POPULARITY
4 episodes with southern democratic
2 episodes with southern democratic
2 episodes with southern democratic
2 episodes with southern democratic
2 episodes with southern democratic
At the close of the 1970s, government treasuries and central banks took a vow of perpetual self-restraint. To this day, fiscal authorities fret over soaring public debt burdens, while central bankers wring their hands at the slightest sign of rising wages. As the brief reprieve of coronavirus spending made clear, no departure from government austerity will be tolerated without a corresponding act of penance. Yet we misunderstand the scope of neoliberal public finance if we assume austerity to be its sole setting. Beyond the zero-sum game of direct claims on state budgets lies a realm of indirect government spending that escapes the naked eye. Capital gains are multiply subsidized by a tax system that reserves its greatest rewards for financial asset holders. And for all its airs of haughty asceticism, the Federal Reserve has become adept at facilitating the inflation of asset values while ruthlessly suppressing wages. Neoliberalism is as extravagant as it is austere, and this paradox needs to be grasped if we are to challenge its core modus operandi. In Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (Zone Books, 2024) Dr. Melinda Cooper examines the major schools of thought that have shaped neoliberal common sense around public finance. Focusing, in particular, on Virginia school public choice theory and supply-side economics, she shows how these currents produced distinct but ultimately complementary responses to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. With its intellectual roots in the conservative Southern Democratic tradition, Virginia school public choice theory espoused an austere doctrine of budget balance. The supply-side movement, by contrast, advocated tax cuts without spending restraint and debt issuance without guilt, in an apparent repudiation of austerity. Yet, for all their differences, the two schools converged around the need to rein in the redistributive uses of public spending. Together, they drove a counterrevolution in public finance that deepened the divide between rich and poor and revived the fortunes of dynastic wealth. Far-reaching as the neoliberal counterrevolution has been, Dr. Cooper still identifies a counterfactual history of unrealized possibilities in the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. She concludes by inviting us to rethink the concept of revolution and raises the question: Is another politics of extravagance possible? This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
At the close of the 1970s, government treasuries and central banks took a vow of perpetual self-restraint. To this day, fiscal authorities fret over soaring public debt burdens, while central bankers wring their hands at the slightest sign of rising wages. As the brief reprieve of coronavirus spending made clear, no departure from government austerity will be tolerated without a corresponding act of penance. Yet we misunderstand the scope of neoliberal public finance if we assume austerity to be its sole setting. Beyond the zero-sum game of direct claims on state budgets lies a realm of indirect government spending that escapes the naked eye. Capital gains are multiply subsidized by a tax system that reserves its greatest rewards for financial asset holders. And for all its airs of haughty asceticism, the Federal Reserve has become adept at facilitating the inflation of asset values while ruthlessly suppressing wages. Neoliberalism is as extravagant as it is austere, and this paradox needs to be grasped if we are to challenge its core modus operandi. In Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (Zone Books, 2024) Dr. Melinda Cooper examines the major schools of thought that have shaped neoliberal common sense around public finance. Focusing, in particular, on Virginia school public choice theory and supply-side economics, she shows how these currents produced distinct but ultimately complementary responses to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. With its intellectual roots in the conservative Southern Democratic tradition, Virginia school public choice theory espoused an austere doctrine of budget balance. The supply-side movement, by contrast, advocated tax cuts without spending restraint and debt issuance without guilt, in an apparent repudiation of austerity. Yet, for all their differences, the two schools converged around the need to rein in the redistributive uses of public spending. Together, they drove a counterrevolution in public finance that deepened the divide between rich and poor and revived the fortunes of dynastic wealth. Far-reaching as the neoliberal counterrevolution has been, Dr. Cooper still identifies a counterfactual history of unrealized possibilities in the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. She concludes by inviting us to rethink the concept of revolution and raises the question: Is another politics of extravagance possible? This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory
At the close of the 1970s, government treasuries and central banks took a vow of perpetual self-restraint. To this day, fiscal authorities fret over soaring public debt burdens, while central bankers wring their hands at the slightest sign of rising wages. As the brief reprieve of coronavirus spending made clear, no departure from government austerity will be tolerated without a corresponding act of penance. Yet we misunderstand the scope of neoliberal public finance if we assume austerity to be its sole setting. Beyond the zero-sum game of direct claims on state budgets lies a realm of indirect government spending that escapes the naked eye. Capital gains are multiply subsidized by a tax system that reserves its greatest rewards for financial asset holders. And for all its airs of haughty asceticism, the Federal Reserve has become adept at facilitating the inflation of asset values while ruthlessly suppressing wages. Neoliberalism is as extravagant as it is austere, and this paradox needs to be grasped if we are to challenge its core modus operandi. In Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (Zone Books, 2024) Dr. Melinda Cooper examines the major schools of thought that have shaped neoliberal common sense around public finance. Focusing, in particular, on Virginia school public choice theory and supply-side economics, she shows how these currents produced distinct but ultimately complementary responses to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. With its intellectual roots in the conservative Southern Democratic tradition, Virginia school public choice theory espoused an austere doctrine of budget balance. The supply-side movement, by contrast, advocated tax cuts without spending restraint and debt issuance without guilt, in an apparent repudiation of austerity. Yet, for all their differences, the two schools converged around the need to rein in the redistributive uses of public spending. Together, they drove a counterrevolution in public finance that deepened the divide between rich and poor and revived the fortunes of dynastic wealth. Far-reaching as the neoliberal counterrevolution has been, Dr. Cooper still identifies a counterfactual history of unrealized possibilities in the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. She concludes by inviting us to rethink the concept of revolution and raises the question: Is another politics of extravagance possible? This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history
At the close of the 1970s, government treasuries and central banks took a vow of perpetual self-restraint. To this day, fiscal authorities fret over soaring public debt burdens, while central bankers wring their hands at the slightest sign of rising wages. As the brief reprieve of coronavirus spending made clear, no departure from government austerity will be tolerated without a corresponding act of penance. Yet we misunderstand the scope of neoliberal public finance if we assume austerity to be its sole setting. Beyond the zero-sum game of direct claims on state budgets lies a realm of indirect government spending that escapes the naked eye. Capital gains are multiply subsidized by a tax system that reserves its greatest rewards for financial asset holders. And for all its airs of haughty asceticism, the Federal Reserve has become adept at facilitating the inflation of asset values while ruthlessly suppressing wages. Neoliberalism is as extravagant as it is austere, and this paradox needs to be grasped if we are to challenge its core modus operandi. In Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (Zone Books, 2024) Dr. Melinda Cooper examines the major schools of thought that have shaped neoliberal common sense around public finance. Focusing, in particular, on Virginia school public choice theory and supply-side economics, she shows how these currents produced distinct but ultimately complementary responses to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. With its intellectual roots in the conservative Southern Democratic tradition, Virginia school public choice theory espoused an austere doctrine of budget balance. The supply-side movement, by contrast, advocated tax cuts without spending restraint and debt issuance without guilt, in an apparent repudiation of austerity. Yet, for all their differences, the two schools converged around the need to rein in the redistributive uses of public spending. Together, they drove a counterrevolution in public finance that deepened the divide between rich and poor and revived the fortunes of dynastic wealth. Far-reaching as the neoliberal counterrevolution has been, Dr. Cooper still identifies a counterfactual history of unrealized possibilities in the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. She concludes by inviting us to rethink the concept of revolution and raises the question: Is another politics of extravagance possible? This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars.
