weak, and I bet most people feel the same way. But that doesn't mean that every compromise is prudent. Are there times when it's better to hold your ground?

La Follette certainly believes that there are. Recall his description of his late-night meeting with TR on page 58:

“But you can’t get any such bill as that through this Congress,” Roosevelt objected.

“That is not the first consideration, Mr. President,” La Follette recalled telling him. He laid out a strategy for broad political reform that differed fundamentally from Roosevelt’s gradual approach. “If you will send a special message to Congress right now,” he advised, “you may not get it through this session, but you have got an organized sentiment that has been building up for nine years; and if you lay down clearly, so the public can understand just what ought to be done, and this Congress fails to act, in the next Congress you will have the people back of you more strongly than ever.”

Was he right?

Jim wrote: "It is hard to understand why he compromised on the issue. I can only assume that he saw this as a step forward and it was a bill that could be passed. "

Jim, I'm glad to hear that you're enjoying the book. I do believe TR saw this compromise as the only way to get the bill passed. And while I agree with Bentley that compromise doesn't make you weak, TR's about-face does belie his swashbuckling reputation.

In Ken Burns' documentary on the Roosevelts, Paul Giamatti does the voice of TR declaring, "I attack--I attack iniquities" in a show of bravado that plays to the TR legend. What Burns doesn't show you is that TR made this statement defensively after a New Republic journalist questioned his reputation for fighting the party bosses. Here is original context: https://books.google.com/books?id=DuQ...

That's not to say that compromise and pragmatism are bad, but these examples do provide a different perspective on TR.

I find it interesting that some of the criticism of the Meat Packing bill was the concern that the cost would be too high and that cost would go to the consumer.

It sounds familiar in today's world.

Hi Bentley,

I do not see week 2 listed next to my name. I actually posted 3 separate comments for week 2. I am 99% certain that I was in the correct thread when I posted those comments. Since I am having some trouble with the computer aspect of this, I am a little concerned that the 1% of uncertainty might have won out. Much thanks if you could confirm this.

Savannah do not be concerned - the lists have not been updated and I am doing it soon (smile). If there is anything to worry about , I would contact you.

Bentley wrote: "Well not for me - it is not so much that the government is telling you what or what not to eat (which you state violated the libertarian creed) - but it is their fault if the public believes that standards are being maintained and then they discover that they have been misled - nobody wants to find out that what they "choose to eat" might be killing them without their knowledge and consent."

Oh, I completely agree. I want the government to protect people. But plenty of dishonest people label that as "overreach," and lots of other people are resentful of it.

I think they have been "hoodwinked" by clever politicians into thinking that this is what they want and they may not know any better which is scary. Or they are not that concerned about their health or the health of others (that is a possibility too). Or a host of other reasons. I know that no government can protect people from everything - but it would be great to expect some standards in terms of food and other products we ingest.

Bryan wrote: "I find it interesting that some of the criticism of the Meat Packing bill was the concern that the cost would be too high and that cost would go to the consumer.

It sounds familiar in today's world."

We hear that sort of argument don't we - in terms of health care and a host of other things. Doing the right thing costs money and somebody has to pay for it in higher prices in this instance for "meat". Not that being more efficient and eliminating the haphazard way they did business which jeopardized their own employees which we know at that time they did not care about - would result today in fewer lawsuits against the industry and a healthier clientele who would buy more if they trusted the safety and health benefits of the product being sold.

It is all too familiar in this world. The corporations do not want to be bothered so they tell the politicians that it would be too costly and that cost would be borne by the consumers. Isn't that what they are saying also about the cost of protecting the planet from global warming and paying for the environmental controls which will save the planet and all of us. It is greed all over again.

Let us tell the people that we are looking out for them and their pocketbooks when in fact we are looking out for the corporations that help us stay in power and pay for our political campaigns and the lobbyists who take us out to lunch.

