Notes from the Peanut Gallery

Hello again!  It has been a long time, but we’ve got so many buttons to go! So, here’s another attempt at consistent updates.  We’ll see how it goes.

This is one of my favorite buttons because I thought it was silly, but it turns out that Jimmy Carter’s 1976 campaign actually relied very heavily on peanut imagery.  Buttons, shirts, signs, figurines, balloons — even the plane he traveled in during the campaign was called “Peanut One.”

Democratic Presidential Candidate Jimmy Carter Leaving California Aboard the Peanut One (Photo by Tony Korody/Sygma/Sygma via Getty Images)

American politician and US Presidential candidate Jimmy Carter poses with an unidentified supporter during a campaign event, Brockon, Massachusetts, 1976. Visible signs read ‘Carter for the Country’ and ‘Join the Peanut Gallery, We’re for Carter.’ (Photo by Mikki Ansin/Getty Images)

PLAINS, GA – MARCH 20, 1979: A caricature of Jimmy Carter sitting on a giant peanut for sale in a gift shop in Plains, Georgia, home of the 39th U.S. President. Carter was elected President of the United States in November 1976 and served from 1977 until 1981. He was defeated for re-election in 1980 by Ronald Reagan. (Photo by Robert Alexander/Getty Images)

Large helium-inflated peanut-shaped balloon floating past reviewing stand during inaugural parade for newly elected US President Jimmy Carter and Vice President Walter Mondale. (Photo by Sahm Doherty/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images/Getty Images)

President Jimmy Carter poses with a baby in Quincy, Illinois in 1979, during a summer vacation cruising the Mississippi River. The baby’s T-shirt reads “I’m a Carter Nut” above the outline of a peanut. Amid the supporters greeting Carter, a few protesters hold up signs (background). (Photo by © Wally McNamee/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images)

Today, presidential candidates try to portray themselves as someone voters could “have a beer with,” but this seems like an entirely different level of folksiness.  It’s not as though Carter was actually coming into the 1976 campaign straight from the peanut farm — he had just served as Governor of Georgia — but the emphasis on his agricultural roots is clear.  I don’t think it would be an effective strategy today, especially in the Democratic party, and it seems like it might not have succeeded then had it not been in the wake of Watergate and Gerald Ford’s pardoning of Richard Nixon.  Suddenly, a wholesome peanut farmer, far from Washington, D.C., advocating reorganization of the government, was a breath of fresh air to the American voters.

The peanut imagery of the 1976 campaign did cut both ways.  Ford attempted to use it derogatorily on several campaign buttons apparently to no avail (and the misspelling of “emperor” on one of them probably didn’t help.)

(Campaign Paraphernalia 1976 Jimmy Carter Presidential Election)
(Busy Beaver Button Museum)
(Getty Images)
(Henry Ford Museum)

Love vs. Hate

Apologies for the break!  It has been a busy summer, and now that I actually have work to do at my new job, I haven’t had that time to work on this.  But I will try to get back in the habit.

This bumper sticker became available in January of 1974.  It could be ordered from an advertisement in newspapers for 35 cents.  I was surprised by the timeline of Nixon’s presidency and the Watergate scandal once I started looking into it.  The break-in occurred in June of 1972, and by October, the Washington Post reported that the FBI had linked it to Nixon’s reelection efforts.  Still, Nixon was reelected a month later by a 60%-margin.  In the first half of 1973, multiple members of his staff and/or campaign team are convicted or plead guilty to various crimes related to the political sabotage, including wiretapping, conspiracy, and burglary.  Nationally televised hearings by the Senate Watergate committee begin.  Later in the year, American’s saw Saturday Night Massacre and the famous “I am not a crook” address.

And still, it wasn’t until July 27, 1974 that the first three articles of impeachment were passed.