At the close of the 1970s, government treasuries and central banks took a vow of perpetual self-restraint. To this day, fiscal authorities fret over soaring public debt burdens, while central bankers wring their hands at the slightest sign of rising wages. As the brief reprieve of coronavirus spending made clear, no departure from government austerity will be tolerated without a corresponding act of penance. Yet we misunderstand the scope of neoliberal public finance if we assume austerity to be its sole setting. Beyond the zero-sum game of direct claims on state budgets lies a realm of indirect government spending that escapes the naked eye. Capital gains are multiply subsidized by a tax system that reserves its greatest rewards for financial asset holders. And for all its airs of haughty asceticism, the Federal Reserve has become adept at facilitating the inflation of asset values while ruthlessly suppressing wages. Neoliberalism is as extravagant as it is austere, and this paradox needs to be grasped if we are to challenge its core modus operandi. In Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (Zone Books, 2024) Dr. Melinda Cooper examines the major schools of thought that have shaped neoliberal common sense around public finance. Focusing, in particular, on Virginia school public choice theory and supply-side economics, she shows how these currents produced distinct but ultimately complementary responses to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. With its intellectual roots in the conservative Southern Democratic tradition, Virginia school public choice theory espoused an austere doctrine of budget balance. The supply-side movement, by contrast, advocated tax cuts without spending restraint and debt issuance without guilt, in an apparent repudiation of austerity. Yet, for all their differences, the two schools converged around the need to rein in the redistributive uses of public spending. Together, they drove a counterrevolution in public finance that deepened the divide between rich and poor and revived the fortunes of dynastic wealth. Far-reaching as the neoliberal counterrevolution has been, Dr. Cooper still identifies a counterfactual history of unrealized possibilities in the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. She concludes by inviting us to rethink the concept of revolution and raises the question: Is another politics of extravagance possible? This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy
At the close of the 1970s, government treasuries and central banks took a vow of perpetual self-restraint. To this day, fiscal authorities fret over soaring public debt burdens, while central bankers wring their hands at the slightest sign of rising wages. As the brief reprieve of coronavirus spending made clear, no departure from government austerity will be tolerated without a corresponding act of penance. Yet we misunderstand the scope of neoliberal public finance if we assume austerity to be its sole setting. Beyond the zero-sum game of direct claims on state budgets lies a realm of indirect government spending that escapes the naked eye. Capital gains are multiply subsidized by a tax system that reserves its greatest rewards for financial asset holders. And for all its airs of haughty asceticism, the Federal Reserve has become adept at facilitating the inflation of asset values while ruthlessly suppressing wages. Neoliberalism is as extravagant as it is austere, and this paradox needs to be grasped if we are to challenge its core modus operandi. In Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (Zone Books, 2024) Dr. Melinda Cooper examines the major schools of thought that have shaped neoliberal common sense around public finance. Focusing, in particular, on Virginia school public choice theory and supply-side economics, she shows how these currents produced distinct but ultimately complementary responses to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. With its intellectual roots in the conservative Southern Democratic tradition, Virginia school public choice theory espoused an austere doctrine of budget balance. The supply-side movement, by contrast, advocated tax cuts without spending restraint and debt issuance without guilt, in an apparent repudiation of austerity. Yet, for all their differences, the two schools converged around the need to rein in the redistributive uses of public spending. Together, they drove a counterrevolution in public finance that deepened the divide between rich and poor and revived the fortunes of dynastic wealth. Far-reaching as the neoliberal counterrevolution has been, Dr. Cooper still identifies a counterfactual history of unrealized possibilities in the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. She concludes by inviting us to rethink the concept of revolution and raises the question: Is another politics of extravagance possible? This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics
At the close of the 1970s, government treasuries and central banks took a vow of perpetual self-restraint. To this day, fiscal authorities fret over soaring public debt burdens, while central bankers wring their hands at the slightest sign of rising wages. As the brief reprieve of coronavirus spending made clear, no departure from government austerity will be tolerated without a corresponding act of penance. Yet we misunderstand the scope of neoliberal public finance if we assume austerity to be its sole setting. Beyond the zero-sum game of direct claims on state budgets lies a realm of indirect government spending that escapes the naked eye. Capital gains are multiply subsidized by a tax system that reserves its greatest rewards for financial asset holders. And for all its airs of haughty asceticism, the Federal Reserve has become adept at facilitating the inflation of asset values while ruthlessly suppressing wages. Neoliberalism is as extravagant as it is austere, and this paradox needs to be grasped if we are to challenge its core modus operandi. In Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (Zone Books, 2024) Dr. Melinda Cooper examines the major schools of thought that have shaped neoliberal common sense around public finance. Focusing, in particular, on Virginia school public choice theory and supply-side economics, she shows how these currents produced distinct but ultimately complementary responses to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. With its intellectual roots in the conservative Southern Democratic tradition, Virginia school public choice theory espoused an austere doctrine of budget balance. The supply-side movement, by contrast, advocated tax cuts without spending restraint and debt issuance without guilt, in an apparent repudiation of austerity. Yet, for all their differences, the two schools converged around the need to rein in the redistributive uses of public spending. Together, they drove a counterrevolution in public finance that deepened the divide between rich and poor and revived the fortunes of dynastic wealth. Far-reaching as the neoliberal counterrevolution has been, Dr. Cooper still identifies a counterfactual history of unrealized possibilities in the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. She concludes by inviting us to rethink the concept of revolution and raises the question: Is another politics of extravagance possible? This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/finance