Bentley wrote: "
Discussion Topics:

"

a) Let us begin by discussing The Man with the Muck Rake speech given by Theodore Roosevelt on March 17th at the Gridiron Club in Washington DC. He also gave it publicly at the dedication of the congressional office building in April. What is your impression of the speech itself? (Read the speech above)

MY REPLY: TR was a gradualist. This speech reflects that. It also reflects his conflict between his wealthy and entitled background and his sense that things needed fixing. But the times called for radical change. But to the but - radical change could not get passed.


b) Did you like the speech or not - why or why not? Do you think that the investigative journalists like Baker had reason to complain and be upset about it?

I think the journalists did have reason to complain. TR was in a position to smash the windows.

c) What did you think about what Mr. Baker wrote to the President - "My Dear President, I have been much disturbed at the report of your proposed address," he wrote. "Even admitting that some of the so called "exposures" have been extreme, have they not, as a whole, been honest and useful?" Did Baker have a point that "if Roosevelt used his authority to attack the magazines, he would end up destroying the honest journalists who endeavored to expose misconduct to "light and air". Had Baker gone too far? Was this the beginning of the end for "civil discourse" or had that time already passed? What do you think of cable news nowadays - do you think that news reporting has become too slanted and too mean spirited - are we looking at modern day "muck rakers"?

MY REPLY: My sympathies here are all with the journalists. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and the cure for bad speech (if any was there) is more speech.

d) What did you think of President Roosevelt's reply - "I want to "let in the light air', but I do not want to let in sewer gas. If a room is fetid and the windows are bolted, I am perfectly contented to knock out the windows, but I would not knock a hole into the drain pipe." Was this warranted and was TR right about his response? Was it measured

MY REPLY See above.

This was an interesting chapter and period in our history as the top investigative journalists, specifically Baker and Steffens of McClure Magazine, attempted to inform the public of all of the corporate wrongs in addition to food and drug safety during this progressive period, . Roosevelt's speech about the muckrakers was interesting and while I understand where he was coming from, I also understand Baker's position. However, I think that in spite of his fiery rhetoric, Roosevelt understood how to compromise in order to pass legislation. I also think he understood the power of the bully pulpit and cultivated the press to his advantage beginning with his political career in New York.

Bentley wrote: "Ray Standard Baker

Ray Standard Baker had some advice for President Roosevelt and Roosevelt had scheduled him during his morning shave.

Roosevelt started his shave on February 9, 1906 in a fairl..."

Discussion Topics:

a) What are your feelings about the interactions? Who was on the right side and why? There are no right or wrong answers here so feel free to comment on how you feel and why. Did you like when TR stated that he did not represent public opinion but the public and that there was wide difference between the two?

I feel that complete government control of the railroads would have been too far reaching. I also agree with TR’s statement that he must represent the public and not necessarily the public opinion. There have been many instances where public opinion did not reflect what was best for the public as a whole, such as the abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights Act, and the current issues with LGBT rights. Many times, the public opinion does not line up with the American ideal of the rights of all men.

b) Did TR come off as being somewhat "paternalistic" or what he just assiduously protecting the country from harm? Was Baker over zealous?

I believe Baker was being overzealous in this instance. I understand his frustrations with the monopolization of the railroads at the time, but placing the railroads in the hands of the government was an idealistic approach. In reality, government is not incorruptible either, so there would be no guarantee of freedom of corruption in that case either. Allowing the natural checks and balances of a capital market, with some government regulations to ensure an equal playing field, in my opinion is the best approach.

Bentley wrote: "Our people are too busy to be disturbed by professional agitators. They just go ahead attending to business and let the agitators howl." --- Uncle Joe

Question:

What did you think about the quote..."

I agree that sadly, all too many Americans take this attitude, and don’t really bother to pay attention to what’s really being done in Washington. Many are content to take the word of their favorite nightly news talk anchor at face value rather than dig deeper into the issues. Where I disagree, however, is with attitude that Uncle Joe seems to have, which is that the Average Joe or Jane should “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”, and just leave the big issues up to those in Washington without question. In many instances, the agitators are quite necessary for bringing to light the issues that need to be addressed but would otherwise be swept quietly under the political rug. Take the example of “The Jungle” as discussed in the text. If it had not been for Upton Sinclair’s ‘howling’ so to speak, we’d all still be eating ‘poisoned rats’ in our tuna salad sandwiches.

