The History Book Club discussion

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

Not really because the Pure Food and Drug Act was a law meant to address a real problem with food and drugs being tainted before heading to market and making people sick. GMO labeling is about meeting a need that some would argue doesn't exist. Check out this article from Slate for that viewpoint:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_...

Bentley wrote:

Quotes from pages 58 and 59:


"No one knew better than he how "inefficient and undependable" federal employees were. Government ownership of free enterprise would be a "disaster," he warned.

Roosevelt went on to say, "Here is the thing you must bear in mind - I do not represent public opinion: I represent the public. There is a wide difference between the two, between the real interests of the public and the public's opinion of those interests".



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?

ANSWER: The possibility of the ordinary citizens being swayed by a demagogue was a great concern of most of the Founding Fathers. Hence, they tried to create a system where although the people’s voice was heard, it was also tempered by leaders who would not succumb to the passions of the moment and who were capable of seeing the big picture. So, yes, Teddy was correct in saying the above.

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

ANSWER: He was protecting the country from harm. Why put a person in power if they have no ability to think past what the majority is espousing? I read about Baker on Wikipedia. Apparently, for a time he flirted with communism. I could not confirm it, but his communist leanings appear to have been present at the time he was dealing with Roosevelt. I don’t know that I would characterize Baker as ‘over zealous’. I would say that his support of government ownership of the railroads was a bad idea and that Roosevelt had a better grasp of human nature in his support of a regulated capitalist economy. There never was a democracy that did not embrace capitalism. People talk about the Scandinavian countries as having a socialist economy. True they have many socialist welfare programs, but they still have much of their industries privately owned. To be truly socialist requires the government to own and control the means of production.

Folks, the moderators place write-ups and links and books that might be of interest for each specific person, event, location, bill, etc that is important in each chapter. This will give you more background information which we do not clutter up the threads with - here is what you will find in the glossaries so far (see the list below). We will add to the glossaries as we move through the chapters. Make sure to take advantage of the hard work of the moderators who put these together for you. Special thanks to Jill, Teri, Vicki, Samanta and Francie. Additionally, we have added many videos, podcasts, definitions, laws, actual bills discussed etc. in the glossary - you are losing out on a lot of information that we house there if you are not using it as an aide while you are reading Unreasonable Men.

Prologue and Chapter One

1. Theodore Roosevelt
2. Robert Marion LaFollette
3. Half-Breeds
4. The Stalwarts
5. Ulysses S. Grant
6. William McKinley
7. Nicholas Murray Butler
8. Ray Standard Baker
9. Northern Securities Company
10. John Coit Spooner
11. Postmaster General Henry C. Payne
12. Abraham Lincoln
13. Joseph Gurney Cannon of Danville, Illinois
14. Senator Mark Hanna of Ohio
15. Senator Charles W. Fairbanks of Indiana
16. Walter Wellman of the Chicago Record - Herald
17. Lincoln Steffens
18. Ida Tarbell
19. Louisiana Purchase Exposition of 1904
20. President William Henry Harrison
21. Senator Philters Sawyer
22. President Grover Cleveland
23. William Jennings Bryan
24. Judge Alton Brooks Parker
25. Representative Champ Clark of Missouri
26. John D. Rockefeller
27. J. Pierpont Morgan
29. Attorney General Philander Knox

Chapter Two

1. Charles Carroll
2. Peter Cooper
3. Jay Gould
4. Cornelius Vanderbilt
5. Interstate Commerce Commission - ICC
6. Elkins Anti-Rebate Act of 1903
7. Standpatters
8. Bourbon Democrats
9. Nelson Aldridge
10. Orville Platt
11. W. B. Allison
12. James Madison
13. John Dickinson
14. Henry B. Anthony
15. Senator Ambrose Burnside
16. American Sugar Refining Company - The Sugar Trust
17. Representative Thaddeus Mahon - president of Baltimore and Cumberland Valley Railroad
18. Stephen Benton Elkins

Chapter Three

1. The Muck Rake
2. House of Morgan
3. President Taft
4. Belle LaFollette
5. Hepburn Bill
6. Pure Food and Drug Bill
7 Senator Albert Beverage
8. William Hepburn
9 William Randolph Hearst
10. Benjamin R. Tillman
11. Upton Sinclair
12. David Graham Phillips
13. John Kean of New Jersey
14. Thomas Brackett Reed
15. Neill-Reynolds Report
16. Democrat Minority Leader - John Sharp Williams
17. Charles Sanger Mellon
18. Governor Albert B. Cummins
19. Representative James Wadsworth
20. Samuel Gompers
21. American Federation of Labor
22. House of Morgan

Here is the note that I posted before which includes the link:

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/...

