POLITICS / CURRENT EVENTS

The Brilliant Failure of Upton Sinclair and the EPIC Movement

noreply@blogger.com (the.denzo) — Tue, 15 Mar 2011 07:00:00 +0000

Upton Sinclair Summary

Intellectual reformers have been much maligned in American history because of their solitude. Political and social philosophers rarely step into the realm of American politics and succeed even less frequently. These social well-wishers are typically quiet, bookish types and, because of their years in literary and academic circles, deal in ideas instead of reality. These faults are typically beyond the comprehension of reformers and typically short circuit electoral and popular success. This simplification cannot be applied to Upton Sinclair, popular for his diatribes against industry and religion.

Sinclair, the author of such liberal works as The Jungle and The Brass Check, entered the realm of practical application in 1934 by running in the California gubernatorial race. A native of Maryland and raised in the Northeast, Sinclair was a relative newcomer to California politics when he decided to enter the race and implement the End Poverty in California (EPIC) platform within his nomination as Democratic candidate. Sinclair dabbled in Socialism within his writing and these leanings influenced his decision to help solve the problems in the world around him. This, however, was far too ambitious an idea for one man to undertake from the writer’s desk. Sinclair joined the race for governor and captivated hundreds of thousands over a short period of time. It appeared EPIC would be the solution to the problems of the Depression in California and hopefully, according to Sinclair, the rest of the nation.

With this last statement in mind, what reasons could explain Sinclair’s loss? More importantly, why did the ideas of EPIC die such a quick death after 1934? I will provide these answers in this work, by using contemporary news accounts, biographies of Sinclair, and Sinclair’s own literary works. Sinclair did indeed fit the mold for the intellectual reformer: he was an unassuming, frail figure, who spoke in a near monotone in the many appearances he made. His tangible limitations were no reflection, however, upon his amazing conviction in speaking his ideas to those who wanted nothing to do with him. Even with his convictions as his arsenal, Sinclair seemed to ignore his apparent knowledge of politics as well as the importance of the balancing his own celebrity with the ideas he was expounding. His failure to win the office of governor was due to his naivety in political matters and his conciliation in electoral matters. It was not Sinclair’s ego that caused this, but his inability to deal with politics in practice.

The Great Depression and New Deal: Sowing the Seeds of Discontent

Sinclair and the EPIC movement certainly did not occur within a vacuum. The Great Depression was at its full stride in 1934 when Sinclair made his brief ascendancy into the national consciousness. In the cities of the United States there was a failure of the delicate balance between local sovereignty and federal assistance in city budgets. Several factors played into this failure, but mostly it was because of the issue of land valuation and tax delinquency. The land assessments were decreasing on the properties within the Los Angeles municipal district, leading to decreased property taxes. When these taxes were paid in full, they were used for public works projects as well as public education. Budgets in Los Angeles and San Francisco, among other large cities in America, reflected these problems by decreasing services and funds to Californians. These problems fit into the larger problems of unemployment and deflation to create economic sinkholes in the American landscape.

While the cityscape was experiencing problemes in underemployment and more technical issues of economy, the rural sectors of California and the United States experienced a unique problem within a larger economic depression. Overproduction of crops and goods from those crops was the problem, according to state and federal government experts. This explanation seemed counter to common sense, which would dictate the food not sold during a depression would be distributed to those starving in cities and rural areas. The farmers produced what they normally produced and were soon left with rotting crops and fields full of uncultivated product. With the value of the dollar sinking monthly and little federal assistance at first, farmers were left with little recourse than to survive and persevere like so many rough seasons of planting in the past.

These divisions of rural and urban economic problems were not new to the Great Depression. The rural Northern section of California had always been a far more conservative area in Californian politics, mostly related to the agrarian sensibilities of bonanza farmers and prospectors in Northern California. Southern California had been the progressive, metropolitan area of the state as Los Angeles came to be identified with vast urban growth and sprawling development even in the 19th century. This was an obvious division of social and political ideology that translated into party affiliation. The conservative North, when mobilized to vote and participate in electoral politics, largely associated with the Democratic Party. The Republican Party had some conservative elements but was largely the breeding ground for progressive thinkers. This proved to be the prevalent dynamic in Californian politics well into the 20th century, when Republican sentiments turned toward business interests, much as their Democratic brethren had for so long.

The Democratic Party would be resurrected in 1932 with a combination of economic hard times and reaction to idle Republican politicians, leading to a sweeping victory for Democratic politicians. Franklin Roosevelt defeated Herbert Hoover and brought with him a willingness to experiment during a time of extreme hardship. Democrats now enjoyed a significant margin for error in the house (311-116) and the Senate (60-35). The identity of this newly active party would rest on the relationship between Roosevelt, his legislative contemporaries, and the vast array of pseudo-politicians and amateurs playing to the success of a new reform vehicle. Upton Sinclair was one of these amateurs.

Upton Sinclair: From Moribund to "Firebrand"

Sinclair was a professional dabbler throughout his life, going in and out of politics, writing, activism, and journalism up until his death in 1968. Born in Baltimore, Maryland, on September 20, 1878, Sinclair moved to New York at age ten and went to school for the first time. His accent, demeanor, and intelligence made him the object of much criticism and teasing in his school days. He graduated in 1897 from City College of New York and took a few courses at Columbia University, but soon adjourned himself to the realm of literature.