Bentley wrote: "I think they have been "hoodwinked" by clever politicians into thinking that this is what they want and they may not know any better which is scary. Or they are not that concerned about their healt..."

I agree with you completely. I think people are hoodwinked and think about their health and what it means.

Bentley wrote: "Bryan wrote: "I find it interesting that some of the criticism of the Meat Packing bill was the concern that the cost would be too high and that cost would go to the consumer.

It sounds familiar i..."

Yes, yes. Very true.

Bentley wrote: "
Discussion Topics:


a) Let us begin by discussing The Man with the Muck Rake speech given by Theodore Roosevelt on March 17th at th..."

I believe the Man with the Muck Rake speech reveals TR’s desire to walk the line in a political climate where the line was widening to become a huge crater. He could see the need for changes, but he was still very much a part of elitist society which was not very accustomed to being questioned, or to having their decisions scrutinized before the whole nation within the pages of McClure’s Magazine. The old adage ‘what they don’t know won’t hurt them’ was still very much the standard of American politics going into the 20th century. I feel that, at this time, Roosevelt felt he would still be able to affect change through the gentlemanly politics of old, through back-room deals and concessions. I think he felt that the investigative journalists brought along too much pressure, and that these stories would backfire, causing the old guard to be less amenable to change. I get the impression that Roosevelt was more on-board with very slow, gradual changes, and that he wasn’t quite comfortable with the larger, sweeping changes being suggested by the likes of La Follette and the other progressives.

Jovita wrote: "I agree that sadly, all too many Americans take this attitude, and don’t really bother to pay attention to what’s really being done in Washington. Many are content to take the word of their favorite nightly news talk anchor at face value rather than dig deeper into the issues. Where I disagree, however, is with attitude that Uncle Joe seems to have, which is that the Average Joe or Jane should “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”

The "man behind the curtain" isn't just Washington, but big business, too. It was that way in La Follette's times, and it's that way now. But the worst stuff that goes on is hidden in the boring details, and that's how the corrupt and powerful get away with what they do. The recent financial crisis is a perfect case in point. People don't want to take the time to wade through the boring details, and our current media, which is run by the profit motive, keeps putting out fun stuff to distract us, and we all take the bait, to greater and lesser extents, depending on the individual, of course.

The cost argument agaist the FDA continues to be disproved by the low cost of food in the USA and the excellent worldwide reputation of American products.

Kressel wrote: "The "man behind the curtain" isn't just Washington, but big business, too..."

I agree about the role big business plays. The difference lies in the fact that the populace has not voted for the leaders of big business to represent their best interests. In a capitalist economy, the greatest motivator for businesses will always be the bottom line; that is to be expected. What is not expected is for elected politicians to collude with big business against the better interests of the public at large.

As I was reading through the muck rake speech, I came across this quote: "Hysterical sensationalism is the poorest weapon wherewith to fight for lasting righteousness. The men who with stern sobriety and truth assail the many evils of our time, whether in the public press, or in magazines, or in books, are the leaders and allies of all engaged in the work for social and political betterment. But if they give good reason for distrust of what they say, if they chill the ardor of those who demand truth as a primary virtue, they thereby betray the good cause and play into the hands of the very men against whom they are nominally at war."

Makes me wonder what TR would say about journalism today. Sensationalist journalism does lead to mistrust, yet people are still sucked in and thrive on it. Speaking about the big media giants, it seems like there is no moral standard, let's not even start with the tabloids. Every major news story has it's own "theme", lead in song, and particular pictures and video that is shown on non-stop repeat and each company will take their own spin on the issue, using whatever "experts" will perpetuate that spin.

Of course, not all journalists are bad, but these days, you have to go with the saying "believe half of what you see and none of what you hear" until you are confident of the truth. It was interesting to me to read this speech and understand the issues with yellow journalism during TR's time.

I have The Jungle on my TBR list. I need to push it up to the top.

Bentley wrote: "Why did you find that writing about this rate bill was more difficult than writing about the others?"