Looking at Nixon’s approval vs. disapproval ratings throughout his two terms, they remain relatively high until mid-1973 — even tying the highest rate (67%) on January 29, 1973, one day before aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. were convicted for their crimes related to Watergate.  His approval ratings remained higher than his disapproval ratings until June 25, 1973, which was two days after he refused to turn over the infamous tapes.

It is interesting how long it took for impeachment to come into the picture, given how easily the word is thrown around today.  I also think the language of the bumper sticker shows quite a difference between then vs. now — “because I love my country” not, “because I hate the president.”  The two feelings aren’t mutually exclusive by any means, but judging by Nixon’s approval ratings, most Americans didn’t seem to especially hate him throughout most of the Watergate scandal — more even liked him than disliked him, until he showed active deception by refusing to release the tapes.

But then, there was no Twitter or 24/7 news cycle in the ’70s.  That seems to change things.

(Source)(Source)

Sane Nuclear Policy…Sounds Nice

I apologize for disappearing for a bit, it has been a crazy and stressful couple weeks for me.  But, finally…I have a new job!  I’ll be starting next Monday, and I’m so excited.  Anyways…to the buttons!

 

As the May 12th deadline to recertify the Iran nuclear deal looms and Trump threatens to pull out of it completely, it seems like a good time to look at the history of the nuclear containment movement.

The National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (more commonly known as SANE) was founded in 1957 by Norman Cousins and Clarence Pickett.  Cousins was the managing editor of the New York Evening Post (now the New York Post) and editor-in-chief of the Saturday Review of Literature (later renamed the Saturday Review.)  He was a prolific writer and researcher, and won many awards for his advocacy work for world peace.  He also said some pretty misogynistic things about women, particularly in the workforce, but we’re talking nuclear bombs so we’ll have to set that aside for the moment.  Pickett was executive secretary of the American Friends Service Committee, a professor, and a pastor.  The organization won a Nobel Prize in 1947 for their work towards peace and social justice around the world.

SANE joined with a lot of big names such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr. and brought the issue to the public through newspaper ads and rallies.  Similar movements were occurring in other countries, and in October 1958, the U.S., Soviet, and British governments agreed to halt nuclear testing as negotiations of a treaty were underway.  When John F. Kennedy became president, he sent Norman Cousins into talks with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev.  These discussions eventually led to the to the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963.

In November 1965, SANE led a huge antiwar demonstration against the Vietnam War and sponsored the candidacy of Senator Eugene McCarthy in 1968 to prevent President Johnson from seeking a second term.  Pressure from the group on the Nixon administration played a part on bring the war to an eventual end.

In 1979, a similar organization called the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign (aka Freeze) was formed by Dr. Randy Forsberg.  This woman was, from what I can see, a total badass and very ahead of her time, so I’m just going to wrap up the history of this movement and then do a little spotlight of her later when I can really dig in.  So, Freeze hit the ground running, and on June 12, 1982, held the biggest political rally in American history to date, with almost one million in attendance.  In the fall of 1982, referenda appeared on ballets across the country calling for a freeze to testing, development, and deployment of nuclear weapons; overall, they passed with 60% of the votes.

This public pressure caused the Reagan administration to change it’s public position on the issue, and the President eventually admitted, “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”  SANE and Freeze also had an impact on Mikhail Gorbachev, who took time to meet with the groups upon becoming Soviet party secretary in 1985.  These efforts led to the INF Treaty of 1987 and opened the door for the end of the Cold War.

SANE and Freeze merged in 1987, and became Peace Action in 1993, which still exists today. They still focus on nuclear disarmament, and also use their resources to reduce military spending, stop U.S.-backed wars in Central America, and end apartheid in South Africa (but I have different buttons for those!)

According their website, “Today, Peace Action continues its important work to build a safer, saner, and more peaceful world,” which sounds like something we could desperately use since as I was writing this, Trump announced that he would be pulling America out of the Iran nuclear deal which is not safer, saner, or more peaceful for anyone.

(AFSC)(Encyclopedia)(Cousins)(Peace Action)(Arms Control)

Good vs. Great

I don’t have a Bobby button, so this will have to do.