Sinclair's first novel was published in 1900 and began a prolific career in writing. His early books were largely works of fiction that did not contain the social commentary of his later studies. The direction of his literary career soon turned toward addressing issues of the working class after working as a journalist and satirist for several papers in the East, as well as publishing serials in The New York Times. One of these serials would be published as The Jungle and not only earn him notoreity but also acted as a means toward a political end: Theodore Roosevelt would push for food safety legislation after the filth of the stockyards were described in Sinclair's work.

Despite this early success, Sinclair hardly achieved the sustained level of national attention that The Jungle had brought. He became associated with the Socialist party in 1904 and his writing reflected disillusionment with capitalism in America. In his 1907 work "The Industrial Republic," Sinclair envisioned socialist reform in America, with wealthy editor William Randolph Hearst as the president of this socialist state. Sinclair did not see a way to succeed with such reforms within the current political system and felt a need to change the world. He became depressed at times in his life and felt that the weight of the world was on his shoulders; only through socialism and, later, commandeering the Democratic Party of California, would Sinclair feel that others were doing the work he endeavored to accomplish.

With Sinclair's awareness of socialism growing out of his studies at Columbia University and in private research, a political consciousness grew within the erstwhile journalist. Socialism was an organized ideology that seemed to explain and compliment Sinclair's own sense of justice and equality. While writing his book Manassas, Sinclair began to research socialist thought and wrote to Socialist newspapers. Socialism was an ethos that could make the writer enthusiastic. Sinclair ran several times for public office in New Jersey in 1906 and 1920, as well as in California in 1922, 1926, and 1930 as a Socialist candidate. Never did he poll more than 60,000 votes in any one election and it seemed that Sinclair's role in Socialist politics would be as a symbol, a popular figure that would come to be a spokesman for growing discontent. These campaigns of symbolism would not quench the thirst for social justice that stirred within Upton Sinclair and he would soon endeavor to create an enduring politics of self reliance and equality.

EPIC and the New Deal: The Unclear Alternative

Sinclair brought the End Poverty in California movement into existence as a means to transform America's economy and society. The origins of this movement are contested within accounts of Sinclair's campaign but it is noted repeatedly that he met with Democratic Party leaders in Santa Monica in August 1933 to discuss how to win election and install a renewed policy agenda. Sinclair suggested a program based on a basic theory of how American society could go about solving problems of the Depression. Party leaders were intrigued by Sinclair's ideas and needed an adequate voice for such an ambitious reform plan. Sinclair stated several times his intention not to run for public office, but he was convinced in September 1933 to become a member of the Democratic Party. Sinclair became convinced that he was the only person to properly carry the banner of EPIC and he reluctantly accepted his new role as the political embodiment of the new movement.

The movement's ideology was based on a combination of pseudo-socialist ideology and simplified economic practices that were meant to create a new American environment. Cooperative movements had been started at the beginning of the Depression by farmers and laborers in order to share resources. The EPIC movement now mobilized these cooperative satellites under one umbrella organization and gave life to the theory behind cooperation and producing for the usage of the people, and not for the profits of the few. EPIC mobilized the individual and small group dynamics of local politics and attempted to sweep into Sacramento.

This American spirit, as Sinclair saw it, was based on three tenets. Sinclair first felt that at the core of all the troubles produced by capitalism and the Depression was the denial of human rights. Laborers and farmers were tied to their machines and implements, but saw no profits from their work. Subsequently, these laboring masses now could not live their lives or be happy because of the constant pressure of their credit system and the autocracy of capitalist institutions. AT the base of this discontent, Sinclair felt that individuals were deprived of their ability to engage in a healthy and contented lifestyle.

The next facet of discontent came with the issues of industry and distribution. Sinclair and many EPIC sympathizers felt that the Depression was caused by an overabundance of resources, not a lack, and by the inability of the American capitalist structure to distribute those resources properly to the people. Sinclair was amazed by the fact that the government was telling farmers to burn their crops and dump their milk while thousands upon thousands starved in the streets and in the small towns of America. If those goods were properly distributed and those thousands were gainfully employed, the problems of the Depression would cease. EPIC sought to create distribution for the yields of finished goods and resources produced by current capital structures as well as a means to not only employ the unemployed, but to do so in a way that would not create an owner-employer tension.

The final layer of discontent, and the one that Sinclair seemed to have felt would appeal to most Americans, was the reliance of all of his ideas on the doctrine of democracy. The individuals, who felt disenfranchised and enslaved by their employers, were to rely on their democratic rights, assemble, speak out, and sweep these harmful elements out of American political consciousness. Sinclair felt strongly that all of these ends could be accomplished through the system that existed, a reason why he had left the Socialist party to join the Democrats. The EPIC movement would reform the politics and economics of California and, in doing so, would transform social structures within the state and, potentially, the nation.

Specifically, the EPIC plan revolved around transforming agriculture, industry, and taxation. Sinclair laid out these ideas throughout his campaign via speeches, pamphlets, a play he produced called Depression Island, and in his various appearances. Sinclair's first major idea was that there was a significant amount of unused land in the state of California and that this was counter to common sense, considering the thousands unemployed and hungry at the hands of the Depression. His idea was to place a prohibitive tax to unused land in order to force landowners to either seel the land or put it to use. Sinclair planned on the former, and thus introduced the idea of having the government pay taxes on the land and renting the property to farmers who could not afford land or laborers who could produce for their use and the usage of others. Surplus agricultural yields would be administered through the government to those who were not capable of working on the farms and other surplus goods were placed on the markets. Those who could use their potential labor and resources to become self sufficient would then use the land.