At the close of the 1970s, government treasuries and central banks took a vow of perpetual self-restraint. To this day, fiscal authorities fret over soaring public debt burdens, while central bankers wring their hands at the slightest sign of rising wages. As the brief reprieve of coronavirus spending made clear, no departure from government austerity will be tolerated without a corresponding act of penance. Yet we misunderstand the scope of neoliberal public finance if we assume austerity to be its sole setting. Beyond the zero-sum game of direct claims on state budgets lies a realm of indirect government spending that escapes the naked eye. Capital gains are multiply subsidized by a tax system that reserves its greatest rewards for financial asset holders. And for all its airs of haughty asceticism, the Federal Reserve has become adept at facilitating the inflation of asset values while ruthlessly suppressing wages. Neoliberalism is as extravagant as it is austere, and this paradox needs to be grasped if we are to challenge its core modus operandi. In Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (Zone Books, 2024) Dr. Melinda Cooper examines the major schools of thought that have shaped neoliberal common sense around public finance. Focusing, in particular, on Virginia school public choice theory and supply-side economics, she shows how these currents produced distinct but ultimately complementary responses to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. With its intellectual roots in the conservative Southern Democratic tradition, Virginia school public choice theory espoused an austere doctrine of budget balance. The supply-side movement, by contrast, advocated tax cuts without spending restraint and debt issuance without guilt, in an apparent repudiation of austerity. Yet, for all their differences, the two schools converged around the need to rein in the redistributive uses of public spending. Together, they drove a counterrevolution in public finance that deepened the divide between rich and poor and revived the fortunes of dynastic wealth. Far-reaching as the neoliberal counterrevolution has been, Dr. Cooper still identifies a counterfactual history of unrealized possibilities in the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. She concludes by inviting us to rethink the concept of revolution and raises the question: Is another politics of extravagance possible? This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
At the close of the 1970s, government treasuries and central banks took a vow of perpetual self-restraint. To this day, fiscal authorities fret over soaring public debt burdens, while central bankers wring their hands at the slightest sign of rising wages. As the brief reprieve of coronavirus spending made clear, no departure from government austerity will be tolerated without a corresponding act of penance. Yet we misunderstand the scope of neoliberal public finance if we assume austerity to be its sole setting. Beyond the zero-sum game of direct claims on state budgets lies a realm of indirect government spending that escapes the naked eye. Capital gains are multiply subsidized by a tax system that reserves its greatest rewards for financial asset holders. And for all its airs of haughty asceticism, the Federal Reserve has become adept at facilitating the inflation of asset values while ruthlessly suppressing wages. Neoliberalism is as extravagant as it is austere, and this paradox needs to be grasped if we are to challenge its core modus operandi. In Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance (Zone Books, 2024) Dr. Melinda Cooper examines the major schools of thought that have shaped neoliberal common sense around public finance. Focusing, in particular, on Virginia school public choice theory and supply-side economics, she shows how these currents produced distinct but ultimately complementary responses to the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. With its intellectual roots in the conservative Southern Democratic tradition, Virginia school public choice theory espoused an austere doctrine of budget balance. The supply-side movement, by contrast, advocated tax cuts without spending restraint and debt issuance without guilt, in an apparent repudiation of austerity. Yet, for all their differences, the two schools converged around the need to rein in the redistributive uses of public spending. Together, they drove a counterrevolution in public finance that deepened the divide between rich and poor and revived the fortunes of dynastic wealth. Far-reaching as the neoliberal counterrevolution has been, Dr. Cooper still identifies a counterfactual history of unrealized possibilities in the capitalist crisis of the 1970s. She concludes by inviting us to rethink the concept of revolution and raises the question: Is another politics of extravagance possible? This interview was conducted by Dr. Miranda Melcher whose new book focuses on post-conflict military integration, understanding treaty negotiation and implementation in civil war contexts, with qualitative analysis of the Angolan and Mozambican civil wars. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Episode No. 691 features artists Kota Ezawa and Amy Pleasant. The Fort Mason Center for Arts & Culture is presenting "Kota Ezawa: Here and There - Now and Then," an investigation into the creation of memory in the Bay Area and nationally, through March 9. The exhibition, organized in collaboration with the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, features Ezawa and Julian Brave NoiseCat's Alcatraz Is an Idea (2024), and Merzbau 1, 2, 3 (2021), and Ursonate (2022), which were among 11 Ezawas recently acquired by SFMOMA. "Ezawa" was curated by Frank Smigiel. Fort Mason will publish a catalogue on the closing weekend. SFMOMA is showing Ezawa's National Anthem (2018) in "Count Me In" through April 27. Ezawa's work has been featured in solo exhibitions at many museums, including the Baltimore Museum of Art, the Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, VA; the Buffalo AKG Art Museum; the Vancouver Art Gallery, Canada; and the Saint Louis Art Museum. His work is in the collection most major US art museums, and in museums in seven other countries. Pleasant is included in "Synchronicities: Intersecting Figuration with Abstraction" at the Bemis Center for Contemporary Arts, Omaha. The exhibition examines some of the ways in which nine artists have recently navigated the space between abstraction and figuration. "Synchronicities" was curated by Rachel Adams, and is on view through May 4. Pleasant's work is also on view at The Carnegie, Covington, KY in "Southern Democratic" through February 15, and in "Vivid: A Fresh Take" at the Hunter Museum of American Art, Chattanooga, TN through June 1. Pleasant has been included in exhibitions at the Knoxville Museum of Art, the Montgomery (Ala.) Museum of Fine Arts, the Weatherspoon Museum of Art, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, and more. Instagram: Amy Pleasant, Tyler Green.