Bentley wrote: "you are losing out on a lot of information that we house there..."

Most importantly, you're missing out on seeing LaFollette's magnificent mane. What a head of hair that man had. That is enough reason to visit the Glossary thread on its own! ;-)

What a fascinating chapter, and it ended on a cliffhanger! As time permits, I'll read more about Upton Sinclair.

a) What are your feelings about the interactions? Who was on the right side and why?

My opinion about TR is evolving. I had thought he was much more of a populist, and now I feel he was a person who navigated a very narrow path between business and the populace. Perhaps Baker also experienced this evolution when he heard TR rather arrogantly state that he knew best what the people needed. While I agree that people can be often swayed by manipulative messaging, I feel that trusting an individual or a small group to make decisions without accountability is very dangerous.

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

Definitely paternalistic, which is interesting as TR sent out mixed messages in 1906. He didn't like businesses to disregard "legitimate business practices" but also didn't like socialist agitators who wanted meat packing reforms that were so badly needed. So what exactly was he shooting for? I feel TR's actions no longer matched Baker's early perceptions of the president, and now Baker was disillusioned.

a) What is your impression of the speech itself? (Read the speech above). I was impressed. I noticed how insular the United States was. There is no discussion of any external statesmanship in the speech. I am learning that this was also the beginning of the movement of the workers compensation, child labor, and income tax era. Government is indeed growing! The attack on dissenting press is very interesting indeed. Now I know I have to read Pilgrim's Progress.

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 liked it, but I believe they indeed have a right to complain. Freedom of the press is indeed a cornerstone of the United States. Molding that press to meet political ends is even more so of a cornerstone. Roosevelt seems to aggressively attack anyone who disagrees with his policies. I did not imagine Roosevelt as this type of person. Military invasions now have ride-along press corps to support and cover US military operations. We cultivate good press. I find that very interesting with his attacks on this press. I personally believe this is unwise. One aspect that is slightly mentioned is the background of the press in this era. Who owns these mouthpieces? I believe Roosevelt should have attacked the core of the problem...press owned by the railroads or the meat packing industry. You need your allies in the papers.

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 believe the "muck rakers" of this time are quite benign compared to the outlandish zealots we have nowadays. He who controls the press controls the nation!

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? I do not believe that President Roosevelt meant him directly in the speech but the press and newspapers in general. Note: was it not inflammatory press that led to the Spanish American War? I stated above...Roosevelt should have attacked the special interest press much more aggressively than the individuals. He should have won allies!

I personally enjoyed this chapter. I know of the book, The Jungle. I did not know it was from Roosevelt's presidency. I find it also remarkable that Roosevelt...a Republican is pushing for worker's rights...usually a Democratic endeavor. Very interesting.

Gary wrote: "For starters, I need to clarify my opinion of the speech. I do agree that successful companies need to be allowed to succeed in order for their employees to succeed. But this cannot be allowed to o..."

A couple of comments

All commercial enterprises succeed at the expense of their customers - the question is if the return to the customers is fairly arrived at and worth what they pay.

Then I think that this was a very exclusive speech - aimed at the well educated and likely also read as well as heard, especially by those effected by the President and his policies,

Plus, absent TV, radio, internet, smart phones etc and with the electric light people had time to read more.

The Lyceum movement existed, I think, into the beginning of the 20th century so people were more accustomed to listening to real live words I think.

So it seems that, as this chapter ends, La Follette has established that he can be heard and make a difference and TR - although less perfect as a purist (or not a purist at all) is the politican - pg 78 para 4 - TR "ambitious policy proposals - an 8 hr workday - child labor law, income taxes, currency reform...."
They are both doing their things and real conflict is not here yet and as TR stated he "did not represent public opinion - he represented the public" - so I continue to be a TR fan and begin to become a La Follette fan but note that all the characters here, Cannon, Aldrich, LaFollette, TR +++ seem to have an agenda but - only LaFollette and TR seem to have more forward looking, as opposed to stability focused, thoughts and although LaFollette is very focused on issues TR seems more focused on all of America - and America's place in the world.
I cannot keep up with all the extra postings all of you are posting, especially our untiring Bentley, but will try to get to them but this book is illuminating and my additional reading list is growing.