Sinclair spread this production for use idea further into industrial circles. That problem that existed with fallow land also existed with the issue of underused factories. Sinclair stated that similar to the agriculture issue in stature, the factories that had been shut down by the Depression should be reopened and put to use by those who could produce for their own good. Sinclair also sought to reform their industrial structure and create cooperative relationships between industrial executives, factory owners, and the workers themselves. Considering the amount of unemployed at this point in the Depression, Sinclair foresaw a resurrection of industry in California and another victory for the self sufficient American ideal if reforms were to take place.

The final piece of reform that Sinclair and the EPIC movement advocated was a change in both the process of exchange in capitalism and reforming the tax system. Sinclair wanted to repeal the sales tax that became prohibitive for the poor and place the onus of economic sustainability on the wealthy elites by introducing a graduated income tax. This would provide a larger amount of money than the sales tax had, as well as bring the elites closer in economics and class to the rest of the state. Along with the income tax, Sinclair proposed to increase the inheritance tax and heavily tax private utilities and banks, in order to push for more public solutions to the problems of energy distribution and banking problems. Finally, Sinclair wanted to provide pensions for widowers, the elderly, and those who were not physically able to work by using the potentially large pool of tax money. This would protect those who were not able to provide for themselves while still allowing the "best impulses" of Californians to take hold of industry, agriculture, and exchange.

Having studies the EPIC plan and its origins, the question that comes about is how this particular platform differs from Roosevelt's New Deal programs. After all, the New Deal created several similar organizations to Sinclair's reform plan. The Civilian Conservation Corps employed young men to do conservation and construction projects throughout the nation, similar to Sinclair's program of creating a means for farmers and laborers to work the land and the assembly line. The National Recovery Administration, though complex in nature, essentially encourage industry to correct itself with codes of competition and other agreements between organizations. Though Sinclair was formerly a Socialist, he did not believe in overthrowing the industrial system and sought equitable solutions to the problems of industry and competition by cooperative agreements. Roosevelt's Federal Emergency Relief Administration distributed funds to cities and states for the unemployed. This was quite similar to Sinclair's plan to distribute pensions and provide resources to the unemployed and the disabled.

A further analysis of these two reform systems shows four distinct differences that made one practical and one that many deemed quite impractical. First, the degrees of government involvement varied greatly between the New Deal and EPIC. In the New Deal, there was a large scale bureaucratic structure in order to enforce the administration's program. EPIC, on the other hand, seemed to rely less on bureaucracy (which seemed to be a symptom, not an antidote) and more on the democratic spirit of each individual. Second, while the New Deal seemed to be less flexible in terms of adjusting to the times, the EPIC program was only a strict as those engaged in industry and agriculture permitted. Third, as a result of the previous two points, it is obvious that Roosevelt's plan relied on governmental paternalism and local government to exercise its whim, while the plans of Sinclairites in California praised the ability of the alienated majority to pick up their bootstraps and strengthen the economy in a new way. Finally, the end results of both programs were quite different. Roosevelt and his Brain Trust wanted this to be a temporary recovery program that would bring back prosperity and viability to the economy, Sinclair wanteda national reform of the economy to eliminate the possibility of going into depression again. These two programs differed vastly and its apparent why the New Deal was more palatable to the public than EPIC.

EPIC and Upton Sinclair defined each other through his campaign and through the election process. Neither would have existed in the political knowledge of the voting public if they had not come to the fore together. Sinclair would carry an arsenal of new political reforms and a cast of thousands in order to fight the froces of the old guard in California.

Sinclair the Candidate: The Unwilling Politician

Two reasons have been offered as to Sinclair's real intentions in running for governor of California in 1934. One reason, and the one that seems most prevalent, was that Sinclair could not be content knowing that millions would go starving and without jobs or homes. The pressures of changing the world that had beleagured Sinclair in his youth continued in the 1930s because of the Depression. He claimed that while he had no personal ambitions in running for office, he could not rest or be comfortable with the state and the nation in its current state. This interpretation places Sinclair as a sacrifice to the ends of reforming and unjust system.

A more pragmatic reason for Sinclair's intention was that the Socialist Party and all of its local components were losing their strength since the end of World War II. With the comparatively radical shift that the Roosevelt administration took with New Deal legislation, the Socialists were now without many of the ideological elements that had been their exclusive territory for many years. Sinclair, for the sake of practicality, abandoned the sinking ship and sought to take a more moderate and, to many, a more sensible approach to politics. Socialists and Communists alike shared in a newfound discontent with one of the left's most prominent voices.

As the California Democratic primary approached in August 1934, it was obvious that Sinclair's candidacy was no mere educational dalliance nor was it a publicity stunt. Upton Sinclair's popularity could be measured in several ways: 250,000 copies of his book, "I, Governor" were sold as the literature of EPIC, nearly 2,000 EPIC clubs had been organized throughout the state, and Sinclair had been able to organize diverse groups such as students, the homeless, and those who had been disappointed by past Democratic overtures into a cohesive movement. The biggest coup for Sinclair's movement was his voter registration drive, which amassed tens of thousands of new Democratic voters had galvanized those who were uncertain of Sinclair's intentions. EPIC's ideals were spread by word of mouth and literature and Sinclair became a viable candidate over the span of a few months. Sinclair could hardly have imagined a better scenario for the success of a reform movement.

In the primary, Sinclair faced a long list of Democratic hopefuls who had much longer tenures of service to the party. George Creel, head of the NRA in California and a Roosevelt loyalist, was Sinclair's greatest rival throughout the election process. Milton Young had been Democratic nominee for governor in 1930 and sought to repeat that distinction with greater results. Justus Wardell was a prominent Democratic Party activist and supported Roosevelt. It seemed that more pragmatic Roosevelt wing of the party would rally behind one of these major candidates in order to sweep out the radical elements that Sinclair encouraged.