Sorry, Bentley, I realized that I never answered your question about the Hepburn bill. The bill's nuances and shifting battle lines created a lot of historical fog that was hard to penetrate. What was the difference between broad review and narrow review? How deep was the alliance between TR and Tillman? Who was behind the "Allison amendment?" Above all, was the deal TR crafted really a "surrender." It was also a challenge to make this fierce debate over what seems to be a minor point lost in history meaningful to modern readers.

One of my favorite quotes in the book is this prescient commentary by Lincoln Steffens in 1906 (p72):

A political realignment is going on here. There is a great slanting crack across the face of both the old parties. It isn't new crack; on the contrary, it is very old, but it is spreading just now and so rapidly that the outlines of four political divisions are discernible--Republican, Democratic, Conservative, and (let us say) Liberal. The Democratic leaders seem not to see the cleavage very willingly, but the President sees, and so does Senator Aldrich.

Neither of these two men could trace the line in language for me. Mr. Aldrich had names for the two sides; it was he that first used the word "Conservatives" for those who stood with him in both the old parties, and he waved away all others as "Radicals." He said that the division was not one of principle, but he couldn't or wouldn't describe what it was. And neither could the President. Yet these two men are the leaders at present of what may turn out to be two new American' parties.

And we need two new political parties. One isn't enough.

He was wrong about the two new parties, but the two old parties ultimately took on the liberal and conservative ideologies that Steffens describes. I love the language of a "great slanting crack," and it's fascinating that he credits Aldrich with being the first to use the word "conservative" in an ideological context with respect to American politics.

This quote dovetails with a similar one by Ray Stannard Baker on p48:

We are at this moment facing a new conflict in this country, the importance of which we are only just beginning to perceive,” he wrote. “It lies between two great parties, one a progressive party seeking to give the government more power in business affairs, the other a conservative party striving to retain all the power possible in private hands. One looks toward socialism, the other obstinately defends individualism. It is industrialism forcing itself into politics. And the crux of the new conflict in this case, recognized by both sides, is the Railroad Rate.

I'm curious what readers think of these quotes. Was this the moment that progressivism and conservatism emerged as distinct ideologies in the U.S.?

Are we seeing a new "great slanting crack" in today's parties. In that case, what will emerge?

Jim wrote: "I read The Jungle when I was in high school or college. It is one of the books I will remember the impact it had on me. I was hard to believe things were that bad and ugly...."

I agree Jim. I was assigned The Jungle as a summer report for my AP History class junior year and it left a big impact on me, not just as a consumer of meat but as the granddaughter of farmers who sell animals to meatpacking houses. I even went vegetarian for a while (didn't last but it felt just as a 16 year old) and the Sinclair's rousing socialist writing actually led me to begin researching socialism which years later was my main topic of study in college.

Mr. Wolraich asked in the message above about 'a new "great slanting crack'" emerging in the present. That made me think of Senator Beveridge's quotation on p.69 about (view spoiler)[how older politicians were being left behind by the changing times and how great movements seem to come about every 40 years. I wonder, if Beveridge is correct, what that last great movement was? Civil Rights possibly? (hide spoiler)] I suspect there is a crack emerging in the current Republican party, based off of the commentary in public forums but also my personal discussions. There is a possibility that the coming convention will be a "Come to Jesus" moment (as my grandfather says) between people who want to take the party in different ways. We'll see in July.

Interesting to me how much this book ties in with today's election process. TR's concern with Sinclair's socialism (page 63) - and today we have a socialist running for the presidential nomination, for example.
As a former history teacher, I was interested in the fact that the Pure Food and Drug Act had been sitting around in Congress for a while. History textbooks gave the impression that TR was so horrified by reading The Jungle that he came up with the idea for the law himself. Texts never mention TR's concern with Sinclair's socialism. My classes always read excerpts from The Jungle (naturally I chose the juiciest parts) and I am proud to say that more than one student turned green and left the room!
I had always seen TR as more of a reformer, too; so I am surprised at how he was willing to compromise to save the political party.