Special Counsel Jack Smith exposes the corrupt Trump with a powerful indictment. Elad Gross' template could be a Progressive map. Andrew Villeneuve discusses how Progressives fight. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/politicsdoneright/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/politicsdoneright/support
The Moore's Ford lynchings, or the 1946 Georgia lynching, refer to the brutal murders of four young African Americans by a mob of white men on July 25, 1946. The incident occurred near Moore's Ford Bridge in Walton and Oconee counties, Georgia. The victims were two married couples: George W. and Mae Murray Dorsey, and Roger and Dorothy Malcolm. The case attracted national attention, prompting large protests in Washington, D.C., and New York City. President Harry Truman created the President's Committee on Civil Rights and introduced anti-lynching legislation in Congress, but it was blocked by the Southern Democratic bloc. The FBI investigated the case in 1946 but could not find sufficient evidence to charge anyone. The cold case was reopened in the 1990s, but the state of Georgia and the FBI closed their cases in December 2017 without any prosecution. In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum narrates the story of the meeting with ex-KKK imperial wizard, Johnny Lee Clary. Through a surprising connection with Reverend Watts, a local NAACP leader, Clary experiences a profound transformation, revealing the strength of compassion and resilience in the face of prejudice. Also shared is the story of a student, Pho, grappling with the reality of law enforcement. Highlighting real-life instances of personal change and the power of love Show Notes: [0:00] Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum. [0:16] Recap of the investigation into the Morse Ford Bridge cold case involving a civil rights crime [1:10] In a bold move, Sheryl arranges a meeting with ex-KKK imperial wizard, Johnny Lee Clary, to gather information about the cold case [2:00] Sheryl introduces Pho, her student who will be joining in a meeting with Johnny Lee Clary [4:10] Unpacking the realities of law enforcement work, where allegiance is to justice rather than personal preferences [7:21] At age 14, Johnny Lee Clary joined the clan [7:55] Introduction to Reverend Wade Watts via Johnny's story [8:24] Sheryl narrates the surprising story of Johnny Lee's interaction with Reverend Watts, a tale of confrontation met with unexpected kindness [11:24] The memorable first meeting of Johnny Lee and Reverend Watts in 1979 which played a vital role in Johnny's transformation is recollected [12:40] A change of heart for Johnny [16:51] Drawing from personal experiences, Sheryl underscores the power of love and goodness in overcoming preconceived notions [18:00] An uplifting update about Pho's journey from student to successful bail enforcement officer in Georgia [18:55] “You can't do enough to me to make me hate you. I'm gonna love you, and I will pray for you, whether you like it or not.” -Reverend Wade Watts Thanks for listening to another episode! If you're loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review! How to Leave an Apple Podcast Review: First, Open the podcast app on your iPhone, Mac, or iPad. Then, hit the “Search” tab at the bottom right-hand corner of the page and search for Zone 7. Select the podcast, scroll down to find the subheading “Ratings & Reviews”. and select “Write a Review.” Next, select the number of stars you'd like to leave. Please choose 5 stars! Using the text box which says “Title,” write a title for your review. Then in the text box, write the review itself. The review can be up to 300 words long, but doesn't need to be much more than: “Love the show! Thanks!” or Once you're done select “Send” in the upper right-hand corner. --- Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Sheryl is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a collaboration between universities and colleges that brings researchers, practitioners, students and the criminal justice community together to advance techniques in solving cold cases and assist families and law enforcement with solvability factors for unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnapping cases. You can connect and learn more about Sheryl's work by visiting the CCIRI website https://coldcasecrimes.org Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Moore's Ford lynchings, or the 1946 Georgia lynching, refer to the brutal murders of four young African Americans by a mob of white men on July 25, 1946. The incident occurred near Moore's Ford Bridge in Walton and Oconee counties, Georgia. The victims were two married couples: George W. and Mae Murray Dorsey, and Roger and Dorothy Malcolm. The case attracted national attention, prompting large protests in Washington, D.C., and New York City. President Harry Truman created the President's Committee on Civil Rights and introduced anti-lynching legislation in Congress, but it was blocked by the Southern Democratic bloc. The FBI investigated the case in 1946 but could not find sufficient evidence to charge anyone. The cold case was reopened in the 1990s, but the state of Georgia and the FBI closed their cases in December 2017 without any prosecution. This episode features Sheryl McCollum, a cold case investigator, and Laura Wexler, author of "Fire in a Canebrake," discussing the Moores Ford Lynching in Georgia. Together, they explore the legacy of racial violence, the power of storytelling, and the challenges of investigating historical cases. Laura recounts her journey of unearthing the dark corners of America's past, hoping to shine a light on forgotten stories and victims. Show Notes: [0:00] Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum. Sheryl shares a life-changing interaction with her first-grade teacher, Ms. Williams [1:00] Ms. Williams' impact on Sheryl's early education, fostering respect and kindness [2:30] Sherly welcomes guest, Laura Wexler, author of Fire in a Canebrake: The Last Mass Lynching in America to the listeners [5:00] Laura shares a bit of her background to the listeners [5:55] Discovery of the Moores Ford Lynching and the formation of the Moores Ford Memorial Committee. [7:37] The power of storytelling and the importance of balanced narratives [8:26] Question: How did you come up with the title: Fire in the Canebrake? [8:45] The story behind the title Fire in a Canebrake [11:37] Question: What were your thoughts after talking with the two living suspects? [13:01] The challenges in cracking the case due to loyalty among suspects [16:10] Discussion on the fear instilled by the FBI investigation [19:30] Question: What do you think some of the most compelling evidence is in this case? [25:58] Unpacking a haunting photo connected to the case [27:33] “If not for your book, We would not have the documentation that we do on this case, and I think it's an important case. I think it's one of those, not just for historical purposes, but again for people to understand the times. 