This was not the case. Upton Sinclair received 436,000 primary votes, which was more than all of the votes for other candidates combined. The party had split amongst several of the moderate candidates and was not able to put down the Sinclair political revolution. He now represented what had once been a conservative party that had no sustained success within the state for its entire history. EPIC breathed life into a stagnant institution and Sinclair to become the object of contention and praise. Within a few weeks, the Democratic platform convention convened and after some dispute, the bulk of EPIC's tenets were adopted by the party with some moderate adjustments to land use and production policy. EPIC was now the official platform of the California Democrats.

The reactions within a week of Sinclair's success within the party were caustic and would be sustained through Election Day. In San Francisco, newspaper claimed that the only reason that Sinclair succeeded was that discontent ran so deep with the current government that experimentation was now a viable option. Los Angeles, where EPIC enjoyed a huge following, had editorials and news accounts that seemed to suggest that Sinclair was opening the floodgates to subversive elements that would seek a "complete and violent revolution". Sacramento newspapers condemned both Upton Sinclair as a "threat to fantastical Sinclairism" and his Republican opponent, Frank Merriam, as continuing his "reactionary rule". Sinclair faced his most significant challenge to his candidacy, though by far not the only challenge. Sinclair and EPIC would go through a rocky two months leading up to the election.

Aside from these immediate responses to the Sinclair candidacy, newspapers played an integral role in the movement to derail the novice politician's campaign. The epitome of this media opposition was Los Angeles Times editor Harry Chandler, who used his influence to publish many stories that claimed that Sinclair was a Communist, an atheist, and a proponent of free love. Chandler was not the only editor to do such things, but Sinclair addressed Chandler's unethical journalistic approaches with humor and with the support of many in that city. The major point of contention between the newspapers and Sinclair was a book he had written talking Catholicism and profit called The Profits of Religion. The book showed generall the interrelation between religious institutions and the economy and, to many,showed Sinclair to be at best a hypocritical Christian and at worst an atheist. Sinclair attempted many times to claim his religious deveotion and even wrote a prayer to those affected by the Depression that was published in The Nation, but his past literary experiences proved in this case to be too overwhelming to deny with a series of press statements.

The other opposition movement within the media that materialized in 1934 was the movie industry. Many studio executives saw any success by Sinclair and EPIC as a threat to the movie industry, which was a microcosm of the excesses of the 1920s. Sinclair wanted to apply the same standard of production in factories and farms to the problems of the movie industry, which apparently had many empty and unproductive studios. Sinclair wanted actors and film workers to engage in production for use by making films at the expense of the government. This was anathema to the film industry's mission of profitability and star-making. Studio executives threatened to move out of state in order to avoid the prohibitive government of Sinclair if he were to win the gubernatorial eletion. Sinclair joked that a proposed move by Hollywood to Florida would result in many actresses suffering from maladies like mosquito bites and moisture, which would cause films to be delayed. Film makers responded to such quips with newsreels showing cleancut and well dressed Californians praising Merriam's reelection, while suspicious characters with moustaches and black outfits were praising the Communist intentions of Upton Sinclair. The threat of reform created desperation amongst film industry insiders and produced creative but slanderous attempts to subvert the EPIC movement.

Prominenet in the anti-Sinclair movement was the Republican Party machinery as well as the conservative and moderate branches of the Democratic Party, which sought to ensure victories in the future. The Republican candidate, the aforementioned Governor Frank Merriam, was the quintessential professional politician. Merriam had been in California government as an auditor, leglislator, lieutenant governor, and governor. He sought to continue the dominance of the Republican Party. His aides mobilized conservative support by using a professional advertising agency to streamline their assault on Sinclair and subsequently managed to reel in a significant number of Democrats. The unofficial strategy of many Democratic strategists was to both support Merriam in the hopes of party success in 1938 or rally around George Creel and seek favor of the Roosevelt administration. Anti-Sinclair groups sprang forth all over the state and attempted to sway many of Sinclair's greatest constituences. For example, a great deal of actors and actresses supported Sinclair but the studios were swayed to insist that all talent under their influence would donate to Merriam or be fired. This pressure was applied to factory workers as well as to students by teachers who threatened to students who favored Sinclair. The political forces of California seemed to be aligned against the success of EPIC but Sinclair would face a larger challenge: gaining the support of Franklin Roosevelt amidst the sweeping success of his administration's policies.

Upton Sinclair had an audience with Franklin Roosevelt on September 5th, 1934, under the auspices of a conversation, not a discussion of endorsements. Roosevelt and Sinclair met a Hyde Park and had a two hour long discussion of Sinclair's ideas and pleasantries, but little of substance. Roosevelt and his administration took the stance late in the summer of 1934 that they would not endorse specific candidates but endorse the success of the Democratic Party and the New Deal program. Roosevelt joked with Sinclair about having read the book The Jungle and being unable to eat meat following that, as well as flattering the writer by saying that Roosevelt's mother had read that book to young Franklin and left an impression. This anecdote exposed Roosevelt's trait of flattery and accomodation to guests. Sinclair found Roosevelt to be personable, frank, and of similar mind on many policy issues.