Michael wrote: "One of my favorite quotes in the book is this prescient commentary by Lincoln Steffens in 1906 (p72):

A political realignment is going on here. There is a great slanting crack across the face of b..."

It is a very interesting quote in part because he could identify what was happening in the enormous change that was taking place. So often it is hard to see the big picture when you are looking from the middle outward.

I am sure there were a lot of people in Congress who didn't see the change and working to maintain the status quo (standpatters.) The realization that they might lose their Congressional seat didn't seem to in the minds of the official in the east and south. I think the midwest and west saw the changes taking place and were pushing for more reforms.

I thinks the same is happening today in the two politcal parties. I think this election may change how the two parties handle the nominating process. Recently there have been several articles on funding for both conventions. Convention Article
It could prove to be interesting times.

Michael wrote: "I'm curious what readers think of these quotes. Was this the moment that progressivism and conservatism emerged as distinct ideologies in the U.S.?"

It's interesting to think about. With Steffens, Baker & Aldrich all recognizing the split, this might when it became clear a split had formed. I'm inclined to think it is.

There was something of a conservative vs. progressive split back in 1896, with bourbon democrats supporting McKinley and silver republicans supporting Bryan, but maybe that was more regional (west vs east) than ideological?

Thanks for including the full muck raking speech, Bentley.

This part stood out to me:

Now, it is easy to twist out of shape what I have just said, easy to affect to misunderstand it, and if it is slurred over in repetition not difficult really to misunderstand it. Some persons are sincerely incapable of understanding that to denounce mud slinging does not mean the endorsement of whitewashing; and both the interested individuals who need whitewashing and those others who practice mud slinging like to encourage such confusion of ideas.

Roosevelt acknowledges the twin vices of mudslinging and whitewashing, one exaggerates the problem at hand, and the other obfuscates it. This has always been an issue in politics, especially in a highly divided and polarized climate. Theodore Roosevelt was leading his party through a very divisive period while calling for honesty. It is easy to trash the opposition or ignore the problems with one's own in-group. It is much more difficult to honestly address the issues as objectively as possible. This takes true leadership and strength of character.

a) Let us begin by discussing The Man with the Muck Rake speech given by Theodore Roosevelt on March 17th at the Gridiron Club in Washington DC. He also gave it publicly at the dedication of the congressional office building in April. What is your impression of the speech itself? (Read the speech above)

ANSWER; My impression of the speech – In it Roosevelt acknowledged the abuses of corporations and the need to curtail their power, but he seems much more concerned with the possibility of anarchy resulting from the ordinary worker being incited to, not only curtail the power of the corporations and have a fair wage, but to follow the more revolutionary path of essentially eradicating the corporate structure and with it the stability of the U.S. government.

b) Did you like the speech or not - why or why not? Do you think that the investigative journalists like Baker had reason to complain and be upset about it?
ANSWER: I liked the speech, but have some reservations. In the speech Roosevelt spoke of the great wealth that the entire nation had experienced because of the ambition of these powerful entrepreneurs. I agree with his assessment that very ambitious people move society forward and that financial remuneration and an increase in power serves as an important motivation for these people. But also like Roosevelt, I believe that once these people achieve power they often use their power to destroy competitors and oppress their workers. Government safeguards must be implemented to prevent this. Even Adam Smith the granddaddy of capitalism preached that monopolies were highly destructive to a capitalist economy. Like Roosevelt, I am more afraid of mob rule than an oligarchy, but unlike the position expressed in this speech, I think that the robber barons had so abused their power that he should have placed more emphasis on their abuses and less emphasis on the literature inciting the ordinary citizen. So, yes, I think Baker had a right to be upset.

c) What did you think about what Mr. Baker wrote to the President - "My Dear President, I have been much disturbed at the report of your proposed address," he wrote. "Even admitting that some of the so called "exposures" have been extreme, have they not, as a whole, been honest and useful?" Did Baker have a point that "if Roosevelt used his authority to attack the magazines, he would end up destroying the honest journalists who endeavored to expose misconduct to "light and air". Had Baker gone too far? Was this the beginning of the end for "civil discourse" or had that time already passed? What do you think of cable news nowadays - do you think that news reporting has become too slanted and too mean spirited - are we looking at modern day "muck rakers"?