1946 is not that long ago.” [27:50] Laura's initial hope to solve the case and her disappointment [29:55] Sheryl's students learn valuable life lessons from the case [32:18] “I do what I wanna do and when I wanna do it every day” -Ms. Williams's advice on staying young and vibrant Thanks for listening to another episode! If you're loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review! How to Leave an Apple Podcast Review: First, Open the podcast app on your iPhone, Mac, or iPad. Then, hit the “Search” tab at the bottom right-hand corner of the page and search for Zone 7. Select the podcast, scroll down to find the subheading “Ratings & Reviews”. and select “Write a Review.” Next, select the number of stars you'd like to leave. Please choose 5 stars! Using the text box which says “Title,” write a title for your review. Then in the text box, write the review itself. The review can be up to 300 words long, but doesn't need to be much more than: “Love the show! Thanks!” or Once you're done select “Send” in the upper right-hand corner. --- Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Sheryl is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a collaboration between universities and colleges that brings researchers, practitioners, students and the criminal justice community together to advance techniques in solving cold cases and assist families and law enforcement with solvability factors for unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnapping cases. You can connect and learn more about Sheryl's work by visiting the CCIRI website https://coldcasecrimes.org Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Moore's Ford lynchings, or the 1946 Georgia lynching, refer to the brutal murders of four young African Americans by a mob of white men on July 25, 1946. The incident took place near Moore's Ford Bridge in Walton and Oconee counties, Georgia. The victims were two married couples: George W. and Mae Murray Dorsey, and Roger and Dorothy Malcolm. The case attracted national attention, prompting large protests in Washington, D.C., and New York City. President Harry Truman created the President's Committee on Civil Rights and introduced anti-lynching legislation in Congress, but it was blocked by the Southern Democratic bloc. The FBI investigated the case in 1946 but could not find sufficient evidence to charge anyone. The cold case was reopened in the 1990s, but the state of Georgia and the FBI closed their cases in December 2017 without any prosecution. In this episode of "Zone 7," Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum, talks with clinical therapist Janice Duncan as they dive deep into the chilling Moore's Ford Lynching case. Together they explore the psychological impact of lynching on the Black community. They also discuss their emotional experiences at the crime scene, including a tense encounter with a truck, and the significance of the evidence found. The duo also reveals their interactions with a former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, shedding light on the complex historical context of the case. Show Notes: [0:00] Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum. Sheryl recounts her Bonnie and Clyde death car experience and its impact on her investigative career. [1:20] Sheryl highlights similarities between the Bonnie and Clyde case and the Moore's Ford Lynching [7:06] Sherly welcomes guest Janice Duncan to the listeners [8:05] Sheryl and Janice delve into the details of the Moore's Ford Bridge lynching [9:56] Janice reflects on the emotional experience of visiting the lynching crime scene [14:10] They discuss meeting with the former imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan [15:55] Question: What was the turning point for you other than meeting with Johnny Lee Cleary? [19:39] Janice shares the moving story of former Klan member Johnny Lee Cleary. [22:02] The conversation shifts to understanding Cleary's violent childhood and coping mechanisms [26:24] Cleary's actions, such as burning a black church to stop voter registration, are discussed [27:10] Reverend Watts' belief in Cleary's potential for change is highlighted [29:47] Janice shares how humor has helped her cope with the challenges of her career [30:00] A tense encounter with a truck during the investigation is recounted [32:20] Sheryl and Janice discuss the significance of evidence found in the Moore's Ford Bridge case [33:02] The emotional impact of finding evidence at the crime scene is reflected upon [37:02] How hands-on experience changed the students who helped in the investigation at the crime scene [39:15] “This crime got the attention of a college student, you know, a Morehouse man, a 17-year-old who took the time to write a letter to the Atlanta Constitution. Because he was mad about the immortality of this racism. And the letter clearly showed that he had a passion for social justice. The letter was signed very simply, ML King Jr. So you college students here, with Cheryl and Janice, can do something. You have done something.” -TB Thanks for listening to another episode! If you're loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review! How to Leave an Apple Podcast Review: First, Open the podcast app on your iPhone, Mac, or iPad. Then, hit the “Search” tab at the bottom right-hand corner of the page and search for Zone 7. Select the podcast, scroll down to find the subheading “Ratings & Reviews”. and select “Write a Review.” Next, select the number of stars you'd like to leave. Please choose 5 stars! Using the text box which says “Title,” write a title for your review. Then in the text box, write the review itself. The review can be up to 300 words long, but doesn't need to be much more than: “Love the show! Thanks!” or Once you're done select “Send” in the upper right-hand corner. --- Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award-winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnline, a forensic and crime scene expert for “Crime Stories with Nancy Grace,” and a CSI for a metro-area Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook, “Cold Case: Pathways to Justice.” McCollum is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a collaboration between universities and colleges that brings researchers, practitioners, students, and the criminal justice community. They come together to advance techniques in solving cold cases and assist families and law enforcement with solvability factors for unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnapping cases. You can connect and learn more about McCollum's work by visiting the CCIRI website https://coldcasecrimes.org Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Moore's Ford lynchings, or the 1946 Georgia lynching, refer to the brutal murders of four young African Americans by a mob of white men on July 25, 1946. The incident took place near Moore's Ford Bridge in Walton and Oconee counties, Georgia. The victims were two married couples: George W. and Mae Murray Dorsey, and Roger and Dorothy Malcolm. The case attracted national attention, prompting large protests in Washington, D.C., and New York City. President Harry Truman created the President's Committee on Civil Rights and introduced anti-lynching legislation in Congress, but it was blocked by the Southern Democratic bloc. The FBI investigated the case in 1946 but could not find sufficient evidence to charge anyone. The cold case was reopened in the 1990s, but the state of Georgia and the FBI closed their cases in December 2017 without any prosecution. In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator Sheryl McCollum is joined by Judge Holly Hughes and Assistant District Attorney Claire Farley, two experienced legal professionals and advocates for justice. Together, they discuss a historical cold case involving sharecropping, economic servitude, and a flawed investigation. The team shares their experiences uncovering crime scene artifacts that remained hidden for decades and the challenges they faced when working with the FBI. The conversation also covers the importance of unsealing grand jury records to gain invaluable insights and the search for truth and justice in this long-forgotten case. Show Notes: [0:00] Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum. Sheryl details the last mass lynching in the United States. The Moore's Ford Bridge lynchings, July 25th,1946 [7:17] Sheryl introduces her guests, Judge Holly Hughes and Assistant District Attorney Claire Farley, who have extensive legal experience and are advocates for justice [10:21] Holly explains the concept of sharecropping, which was a system that kept people in a cycle of economic servitude similar to slavery [15:30] The discussion begins with the recovery of objects from the crime scene, highlighting the magnitude of the event [16:00] Sheryl shares a story about growing up hunting arrowheads with her Granfather. [17:24] Cold Case Investigative Research Institute [19:30] The team describes the process of cleaning up the site and setting up grids for a more detailed examination [20:38] The discovery of over a hundred bullets, fragments, casings, and artifacts, many dating back to pre-1950, is revealed [24:02] It is noted that over 50 years later, the evidence was still waiting to be discovered [29:42] Question: Claire, you made a phone call because as an active DA, you said, let me call and see if they will come out and collect this evidence. Who