Following the election, Sinclair had said that in this particular conversation, Roosevelt had promised to deliver a speech on production for use at the end of October. This indirect endorsemenet of Sinclair might have proven to be the difference in the election results, but Roosevelt and his aides never produced such a speech. National Democratic mainstays like Postmaster Farley, Harold Ickes, and Harry Hopkins in some cases came out for Sinclair for governor, but always had to fend off charges of being Socialist and supporting subversion. Roosevelt wanted to keep Sinclair friendly but at bay, fearing the threat of Father Coughlin and Huey Long in nationao politics. The high level of support for Roosevelt and his popular New Deal legislation would not be put behind Upton Sinclair and EPIC.

Several final obstacles confronted Sinclair's candidacy in its final weeks. First, Sinclair made comments to Harold Ickes that if he were to be elected, that a flood of the unemployed from throughout the nation would enter California to participate in EPIC programs. While Sinclair considered this to be a joke, many thought this to be an alarming prophecy of events to come. Indeed, thousands of homeless did enter the state under the misapprehension that Sinclair had been elected or that he was going to be elected. Merriam had policemen check caravans and Sinclair supporters' vehicles for migrant workers following these remarks. Sinclair shot from the hip at times and did not seem to worry about the weight of these statements, past or present.

Another obstacle was the continuing pressure applied to Sinclair to drop out of the campaign. Two schools of thought impressed upon the candidate the importance of this election and the triviality of his candidacy. One group of political activists sought to force Sinclair out of the race so that Merriam would win a definiteve victory and push out the elements of leftist thought and revolutionary rhetoric. Another group wanted moderate and liberal ideas to prevail and their was to have Sinclair drop out and support independent candidate Raymond Haight, a former Republican who left the party to advocate for a moderate economic program. Sinclair held steadfast to the integrity of his candidacy and thought that Haight should drop out of the race and support EPIC in order to ensure reform. Sinclair would have none of these attempts to get him out of the race and Haight was equal to the fortitude of Sinclair, drawing the battle lines for the end of the campaign.

The final obstacle was the result of a poll by Literary Digest that suggested Merriam was going to win an overwhelming victory in the November election. The poll indicated Merriam would receive about 65 percent of the vote, while Sinclair would receive 25 percent, and the remaining vote going to Haight. Sinclair's aides claimed that Merriam's campaign bought thousands of ballots from the magazine and gave them to local Republican and conservative Democratic clubs to distribute to constituents. The Sinclair campaign attempted to get this news out in his periodicals and in discussions to the media but the damage seemed to have been done. Those on the verge of voting for Sinclair were pushed over to Merriam or to no vote at all because they saw these results as a fair assessment of the electoral math.

The election of November 6th, 1934, proved to be much closer than many people had anticipated. Sinclair received 879,537 votes to Merriam's 1,138,620 and Haight's 302, 519 votes. This result allowed the theory among Sinclair supporters that if Haight had dropped from the race, Sinclair would have received enough of his supporters to win the election. This presupposes that Haight's more moderate followers would have accepted Sinclair as a viable alternative to Merriam. Nonetheless, Merriam won the election after well organized and well funded publicity campaign against Sinclair. Rarely did Merriam ever address specific policy issues or create a platform for himself. Against this strong tide of incumbency, Upton Sinclair could not escape and seemed to accept this fate all too easily. While saying that he would mobilize his supporters to attempt a recall election against Merriam and legal action was brought for vote tampering, Sinclair was torn between his own aspirations and the fate of the reform movement. He would never again run for public office, leaving EPIC a shell of its former self.

EPIC would not live beyond 1936, which Sinclair predicted would be the year that the movement would sweep the American West. EPIC candidates once again suffered defeat in California and the End Poverty in California campaign withered away without its mobilizing figure. Bickering over the future of reform in the state and the structure of EPIC, members of the movement turned away from radical ideas and were absorbed into the national Democratic Party.

Upton Sinclair returned to the writer's desk to continue his prolific writing career until his death in 1968. His first book following the election was I, Candidate for Governor, and how I got licked, which detailed all of the specific events that took palce in the campaign. Sinclair had predicted many of his ideas would be taken in by local, state, and national figures and would be used to win elections in the future. Indeed, Frank Merriam himself adopted some of the tax and pension measures as a means of temporary relief. Franklin Roosevelt and his aides adopted the idea for an increased inheritance tax as well as graduated income and corporate taxes in order to generate revenue for New Deal programs. Sinclair was influential without having won an election, creating discourse of new ideas that woudl be adopted by both opponents and allies in the years following 1934. In Literary Digest, the same magazine that had seemingly contributed to Sinclair's loss, came out with a list of the most influential people in the world of 1934. The list contained Roosevelt, Hitler, Mussolini, and Upton Sinclair.

Upton Sinclair lost the election of 1934 because, while he felt drawn to service to his fellow man, he was not cut out to be a politician. After being misquoted and criticized on many occasions, Sinclair refused to talk to the media directly, relying on intermediaries and written interviews. He did not watch what he said on many occasions and while he responsed in many ways to his literary past, he did not seem cognizant of the totality in which people were reading his works and looking for ways to knock him down. He maintained his integrity and his stubborn sense that he was doing the right thing, but in doing so, he was ill-suited to be a major party candidate and sacrificed the good of the reform movement for the good of his own pride and returned happily to the writer's desk.

Sinclair doomed himself to failure by not being flexible and remaining aloof and stoic in his presentation and political stances. The writer, activist, and failed politician Sinclair signifies the problem of intellectuals in politics. The pride of the intelligentsia to be right and to be consistent forces its members into a corner that punishes them for not being empathetic to the public or capable of communicating ideas to the general public in the vernacular without appearing smug. Upton Sinclair lost an election that seemed to be in his pocket, creating a brilliant failure for another reform movement and for an intellectual who misdirected his intellectual capabilities.