ANSWER: From what I read, the journalists were honest in their exposing of the abuses, but Roosevelt was concerned with not only the civil discord that these expose’s were producing, but also, how it was affecting his ability to work with Congress to pass legislation. I don’t think that his attacks crushed them. The press, at least, in a non-totalitarian society always has the last word. Regarding cable news, it seems that the mean spiritedness is coming both from the left and the right, but this has been around since Jefferson and Adams locked horns. The important thing is that each view has a podium. I fear that many of our college campuses are suppressing debate of any ideas that are not politically correct. This is very dangerous.

d) What did you think of President Roosevelt's reply - "I want to "let in the light air', but I do not want to let in sewer gas. If a room is fetid and the windows are bolted, I am perfectly contented to knock out the windows, but I would not knock a hole into the drain pipe." Was this warranted and was TR right about his response? Was it measured and direct or was it "over the top"? What are your thoughts as we begin Chapter Three?

ANSWER: Many decades ago I read Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”. I believe that it was a very accurate picture of the meat packing industry at that time. True, it was pretty disturbing, but it was very important that all of society became aware of the horrible abuses occurring. I believe it is literature like this that disturbed Roosevelt. It wasn’t that it was dishonest; it was just so horrifying that he was afraid it would incite people to anarchy. Me – I believe this is a case where the truth was “letting in the light” and not setting the house on fire.

Kressel wrote: "I really liked the speech, and I don't understand Baker's objections to it.

"The men with the muck rakes are often indispensable to the well being of society; but only if they know when to stop r..."

I think it had something to do with this part:
There are in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man, whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, business, or social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform or in a book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful.

The liar is no whit better than the thief, and if his mendacity takes the form of slander he may be worse than most thieves. It puts a premium upon knavery untruthfully to attack an honest man, or even with hysterical exaggeration to assail a bad man with untruth.

I can see how Baker would interpret this part as the President calling him a liar.

Jovita wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Our people are too busy to be disturbed by professional agitators. They just go ahead attending to business and let the agitators howl." --- Uncle Joe

Question:

What did you think..."

I have to agree with this. We've all seen the late night talk shows interviewing folks on the street about history. They don't know what's going on - historically, or with current events, unless it's about celebrities.

I was taught that democracy depends on a literate, educated population. I think we have some work to do in this area.

One more comment - Is anyone else seeing a parallel between the Pure Food and Drug Bill and the desire to have GMO products labeled?

Bentley wrote: "
Discussion Topics:


John Bunyan at the House of Representatives - Roosevelt 1906

a) Let us begin by discussing The Man with the Muck Rake speech given by Theodore Roosevelt on March 17th at th..."

Sorry for the late response again. I shall endeavor to be more on top of these responses so that I don't have to search my memories too hard for an answer. Here are my thoughts:

a) Let us begin by discussing The Man with the Muck Rake speech given by Theodore Roosevelt on March 17th at the Gridiron Club in Washington DC. He also gave it publicly at the dedication of the congressional office building in April. What is your impression of the speech itself? (Read the speech above)

I found this speech to be interesting. As the author has pointed out in his chapters, Roosevelt was just as fearful of "the mob" as he was of big corporations run amok. And it is also interesting that only TR could make a speech like this. Every president has complained about the press in some way or other, usually because they have felt that the media has twisted their words or positions or presented a warped view of reality (not always an inaccurate complaint). But TR had personal relationships with the press that no other president would have after him. Thus, instead of provoking a wicked op-ed response after this speech, he gets a concerned letter from Baker, which reads more like a friend showing concern for another friend rather than a journalist responding to a politician.

b) Did you like the speech or not - why or why not? Do you think that the investigative journalists like Baker had reason to complain and be upset about it?