Thanks all

The book has changed my view of TR's populism as well. I know TR re-established his standing within the Republican Party during WWI and its aftermath. Had he not died in 1919, he most likely would have been elected again in 1920--which on paper looks like a VAST difference from Harding. However, I wonder if TR would have become a more conservative president in the 1920s to better match the country's conservative leanings, or if he would have shaped the country and party to a more progressive path in the 20th century. But I may be getting ahead of myself...

Folks, I have caught up on this thread as far as participation.

Jason wrote: "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 Ba..."

Jason, I agree with you about reporters bringing to light things the public should know. Could you please correct your citation? It should look like this:

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, which discusses the very same things, but more academically than The Jungle did.

by Alissa Hamilton (no photo)

by Upton Sinclair

Thank you.

Paul wrote: "The book has changed my view of TR's populism as well. I know TR re-established his standing within the Republican Party during WWI and its aftermath. Had he not died in 1919, he most likely would ..."

Paul, you bring up an interesting question: What do you think TR would have done if he had stayed in office? What changes (or not) do you think he's make?

I enjoyed this chapter although it is about things not familiar to me. I was amused by the "disappearing quorum" trick that house Democrats played. (ref Page 71: "Democrats of old used to 'vanish' whenever the clerk called the roll for a bill they didn't like. They remained in their seats, of course, but by pretending to be absent, they denied the Speaker his quorum, and the vote could not proceed.") I think things like that go on today as well but in different ways.

Glynn wrote: "I enjoyed this chapter although it is about things not familiar to me. I was amused by the "disappearing quorum" trick that house Democrats played. (ref Page 71: "Democrats of old used to 'vanish' ..."

disappearing quorum - less work than a filibuster.

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 like some parts of it, but I think TR hindered himself he called out Baker. He just annihilated the voice he had in the press. I don't see as evil call out politicians on their wrong doings. Not only does it informs people about the people they elect in office,....but it gives them a choice whether they want them remaining in office. I think conciliation is good to a point. but when your in a constant dead lock over major and minor things. tactics need to change. Plus I am seeing that its only TR in the end.

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 raker'

No, I don't think Baker went to far. I think we should call out media who do display blatant corruption. And not group all media with the same tar and brush. I think that TR hurt himself by alienating the one voice he had in the media. Because there are media sources out there that are trying to honest and fair reporting. But at the same time some of the major new organization there I do see as corrupt.,

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

I think TR was parternalistic, he thought he knew what was best for the country, and if people didn't go about the way he thought was best then they were reckless or dangerous etc.....eg Baker, La Follette

Rachel you might be confusing the non spoiler threads here on the expanded discussion with the Book of the Month threads or Buddy Reads which are single thread discussions.

Here if you are talking about anything regarding the assigned reading of the thread or pages that came before - you do not have to use the spoiler html - however on single thread discussions you do. On a single thread discussion - we place the header in bold.

Right now you are fine because you are discussing things discussed on this non spoiler thread so here you do not have to use the spoiler html.

Okay, I am confused on it. for safety purposes I did use the spoiler tag. I just deleted the spoiler tag: is that okay?

Yes, spoiler tags are for discussions where you are discussing the entire book on a single thread. Here we do not allow spoilers and they would have to be moved to a glossary or bibliography thread.

For anyone interested in learning more about Belle La Follette, an influential reformer and suffragist in her own right, biographer Nancy C. Unger will be speaking about her on C-SPAN3, Saturday, May 07 9:00pm EDT.

Belle Case La Follette is a fascinating, under-appreciated pioneer of progressivism and women's rights, and Unger is an excellent speaker, so I'm sure it will be a very interesting talk.

by Nancy C. Unger (no picture)

Regarding the interaction between Roosevelt (while getting a shave) and Baker; I did like what Roosevelt had to say about representing the public. I believe as President, you would be looking at a much bigger picture than the public would see. There are things which the public isn't even privy to know about. I think it important for the President to take public opinion into consideration, but at the end of the day, it is the President's responsibility to represent the public, and I do believe it is in the interest of protecting the country from harm.

Regarding this chapter in general, I will say that I saw many similarities in the upheaval in the parties as I have read about in recent news. Just today, I was reading an article in the NY Times about the Republican party falling apart. Here is a link to that article, should you be interested:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/us/...

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?