Nicholas Katers, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Jan 23, 2006 "Contribute content like this. Start Here."

Political Book Review - The US Transfer of Top Secret Military Technology by Bill Clinton

noreply@blogger.com (the.denzo) — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 17:08:00 +0000

Book Data Politic

Every once in a while you find out that what you think you know about politics and current events of the time, turn out to be a complete 180 of the reality. Then sometimes you suspect foul play but cannot put your finger on it. Well, what if I recommend a very good book to you that will get you much closer to the truth than you probably wanted to get? Please read:
"Betrayal - How the Clinton Administration Undermined American Security" by Bill Gertz (also a reporter for the Washington Post specializing in defense and national security issues); Regency Publishing, Inc, an Eagle Publishing Company, Washington, DC. 1999. ISBN 0-89526-317-3
In case you've wondered exactly what all the fuss was over the Chinese and Clinton Administration and the transfer of top secret technology, but never thought to ask. Well, this is the book for you. And it is well documented, footnoted and enough to scare the hell out of you, and wonder why treason hearings were not conducted. Apparently, there is so much executive power in America that you can cover up just about anything as Gertz demonstrates in the first two chapters.
But is it really all politics and will we ever know you'll ask yourself? Well, keep reading, as it gets better, or worse, as he goes into the implications of nuclear technology, stress on the Korean Pennisula, missile and satellite technology. And how the Russians play a part and how the US is played off against the game.
Indeed from a political perspective one could say, as Bill Gertz does, what will become of the Clinton Legacy, and how will history portray the betrayl? I recommend this book to anyone that studies history, the flow of nuclear arms knowledge or the rapid advancement of the Chinese Military war machine. Please consider this.

Lance Winslow enjoys community philanthropy - Lance Winslow likes small business. Lance Winslow has also been involved in the Oil Industry; http://www.oilchangeguys.com/aboutus.shtml/.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow

Causes of Financial Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (the.denzo) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:25:00 +0000

Causes Of Global Financial Crisis

Living and Spending Beyond Your Means
After a few years, even a small, month-to-month negative cash flow will lead to financial crisis, and it will take important changes to overcome it-keep track of what you spend.
Saving regularly, even a little at a time, will give you a cushion you can rely on when something unexpected happens. This means thinking about saving before a big splurge, such as buying the newest plasma television, or finding ways to save on the little things you spend money on every day. Your savings will give you more flexibility in life choices and a financial cushion that you may need if something goes wrong.
Divorce
Divorce means expenses increase while household income declines. Divorce itself pulls in legal fees, moving costs, and countless other expenses and they simply start adding up. In addition, you may be responsible for debt that your spouse accumulated, such as taxes car payments, or other instances of joint obligation.
To ensure you are in the best position if divorce occurs, have your own credit card and be responsible about paying it on time and keeping your balance down. Don't incur all of your joint expenses under your name, and ensure that your joint assets are under both your names.
Divorce is a stressful time, and you may feel like splurging on yourself. To keep those understandable impulses in check, look at where you want to be financially in a year. Having lower debt or higher savings will give you confidence and security.
Losing a Job
With the inevitable fluctuation of the American economy and the changes occurring in American business, many Americans will experience job loss during their lifetimes. Unemployment is never fun nor does it help with overcoming debt, and, as a result, can compound on all the other stressful things in life that cause debt-such as divorce.
Most financial experts advise having at least three months of your disposable income saved and available for emergencies such as unemployment or divorce.
Depending on the job market and the overall health of the economy, a job search can easily take three to six months - or more. Make sure to apply for unemployment right away and allow the benefits to mitigate the effects of unemployment. If you know ahead of time that your company may be downsizing or closing, limit your expenses and curtail your spending.
Don't pay your bills late or incur other fees. If you can't pay all of your bills in full, call your creditors before you get behind, explain your situation, and ask for a payment plan that enables you to pay what you can.
If you must take a job with less pay than your previous job, adjust total spending to that reduced income and create a realistic plan for paying off any debt incurred during unemployment.
Unexpected Health or Medical Expenses
When a health or medical crisis hits you or your family, it can be devastating both financially and emotionally. If unemployed, lost income through medical expenses can be more than just stressful. Even with health insurance, the co-payments add up very quickly. Identify where you can cut non-essentials and ensure that no big purchases are made.
Track your medical and health expenses carefully. Accounting errors - by both medical providers and insurers - are not uncommon and can add unnecessarily to your costs. Also, explore all your payment options.

Review bills to ensure they are accurate.
If you have health insurance, check each benefit statement to be sure you are receiving coverage for all the services your plan provides.
If you don't have health insurance, talk to your hospital or health care provider about programs that offer free or discounted care.
If you are unable to pay your medical bills on the payment terms offered, talk to your health care provider, hospital, or doctor about a payment plan.
If you are unable to pay other regular bills in full, let your creditors know your situation as soon as possible, and ask to work out realistic payment plans so you don't end up incurring additional costs.