did you call and what was their response? [30:07] Claire shares her experience of calling the FBI to collect the evidence they found but encounters a lack of enthusiasm and support from the agent she spoke with [33:06] Question: Claire, can you walk us through what happened with the 11th Circuit? [33:17] Fire in a Canebrake: The Last Mass Lynching in America [33:44] Claire explains her desire for justice and truth in the case, emphasizing the importance of unsealing records to get closer to the truth and encouraging family members to come forward and tell their stories [37:12] Question: Holly, how important would it be for us to be able to read actual testimony? [37:14] Holly emphasizes the invaluable nature of being able to read actual testimony, asserting that it's "priceless" to know who the witnesses were and to explore the original investigation [38:40] Sheryl raises questions about Lloyd Harrison's involvement in the case and how he seemed to be delaying actions, fueling suspicions [44:49] Discussion about the suspicious and fast arrival of the newspaper during the investigation, raising questions about how they knew about the events [47:47] “I have a lot of emotion left from the days of the murders. My whole family still carries scars.” -JH Thanks for listening to another episode! If you're loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review! How to Leave an Apple Podcast Review: First, Open the podcast app on your iPhone, Mac, or iPad. Then, hit the “Search” tab at the bottom right-hand corner of the page and search for Zone 7. Select the podcast, scroll down to find the subheading “Ratings & Reviews”. and select “Write a Review.” Next, select the number of stars you'd like to leave. Please choose 5 stars! Using the text box which says “Title,” write a title for your review. Then in the text box, write the review itself. The review can be up to 300 words long but doesn't need to be much more than: “Love the show! Thanks!” Once you're done select “Send” in the upper right-hand corner. --- Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award-winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnline, a forensic and crime scene expert for “Crime Stories with Nancy Grace,” and a CSI for a metro-area Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook, “Cold Case: Pathways to Justice.” McCollum is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute, a collaboration between universities and colleges that brings researchers, practitioners, students, and the criminal justice community. They come together to advance techniques in solving cold cases and assist families and law enforcement with solvability factors for unsolved homicides, missing persons, and kidnapping cases. You can connect and learn more about McCollum's work by visiting the CCIRI website https://coldcasecrimes.org Social Links: Email: coldcase2004@gmail.com Twitter: @ColdCaseTips Facebook: @sheryl.mccollum See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
The Story of Abraham Lincoln by Mary A. Hamilton audiobook. In this biography for young adults, Mary A. Hamilton gives a British person's perspective on the 16th President of the United States. A glowing tribute to “Honest Abe”, the author traces Lincoln's ancestral roots and recounts his birth in Kentucky, his youth in Indiana, his adult life in Illinois and his years in the White House. She also provides a good background on the causes and course of the American Civil War. Hamilton is not always historically precise. For example, she erroneously names Jefferson Davis as the Southern Democratic candidate for president running against Lincoln and Douglas in 1860 rather than John C. Breckinridge. However, overall “The Story of Abraham Lincoln” is a good summarization and interesting account of the life, values and politics of Lincoln. Cautions: Chapter 7 contains a single use of an epithet for African-Americans in a quotation from a British magazine. Chapter 8 ends with an example of a stereotypical Southern black dialect which many may find offensive.
BlackFacts.com presents the black fact of the day for July 2.Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.In the landmark 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional.The 10 years that followed saw great strides for the African American civil rights movement, as non-violent demonstrations won thousands of supporters to the cause. Led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the Civil Rights movement had been gathering force.John F. Kennedy made passage of a new civil rights bill one of the platforms of his successful 1960 presidential campaign.In early 1964, House supporters overcame the Rules Committee obstacle by threatening to send the bill to the floor without committee approval. Passage of the act was not easy. House opposition bottled up the bill in the House Rules Committee. In the Senate, Southern Democratic opponents attempted to talk the bill to death. The act outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and public schools.This document was the most sweeping civil rights legislation since Reconstruction.Learn black history, teach black history at blackfacts.com
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,'s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state's electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,'s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state's electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
I am grateful to our neighbors for collaborating with us and making this rally a reality. More so, I am honored to have been asked to offer an opening address as we begin our vigil and march today. “No Justice, No Peace.” This is a slogan which since the 1970's has been taken up as the battle cry of the marginalized and oppressed – and with each new year, each new decade, it has gained the collective momentum of those who demand to be recognized in the fullness of their humanity. For Christians, social justice is nothing other than the fulfillment of the gospel call to love indiscriminately. And, in that sense, Justice is nothing less than the extension of personal love to the stranger. While we cannot love all people personally, we can create a just society, in which all people of every tribe and race and nation, can live in a world in which they are safe, secure, and able to thrive. All of us stand to benefit from such a world. And thus, no degree of suffering or injustice—human or otherwise—is alien to the church's concern for the world. It is quite natural then, that we should find ourselves in one another's company today and I am personally encouraged and inspired by your enthusiasm—as we together explore where the effective history of our own privilege is either negligent or complicit in the suffering and injustice perpetrated against our fellow African American citizens. In my sermon today to my congregation I spoke about the poignancy of this moment in our national history, I told the story of my father, who, when he was a young boy developed a very serious bone infection called Osteomyelitis. It was in his left shin. Because there was not as yet any effective antibiotics to treat his condition, he contend for many years with resurgent flair ups that were as painful as they were dangerous. As years passed the conditioned worsened in intensity resulting in periodic excruciating blisters that would form over the infected area. With each new resurgence, doctors would apply the best ointments they had at their disposal. Prescribe pain killers and bandage the area, in hopes of suppressing the infection once again…at least for a time. This cycle continued for nearly 20 years until finally one doctor, in 1967, decided to do something different, to break with conventional wisdom, to take a different approach than any doctors had taken before: Rather than medicate and bandage the wound…rather than cover it up in hopes it would go away, he shined a bright light on the infected area, took a surgical knife in hand, and lanced the blister. Without the help of pain killers or anesthesia he dug deep into the wound: cleaning, scraping, sanitizing, and irrigating—clear down into the bone itself. For my father this was excruciating! Yet, it