I personally don't feel that TR was right in response. He just alienated someone who genuinely wanted to help and would have been a good ally - in the press. I think TR cut off his nose in spite of his face. I thought the chapter was good, but kind of annoyed with TR approach to handle things. I do agree that we should take the higher road on something. But also think we should fight as well. this a difference between taking the higher, but being someones doormat. so far nothing that TR has done has helped in his cause.

Side note: Just wondering If there is anything I need to answer? I noticed that my name is not highlight for completing week three?

Back to the word "muckraker"........or as they are called today "investigative reporters". It is a double edged sword (or should I say "word"). Generally when one hears of a muckraker, the word is taken literally and has a negative connotation, somewhat like a papparazi or a writer for the National Inquirer. However, this chapter shows us that muckrakers brought the public's attention to issues such as child labor and the horrid conditions that led to the Pure Food and Drug Act. The author treats the term without prejudice and makes one appreciate more those writers who dug beneath the "muck" to expose what needed exsposed.

We are current again as of posting on May 22nd:

This is up to date

All, we do not have to do citations regarding the book or the author being discussed during the book discussion on these discussion threads - nor do we have to cite any personage in the book being discussed while on the discussion threads related to this book.

However if we discuss folks outside the scope of the book or another book is cited which is not the book and author discussed then we do have to do that citation according to our citation rules. That makes it easier to not disrupt the discussion. Thought that I would add that.

Folks who have participated on the Week One, Week Two, Week Three thread or just the Week Two or Week Three thread. Week Two and Week Three participation will be bolded. All group members receiving books in this offer should be posting at least once per weekly thread in a timely basis.

(Updated as of May 22nd)
Bentley - Weeks One, Two, Three
Jill - Weeks One, Two, Three
Christopher for Southern Cal - Weeks One, Two, Three
Tomi - Weeks One, Two, Three
Nita - Weeks One, Two, please get caught up by posting on Week Three,
Peter - Weeks One, Two, Three
Teri - Weeks One, Two, Three
Holly - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Hana - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Nick - Weeks One, Two, Three
Mark - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Francie - Weeks One, Two, Three
Lorna - Weeks One, Two, Three
Vincent - Weeks One, Two, Three
Betty - Weeks One, Two, Three
Mary from SC - Weeks One, Two, Three
Rachel - Weeks One, Two, Three
Jovita - Weeks One, Two, Three
Jordan - Weeks One, Two, Three
Michael - Weeks One, Two, Three
Savannah - Weeks One, Two, Three
John - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Kressel - Weeks One, Two, Three
David from Nebraska - Weeks One, Two, Three
Simonetta - Weeks One, Two, Three
Jason - Weeks One, Two, Three
Other Jason Watts - Week One, Two, Three
Pamela - Weeks One, Two, Three
Rhonda - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Bryan - Weeks One, Two, Three
Teresa - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Jim from Michigan - Weeks One, Two, Three
Glynn - Weeks One, Two, Three
Lacey from Mississippi - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Kacy - Weeks One, Two, Three
Helga - Weeks One, Two, Three
Ann D from Nebraska - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond to Week Three
Robyn from New Mexico - Weeks One, Two, Three
Robin (second Robin) - Weeks One, Two, Three
Mary Ellen - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Steve D - Weeks One, Two, Three
Jan from So Cal - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Jason Page - Weeks One, Two, Three
Gary from Penn - Weeks One, Two, Three
Mike M - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Laura R - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Alice - Weeks One, please go back and respond on Week Two, please go back and respond on Week Three
Jack - Weeks One, Two, Three
Mary B from Tennessee - Weeks One, Two, Three
Nathan C - Weeks One, Two, please go back and respond to Week Three
Paul W - Weeks Two, please go back and respond to the preliminary questions for Week One, Three
Kristie - Weeks One, please respond to the Week Two questions, please go back and respond to Week Three
obs20 - Weeks Two - however still needs to go back to Week One and complete preliminary questions, Three
Phillip - Weeks Two - however still needs to go back to Week One and complete preliminary questions, please go back and respond to Week Three
Charles - Weeks Two - however still needs to go back to Week One and complete preliminary questions, please go back and respond on Week Three
Lewis - AuthorQ&A, no response to preliminary questions and not keeping up with weekly posting - Week One, Two needs to post on Week Three and interact with posters

Have Not Posted on Week One or on the Week Two threads or on the Week Three Threads

10. Cosmic - sent PM
15. Steven McCarthy - sent PM
17. Michael F - DC - sent PM
18. Karen L - Arkansas - sent PM
19. Harold Jones - sent PM

Bentley wrote: "Folks, I have caught up on this thread as far as participation."
Bentley, I am looking at the threads. Seems like I am missing some homework for you. I did post on this week's reading. Please let me know what I am missing.