Daniel Cho is a financial writer for Select Debt Relief specializing in consumer debt and alternatives to bankruptcy. Currently he studies Business and Theatre Performances at the University of California at Berkeley where he is an active member of the Lambda Phi Epsilon Brotherhood- Delta Chapter, and Theatre Rice- Modern Asian American Theatre Performances.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Daniel_Cho

Why Jon Stewart is possibly America's most trusted newscaster

noreply@blogger.com (the.denzo) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:01:00 +0000

Politics Daily

According to several polls over the last few years, the most well-known being the June 2009 Walter Cronkite.
Some bloggers have gone on to suggest this shows just how far down in the dumps America, or at least American television news, has fallen in recent years.
I personally don't think it's that bad a thing. I'm online a dozen or so times a day, which allows me to keep up with national and world news, then I check a couple of local news sites at least once a day, and then I re-cap at night with
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Sure, technically, The Daily Show isn't a news program. It's supposed to be a comedy show. Yet it is always up to date with the latest daily news unless something has happened right before the show airs.
I have no facts or statistics to back this up, but since The Daily Show seems to be pretty popular, I'd have to guess a good number of Americans catch up with the news through The Daily Show. Sometimes they might even learn about something that had slipped past them during the day; I know this happens to me from time to time.
But considering Jon Stewart calls himself a comedian and apparently doesn't think of himself as a newscaster, and the fact his show is on Comedy Central, one has to wonder how Jon Stewart has become so trusted by Americans.
I believe there are three reasons.
1.) Entertainment value
This is an easy one. Americans like to be entertained. And Jon Stewart is funny. His whole show is funny. Yes, not every single episode will keep you laughing throughout, but generally the show is very good. And even when it's not so good, it will still provide a couple of chuckles.
Most of the jokes are at the expense of public figures, usually politicians or other members of news media outlets. And wouldn't you rather laugh along with the news than be scared by it? Which is usually the case if you watch FOX or any of the other news stations.
At the best, most news show are depressing, at worst they'll have you shaking you're so scared of the terrorists who are going to kill you, or the government that's going to kill you, or the poisoned atmosphere that's going to kill your children ... I could go on and on.
At least Jon Stewart tries to give us some news and send us to bed without nightmares but a smile on our faces.
2.) Information value
The Daily Show is also informative, which is pretty important if you're watching it for some of its news value. The first half of the show is most often simply a cover of the big events of the day, which might not be new to most viewers, but the last part of the show usually is Stewart interviewing someone.
Often he is interviewing an author pushing a new book, or sometimes it's a celebrity with a new movie, and yet other times it's a politician with an agenda. It could be any number of people for any number of reasons. But usually the person being interviewed is offering new information, or at least a new insight into something news oriented.
I've learned a good deal just by watching the various authors Stewart has interviewed, and Stewart usually goes for the authors with news impact, not just the latest thriller novelist (not that there's anything wrong with thrillers or thriller novelists).
3.) The "Truth" factor
I don't know Jon Stewart. He could be a complete bastard for all I know. But on television he comes off as a pretty likable guy. Not only is he funny, but he seems like he's trying to be helpful, and he's usually apologetic if it appears he has stepped over the line by not being fair to a guest (which is extremely rare).
So, he's likable, at least to most viewing Americans. Why is that important? Because of what I call the "Truth" factor. It appears that Jon Stewart is telling us the truth when he speaks about news and when his show comments on news and other media.
Stewart doesn't come off as if he's trying to push an agenda or he's trying to sell us something, which can't be said for nearly every U.S. politician at all levels.
Stewart does seem to lean a little towards the left (politically speaking), but he doesn't come off by any means as a far lefty, but more as a moderate with leftist tendencies. And Stewart and his show don't shy from targeting those politicians who are on the left.
He hits the Democrats and Republicans both pretty hard (admittedly the GOP might look a little worse on the show, but if you're honest about it, the Republicans give a lot more to work with in comedy than do the generally more-boring Democrats).
But putting aside politics, Stewart and his gang poke a lot of fun at the news media itself, especially the televised news media. And here I think is another place where The Daily Show really shines.
Stewart and crew show us, quite baldly and blankly, how the news plays things up to look differently than they really are. The latest news report scaring you? Stewart's going to make fun of it. Tired of all the one-sidedness on CNN, C-SPAN is boring? Chuckle about it with Jon.
See, the media as a whole are supposed to be the watchdogs in America. But they've fallen down on the job the last few decades, especially over the last decade. If anything, the media has become just another part of "the system," more worried about itself and making the next buck than it is about truly, fairly covering the news.
Which is where The Daily Show steps in. Stewart has become the watchdog of the watchdogs. He keeps his eyes, and ours, glued on the happenings of not only the politicians, but of those who are supposed to be covering the politicians.
It's almost a new form of journalism, the comedy news show.
Learn more about this author, jharmon.

Did Hilary Get Screwed by the Media or Is The US Just That Sexist?

noreply@blogger.com (the.denzo) — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:12:00 +0000