finally marked the turning point – the point at which he finally began to heal once and for all. Sisters and Brothers, like my father's body struggling with the reoccurring flair-up of a chronic infection, so too does the scourge of racism infect our society with as much pain, venom, and toxicity. Our country suffers from the disease – literally, the social dis-ease of a history of White – on – Black violence and oppression, from the very moment the colonizers of this continent began kidnapping Africans from their ancestral home, loading them onto boats like cattle, and dragging them across the ocean on perilous journeys which many millions would not survive. Once landed on the shores of the so-called “New World,” for over 300 years the colonizers established ethnic slavery among the colonies as the basis for our economy. The numbers of abducted Africans trafficked between 1525-1866 amount to no less than 12.5 million men, women and children, resulting in over 2 million deaths among those who never survived the journey itself. Even after the so-called Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln on January 1, 1863 the dark history of state-sponsored terrorism—known as lynching—escalated in the years following the Emancipation Proclamation, perpetrated by Whites who wanted to instill fear in Black Americans in order to maintain their stronghold on White supremacy in economic, social, and political spheres. More than 4,400 lynchings (mostly targeting the African American community) are recorded—and many more suspected—in the years following Post-Civil War Reconstruction and World War II. And if we want to tuck this history away, relegating it safely to a distant past, consider this: Between 1890 and 1952 seven presidents asked Congress to pass federal anti-lynching laws." And yet, not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc. And as late as 2018, appeals by African American lawmakers for a reparations bill for lynchings has still been denied a hearing. Nevertheless, as lynchings decreased after 1919, a new form of oppression—the Jim Crow laws—ensured the continuance of White supremacy by enforcing racial segregation across the Southern United States. Jim Crow remained in force until 1965 – and was only lifted after the brave, hard fought battles and civil protests of the likes of Rosa Parks, The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X, along with thousands of African Americans and their allies who took to the streets, exercising their First Amendment rights, just as we are today. Inadequate as it is, I am asking all of us here today to allow the horror of this history— of this social dis-ease to settle in your bones. What is unfolding in our streets today, is not an isolated moment, nor do the vigils and protests rising up in our cities mark some new virulent form of American anarchy, as some have suggested! To the contrary, these protests, like those of Parks, King, and Malcom X, are the rightful expression of an oppressed people. They mark an inalienable human right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution to petition the government for a redress of grievances. For centuries in our history, and now again, we are witnesses the boils and blisters that arise from the social history of racism and White supremacy – a disease that penetrates our own country down to its very bones. And I would like to think we stand here today, like my father's doctor so many decades ago, to once again shine the bright light of Truth on this most egregious sin of our Nation, to end centuries of White Silence and complicity – from which we have, and we Whites continue, to benefit, and to stand with our Black sisters and brothers until that great Dream of Dr. King, that great Dream of freedom of all our African American sisters and brothers is made a political, national, and social reality the world over. While today marks a day of solidarity in witness to this unique moment in history, I am deeply inspired by so many of you who are, and have been engaged in the work of social justice for years and even lifetimes. And thus you know also that anyone's fight for inclusion and equality is intimately linked with everyone's fight for inclusion and equality. And I am here to remind you today, that in our fight, in this little corner of the world, the community of St. Columba's stands with our wider community, to assist and collaborate in any way we can. And no doubt, we have our work cut out for us. The White supremacist stronghold dominating the narratives of this country—and the media outlets who serve them like henchmen, are working feverishly to denigrate this new exercise of First Amendment rights by African Americans. By twisting, distorting, and exaggerating the incidents of violent protests, of looting, and carousing the White supremacist narrative and their henchmen are trying to undermine the legitimacy of our current social unrest by blaming and demonizing the victims themselves. When in fact we know that the vast, overwhelming majority of protests have been peaceful assemblies, without violence or incident. Sisters and brothers, this is an old trick but with all the tools of social media at their disposal, they are more effective than ever. And the trick goes something like this: Demonize the oppressed to make their fight for justice look like a war against the Establishment, against the acceptable social order, and against the moral fabric of a peaceful society. But you see, I know this trick well, because I battled for decades the same sick, twisted, toxic narrative coming from conservative Christian churches and televangelists who turned the fight—my fight--for gay rights into a supposed “War on Christianity.” A war against good old 1950's America, land of the free and home of the brave, where gays were "invisible," where women "knew their proper role in the home," and by God! Blacks "knew their place in White Society." And whenever the marginalized rise up to fight for their rights, threatening the power, status, or privilege of the dominant class those on the margins are simply made out to be enemies of the state and more tragically still, of the state's religion – and let's face it, in the minds of many that means Christianity. Sisters and brothers there is iniquity in our land, there is iniquity in the land, sisters and brothers, there is iniquity across this great country of ours, there is iniquity in our churches and court houses, our police stations and hallowed halls of government! And there is iniquity in every household and every heart that knows, that sees and hears the cry of our African American sisters and brothers, and deludes themselves once again into thinking that a little ointment, a tight bandage, and a couple of painkillers might just might go away! But this is the truth of the matter: there is no painless way to heal the disease of racism that has ravaged our country since its inception. And it is time that we who are privileged, like my father's doctor so many years ago, decide that it's high time to take a new approach. It's time to shine the bright light of truth on the pussing wound of the history of racism. It's time to lance that boil, and do the excruciating work of probing that social infection right down to the marrow of our bones. If my father's chronic illness has anything to teach me, it's that the social disease of racism won't go away until we do the hard work of seeing how White people have and continue to benefit from the mere fact of our Whiteness. And I believe, now more than ever, the time has come for us to face up to a history of kidnappings, slavery and oppression, a history of lynchings, a history of standing on the necks of our African American sisters and brothers. And let us make this day the day when with stalwart determination and compassionate resolve – each of us continues our work for justice in ever-greater solidarity, so that we may hasten that great day when, held aloft by the African American witnesses and martyrs of this country who fought so valiantly, and are fighting still: That their song may become our own as well: We shall overcome. We shall overcome. We shall overcome. Someday. Thank you for your kind attention and for your solidarity.