Very interesting these Roosevelt's. His son had some interesting times in Iran.

Jack aside from 128 - what post number and I will update. I found you. Corrected

Folks, Week Seven is now open and we move to that thread and its assignment:

The seventh week's reading assignment is:

Week Seven - May 23rd - May 29th
Chapter Seven - The Tariff - (pages 123 - 142)

https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

For those of you who need to catch up check each of the previous six threads including this one and make sure that you have posted on that thread and it is noted. If in fact you have not posted, make sure you respond on that thread to the topics for discussion and the next time I do an update - I will note your new responses so that you can get caught up.

You can still post on all of the Weekly threads to get caught up or if you are starting out new and want to read the book by all means post any time.

Book Recipients however should get caught up as soon as you can and are able (we realize everybody reads at different speeds) - we have reached the mid point of the book discussion. There are ten chapters in the book and this is Week Seven.
So try to catch up on your posting and your reading.

Here are the links to the previous Weekly Chapters to check your progress:

Week Six - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Week Five - https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Week Four
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Week Three
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Week Two
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Week One
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

And also part of the T's and C's is interacting with the author and asking a question or two - here is that link to the Q&A thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Take advantage of the author being with us on this journey.

Remember everybody - you can always get caught up - we are here waiting to read your posts and look forward to it.

All Current

OK aside from Cosmic, Steven McCarthy, Michael F, Karen L and Harold who have not posted anything:

The following folks need to post and respond to questions on Week Three:

Nita
Holly
Hana
Mark
John
Rhonda
Kristie
Paul W
Nathan C
Lauren R
Alice
Mary Ellen
Jan from Southern Cal
Ann D
Lacey from Mississippi
Teresa

A) What do you think of the Muck Rake speech?

It is a little difficult to gauge a speech more than 100 hundred yeas later. The language, style, forcefulness...so many things change from generation to generation. What sounds harsh to our ears no doubt was normal in that day. Having said that, I don't like the preachy, spiritualizing, condescending tone that comes across, conveying the impression that the target is clearly evil, immoral, and not worth hearing. Obviously, TR was addressing evils he perceived. But why do politicians so often attack people (We've seen plenty of that in the 2016 election.) instead of sticking to issues. To me, it reduces their credibility and my trust in them.

B) Did you like the speech?

TR uses too many extreme terms, and the religious references add a not so subtle suggestion that the target audience is not only in error but is clearly evil and misdirected. This represents the kind of politics I don't like.

C) Was the reporting extreme?

The media seems to be every bit as political as politicians are, twisting and turning words to sound however they want according to their opinion of the speaker. Reporters provide us a vital service...regrettably, they use their platform to also deliver a disservice to us in many cases. They were probably too harsh in their assessment in this case as well.

D) Thoughts on the "sewer gas" reference?

Again, this is the kind of unnecessary, distracting language that does not relate to the issue being debated, in my opinion.

On page 64, we get a glimpse of the back and forth exchanges that so often take place between politicians and members of the media. In this regard, it seems that little has changed in 100 years.

Thank you Lewis.

Lewis - I think you need to place the question on the Q&A thread for Michael - you have asked him questions there before so you know where it is.

I am moving your question to the Q&A thread.

I have updated your participation on this thread.

Mr. Wolraich asked if we are seeing a new 'great slanting crack' in the current presidential selection. I actually think the current cycle could be close to what Sen. Bailey said of TR on page 67. "He is clay, and very common clay at that." In today's hyper-partisan environment, if you compromise at all you are considered weak or in the case of Republicans, a RINO. I think the time for a crack was the emergence of the Tea Party years ago.

Since we talked about Upton Sinclair on this thread, I just wanted to let everyone know that the book I'm currently reading, Hollywood Left and Right: How Movie Stars Shaped American Politics by Steven J. Ross discusses his friendship with Charlie Chaplin in Chapter One and his failed bid to be California's governor in Chapter Two. All of this was quite a bit after La Follette's fall. But the footnote citation for the gubernatorial race is The Campaign of the Century: Upton Sinclair's Race for Governor of California and the Birth of Media Politics by Greg Mitchell.

by Steven J. Ross (no photo)

by Greg Mitchell

Thank you Kressel for that update