Political Polls

There has been a lot of discussion in the media and the general public about how for the first time in decades the democratic electorate is energized. People are coming out to vote for the Democrats in record numbers. This could be because we have two excellent, well-qualified candidates or the thought of another Republican like Bush in the white house is terrifying. I, on the other hand, have been feeling more disenfranchised than ever.
It is all about the polls, momentum, and who the media says is winning. What happened to the idea of letting the voters be heard based on each candidate's platform. Each vote counts and should be seen as separate from the media empire controlled by a handful of individuals. The media seemed excited when Obama won Iowa (he is very charismatic) and even gave New Hampshire to Obama when Hilary won it. Of course, they had to retract that when all the votes were counted and revealed that polls are not all that reliable. Beth Fouhy from the Associated Press this week wrote that Hillary is trying to save her "moribund candidacy" in the Texas and Ohio primary, and it seems for the most part that the media believes she has already lost.
She may not win, but the media is making an effort to influence voters as hundreds of delegates are still at stake. The article, "Clinton: Running again the wind", describes how luck has been on Obama's side. Howard Fineman says, "He made it to the Senate after not one but TWO sex scandals leveled his potential rivals. He got to run against Alan Keyes, an often bizarre-acting politician who didn't even live in the state of Illinois. And as for his war vote, well, he didn't have to make the same choice Clinton did. That's because Obama wasn't elected until two years after the first tanks rolled into Iraq."
In fall of 2006, I read Obama's Audacity of Hope and dreamed of the first brilliant, articulate, African American becoming president some day. I was an avid Obama supporter until heavy campaigning started after the Iowa Caucuses and I switched my vote to Hillary. Since the beginning of the year, I have become increasingly annoyed by Obama faking a southern accent (typical of most politicians, but he is supposed to be different) when he gives speeches in the south and his non-specific rhetoric of hope and unity. We all want to hear about hope and unity to save our divided nation, but we also want to know what the less experienced senator plans to do when he is in office.
I became increasingly frustrated with Obama's lack of substance at the beginning of his campaign and then I realized that Clinton and Obama simply have different communication styles. Obama is more eloquent and philosophical while Hillary is a "keep it real" type of lady. She bullshits like all politicians, but to a lesser extent and has the balls to go against the grain if she believes in it. People say that Obama resembles Kennedy and maybe he does. I wasn't alive to experience Kennedy speeches (Obama wasn't living in the US at the time either), but it shouldn't be about someone's communication style; it should be about what they are saying. One thing that I like about Hilary is that she always says, on my first day in office, I would do... I know exactly what her agenda is because she provides details. She has been a major proponent of decreasing the power of the executive, which I strongly support. I know it is tough for Americans, but we really need to pay more attention to what candidates are saying and shouldn't be so easily herded like sheep by the media.
One of the most bothersome statistics about Obama is that while being a State Senator in Illinois he voted present 130 times, rather than voting yes or no to remain uncontroversial. We need a strong leader. He wasn't elected to vote "present". In a New York Times article, Professor Redfield from University of Illinois says, "If you are worried about your next election, the present vote gives you political cover...This is an option that does not exist in every state and reflects Illinois political culture." During the California debate, Obama said his health plan focuses on lowering cost while Hilary's preaches universal health care. After watching Sicko, I'm shocked by how desperately we are in need of a universal health care system and it should be the 1st priority for any Democrat running for the white house.
In the debate, Obama also said, "And I have disagreed with Senator Clinton on, for example, meeting with Iran. I think, and the national intelligence estimate, the last report suggested that if we are meeting with them, talking to them, and offering them both carrots and sticks, they are more likely to change their behavior. And we can do so in a way that does not ultimately cost billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and hurt our reputation around the world." I don't think the Iranians are going to be very open to negotiating with Obama if he refers to them as goats, mules, or any other animal that likes carrots and sticks. I doubt he intended to be insensitive, but the comment reflects his inexperience. He has made many other comments that I disagree with, but they are not worth pointing out here. The purpose of this article is not to bash Obama. I actually still love Obama, although I don't believe he would be a better president than Hilary. The purpose of this article is to discuss deeply rooted prejudice in our society that everyone should be aware and as a result, the primary is not a level playing field.
For the last few months, I've been inundated by the media with anti-Clinton propaganda. The media has not only been brutal to the Clintons, but I would argue that Bill is perceived as Hilary's better half. The media has had a field day demonizing her in a way that has shocked me. Please comment on this piece and let me know if you are surprised too. The below exerts are only a fraction of the Hilary bashing I have heard in the last few months.
In an interesting article on cnn.com called Some voters say sexism less offensive than racism, MSNBC's Chris Matthews suggested "the reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." The article also says, "At a rally, hecklers yelled to her to iron their shirts...." Radio host Rush Limbaugh told listeners, "Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Clinton has been targeted online too by toilet brushes that are being marketed as your First Cleaning Lady and a Clinton nutcracker for sale (It cracks nuts between her legs). Another interviewer said, "Sexism of the nature Hillary Clinton is experiencing has been around as kind of an acceptable joke for years.
As far as racism, it's definitely not politically correct or acceptable." I think that most Americans have this view, which says a lot about how far we have progressed with regards to racial and gender discrimination in this country. "Feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem recently wrote in a New York Times Op-Ed piece, in which she endorsed Clinton, that 'gender is the most restricting force in America,' not race." I have also heard many comments on Hillary Clinton's hairdos, ankles and even her cleavage and the above article makes a similar statement. A few weeks ago, the Daily Show showed a few ridiculous media clips insulting Hillary and one included a guy saying, "every time she talks, I just hear 'take out the trash'".
The way in which Hillary has been scrutinized is different than any other candidate in history. The amazing thing is that it is acceptable in our patriarchal culture. We need to pay close attention to what is going on, not for Hilary, but for all American woman. How are woman treated differently in powerful political positions? I always wonder if woman like Hillary think: will my partner define my identity, am I pretty enough, am I smart enough, am I sensitive or feminine enough (not a cold-hearted bitch), and most importantly, am I tough enough?

Ssangalyambogo can be found on her blog, cultural junkie. This article was originally written on the blog cultural junkie and can be found here: http://culturaljunkie.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/did-hilary-get-screwed-by-the-media-or-is-the-us-just-that-sexist/. At the original article location you'll find links to various references found in the article.
Original article date: February 26, 2008

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=K_Ssangalyambog