JOE BIDEN – THE VEILED RACIST Biden’s Racism Is More Veiled Than Most— But No Less RealWhen it comes to race, Joe Biden’s record and rhetoric reflect the broader hypocrisy of U.S. politics. While Biden openly criticizes racism, he then praises himself for his own ability to work with overt white supremacist Dixiecrat Democrats in the 1970s. It’s important to recognize the problematic nature of Biden’s history of working with Southern Democratic racist senators. We must acknowledge the more subtle forms of racism at work in the Democratic Party.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?u=31777296)
Southern Democratic governors, led by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, vow to oppose the reelection of President Harry Truman, or anyone else who supports Truman's civil rights program. It's the first stirrings of what would become the short-lived Dixiecrat Party, with Thurmond as its nominee. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Whether you love him or hate him, it is indisputable that few, if any, other 20th-century American presidents were as historically consequential as Woodrow Wilson. Historian Patricia O’Toole explores the many complexities and ramifications of the Wilson presidency in her book The Moralist: Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made (Simon and Schuster, 2018). As we near the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, O’Toole follows Wilson’s attempt to establish a League of Nation which, while ill-fated in his time, still laid the groundwork for the United Nations. She tackles Wilson’s sorry legacy of racially segregating parts of the federal civil service, arguing Wilson was driven by a desire to accommodate Southern Democratic legislators in order to win their support for his progressive economic agenda. Whether despite or because of his uncompromising, moralistic nature, she concludes that his forceful embrace of internationalism and democracy defined the 20th century and helped transform the world. Bill Scher is a Contributing Editor for POLITICO Magazine. He has provided political commentary on CNN, NPR and MSNBC. He has been published in The New York Times, The New Republic, and The New York Daily News among other publications. He is author of Wait! Don’t Move to Canada, published by Rodale in 2006. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Whether you love him or hate him, it is indisputable that few, if any, other 20th-century American presidents were as historically consequential as Woodrow Wilson. Historian Patricia O’Toole explores the many complexities and ramifications of the Wilson presidency in her book The Moralist: Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made (Simon and Schuster, 2018). As we near the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, O’Toole follows Wilson’s attempt to establish a League of Nation which, while ill-fated in his time, still laid the groundwork for the United Nations. She tackles Wilson’s sorry legacy of racially segregating parts of the federal civil service, arguing Wilson was driven by a desire to accommodate Southern Democratic legislators in order to win their support for his progressive economic agenda. Whether despite or because of his uncompromising, moralistic nature, she concludes that his forceful embrace of internationalism and democracy defined the 20th century and helped transform the world. Bill Scher is a Contributing Editor for POLITICO Magazine. He has provided political commentary on CNN, NPR and MSNBC. He has been published in The New York Times, The New Republic, and The New York Daily News among other publications. He is author of Wait! Don’t Move to Canada, published by Rodale in 2006. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Whether you love him or hate him, it is indisputable that few, if any, other 20th-century American presidents were as historically consequential as Woodrow Wilson. Historian Patricia O’Toole explores the many complexities and ramifications of the Wilson presidency in her book The Moralist: Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made (Simon and Schuster, 2018). As we near the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, O’Toole follows Wilson’s attempt to establish a League of Nation which, while ill-fated in his time, still laid the groundwork for the United Nations. She tackles Wilson’s sorry legacy of racially segregating parts of the federal civil service, arguing Wilson was driven by a desire to accommodate Southern Democratic legislators in order to win their support for his progressive economic agenda. Whether despite or because of his uncompromising, moralistic nature, she concludes that his forceful embrace of internationalism and democracy defined the 20th century and helped transform the world. Bill Scher is a Contributing Editor for POLITICO Magazine. He has provided political commentary on CNN, NPR and MSNBC. He has been published in The New York Times, The New Republic, and The New York Daily News among other publications. He is author of Wait! Don’t Move to Canada, published by Rodale in 2006. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Whether you love him or hate him, it is indisputable that few, if any, other 20th-century American presidents were as historically consequential as Woodrow Wilson. Historian Patricia O’Toole explores the many complexities and ramifications of the Wilson presidency in her book The Moralist: Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made (Simon and Schuster, 2018). As we near the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, O’Toole follows Wilson’s attempt to establish a League of Nation which, while ill-fated in his time, still laid the groundwork for the United Nations. She tackles Wilson’s sorry legacy of racially segregating parts of the federal civil service, arguing Wilson was driven by a desire to accommodate Southern Democratic legislators in order to win their support for his progressive economic agenda. Whether despite or because of his uncompromising, moralistic nature, she concludes that his forceful embrace of internationalism and democracy defined the 20th century and helped transform the world. Bill Scher is a Contributing Editor for POLITICO Magazine. He has provided political commentary on CNN, NPR and MSNBC. He has been published in The New York Times, The New Republic, and The New York Daily News among other publications. He is author of Wait! Don’t Move to Canada, published by Rodale in 2006. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Whether you love him or hate him, it is indisputable that few, if any, other 20th-century American presidents were as historically consequential as Woodrow Wilson. Historian Patricia O’Toole explores the many complexities and ramifications of the Wilson presidency in her book The Moralist: Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made (Simon and Schuster, 2018). As we near the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, O’Toole follows Wilson’s attempt to establish a League of Nation which, while ill-fated in his time, still laid the groundwork for the United Nations. She tackles Wilson’s sorry legacy of racially segregating parts of the federal civil service, arguing Wilson was driven by a desire to accommodate Southern Democratic legislators in order to win their support for his progressive economic agenda. Whether despite or because of his uncompromising, moralistic nature, she concludes that his forceful embrace of internationalism and democracy defined the 20th century and helped transform the world. Bill Scher is a Contributing Editor for POLITICO Magazine. He has provided political commentary on CNN, NPR and MSNBC. He has been published in The New York Times, The New Republic, and The New York Daily News among other publications. He is author of Wait! Don’t Move to Canada, published by Rodale in 2006. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Whether you love him or hate him, it is indisputable that few, if any, other 20th-century American presidents were as historically consequential as Woodrow Wilson. Historian Patricia O’Toole explores the many complexities and ramifications of the Wilson presidency in her book The Moralist: Woodrow Wilson and the World He Made (Simon and Schuster, 2018). As we near the 100th anniversary of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, O’Toole follows Wilson’s attempt to establish a League of Nation which, while ill-fated in his time, still laid the groundwork for the United Nations. She tackles Wilson’s sorry legacy of racially segregating parts of the federal civil service, arguing Wilson was driven by a desire to accommodate Southern Democratic legislators in order to win their support for his progressive economic agenda. Whether despite or because of his uncompromising, moralistic nature, she concludes that his forceful embrace of internationalism and democracy defined the 20th century and helped transform the world. Bill Scher is a Contributing Editor for POLITICO Magazine. He has provided political commentary on CNN, NPR and MSNBC. He has been published in The New York Times, The New Republic, and The New York Daily News among other publications. He is author of Wait! Don’t Move to Canada, published by Rodale in 2006. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