I can't say I liked or disliked it. Roosevelt is speaking to a time and a people far removed from us. Muck Rakers were far less objective in his day than they are today (Stop snickering! Modern journalists, in spite of their obvious biases, do have some journalistic standards to follow and be called out on today, which they didn't have during TR's time) and were often pushing an agenda, like Upton Sinclair in his book Oil!, which I read many years ago and enjoyed right up to the end where the main character goes full-on communist sympathizer. And Upton Sinclair's desire was to provoke a socialist revolution in America with his work. So TR did have a good reason to admonish the Muck Rakers alongside the Trusts.

Today, of course, we don't have to worry about journalists overtly trying to provoke a socialist revolution, so TR's concerns just aren't as relevant today as they were 100 years ago.

c) What did you think about what Mr. Baker wrote to the President - "My Dear President, I have been much disturbed at the report of your proposed address," he wrote. "Even admitting that some of the so called "exposures" have been extreme, have they not, as a whole, been honest and useful?" Did Baker have a point that "if Roosevelt used his authority to attack the magazines, he would end up destroying the honest journalists who endeavored to expose misconduct to "light and air". Had Baker gone too far? Was this the beginning of the end for "civil discourse" or had that time already passed? What do you think of cable news nowadays - do you think that news reporting has become too slanted and too mean spirited - are we looking at modern day "muck rakers"?

I think Baker had a right to complain to TR. Though I just mentioned Upton Sinclair and his desires to provoke a socialist revolution, Baker clearly was not one of those kinds of Muck Rakers and that there were other Muck Rakers who wanted reform, not revolt. And I think Baker was correct in his assessment of the influence TR could've had on "honest journalism." The U.S. wasn't too far removed from the yellow journalism that had helped push America into the Spanish-American War in 1898 and journalistic standards had not yet begun to solidify. If TR had pushed too hard against the Muck Rakers, he could very well have lumped all Muck Rakers, the reformers and the revolutionaries, into one pile and labelled them all suspicious, which could've damaged journalisms reputation for decades.

The question of cable news today though is a tricky subject and is more more likely to reflect our own political biases rather than any objective truth about the industry. I will say though that I think that, though cable news and print media have had to cut back on it, we are in a new, perhaps golden, era of investigative journalism. PBS shows like Frontline still do excellent pieces that are fairly clear of biases, keeping true to the purpose of public television. (In fact, I recently watched a great and disturbing episode of Frontline that was all about Saudi Arabia. I'll include the link below). Al Jazeera America also had some great pieces of investigative journalism while it was still on the air. NPR also has some great pieces in the form of its broadcasts and podcasts that are relatively free of bias. Not only that, but you have the rise of investigative journalism on the internet, like ProPublica, that have shined a light on issues we haven't even thought about before. While the goals and standards journalists have changed in the past century, the spirit of the Muck Rakers lives on.

d) What did you think of President Roosevelt's reply - "I want to "let in the light air', but I do not want to let in sewer gas. If a room is fetid and the windows are bolted, I am perfectly contented to knock out the windows, but I would not knock a hole into the drain pipe." Was this warranted and was TR right about his response? Was it measured and direct or was it "over the top"? What are your thoughts as we begin Chapter Three?

Like I said before, I think TR had the right to be worried about too much Muck Raking as there were some who wanted to inspire revolt with their work rather than reform. Still, I think he was being unfair to Mr. Baker as he was a friend of TR's and was clearly a reformer instead of a revolter. TR should've been more considerate in his response to his friend and confidant.

Here is the link to the Frontline episode on Saudi Arabia I mentioned. Note: This is not one episode you will want your kids to watch alone or at all due to some instances of graphic violence.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/fil...

by Upton Sinclair

First, his sons name was Kermit?! Really?! Next, a big thank you to everyone posting all this great information and pictures in the thread. It's awesome!

I do think investigative reporters like Baker did have reason to complain. Without them looking into these things and "bringing them into the light" who else would? No company is going to self regulate at a cost to themselves.

I thought that what Baker wrote to the President was put very well and he had great points. I think the president was too hard on him in return.

The disturbing food portion that was discussed in the book reminded me of a book I just finished called Squeezed: What You Don't Know About Orange Juice by Alissa Hamilton (no photo) which discusses the very same things, but more academically than by did.