Many 20-somethings probably spent their Friday nights out on the town with friends.  I curled up on the couch with a cocktail, a cat, and a four-hour documentary about the political career of Bobby Kennedy.

I wouldn’t usually watch a documentary about any Kennedy.  In terms of political history, they have never been an interest of mine, because everyone loves the Kennedys.  I didn’t know much about Bobby, other than his family legacy (and possible family curse?)  I watched because of something grandma said to me about him: “Bobby Kennedy wasn’t always good, but he could’ve been great.”  I had no idea what that meant.

Other than the fact that this was honestly probably the best documentary I have ever seen, I understand what she was saying now.

When Bobby was attorney general under John Kennedy, he didn’t always seem to make the right decisions at first, especially about civil rights.  He approved the wiretapping of Martin Luther King, but then secured his release from prison in Atlanta.  When there were protests and riots and governors who refused to integrate, he was slow to act because these are state issues or these issues are in the courts where they should be dealt with, but eventually he intervened.  He wasn’t always good at first — but he was willing to learn and evolve, and he got there in the end.

He went to the poorest parts of America and met with the people who lived there.  He saw how they lived, spoke to them, asked them what they needed from him.  When the United Farm Workers in California were striking (we talked about them in one of my first posts, remember?) and they wanted to meet with him, he got right on a plane.  He was affected by what he heard and saw and wanted to help.  He gave people hope that someone actually cared about them.

Another thing that was really surprising to me was how much of a rock star he was.  When he drove down the street, he had people whose actual job was to hold onto him so he didn’t get pulled out of the car by excited supporters.  That isn’t something I’ve ever seen in my lifetime.  The most “rock star” politician I’ve seen has probably been Obama, but even he didn’t get a response like that on the campaign trail.  I wonder if people just had more trust in government officials back then and it’s gone downhill ever since?  It also probably has to do with security — we aren’t allowed to get that close to politicians anymore, and I’m sure that has to do with what happened to Bobby and other political/activist figures in the ’60s.

I had so many thoughts and feelings over the four hours I spent with Bobby Kennedy.  I laughed — especially when he thanked his dog first after winning the California primary — and I cried when the took his coffin to Washington on the train and thousands of people lined the railways to watch it go by, their hands on their hearts, saluting, or waving the flag.  Rather than try to summarize the entire documentary, I’ll just recommend that you watch it.  Grandma was right — Bobby Kennedy wasn’t always good.  But he was willing to learn and change, which I think is a quality modern politicians have lost.  The ’60s was a major transitional period in this country, and sometimes it took even the people at the top a minute to catch-up.  Now, we call it “flip-flopping” and use it as an insult.  But what politician can truly be great if they have no room to grow?

And, to the Kennedys: You got me, you handsome, Irish bastards.  I’m interested.

(Image Source)(Netflix: Bobby Kennedy for President)

So Then, Why Was There?

Grandma has A LOT of pins and other political memorabilia related to the Equal Rights Amendment, so this is definitely not the only time we will be focusing on it.  But grandma and I talked about this button quite a bit during our visit on Sunday, as the ERA largely failed because there was a time limit for ratification.

Quick recap on amendments: First, an amendment is proposed, either by Congress (with two-thirds of both the House and the Senate approving) or by two-thirds of the states submitting an application to Congress, who then must call for a Constitutional Convention (the latter has never actually happened.)  Once they bang out the details, they send it to the states for ratification, either by the state legislatures or a state convention (whoever proposed the amendment gets to decide,) and it must be ratified by three-forths of the states.

The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by the Senate on March 22, 1972, and sent to the states for ratification.  It reads:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

Seems reasonable.  However, Congress put a time limit of seven years for ratification.  There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution or law that requires time limits for ratification of amendments.  Technically, states still have the option to ratify an amendment that would prevent Congress from having “the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”  That would be a confusing contradiction of the 13th Amendment, but technically it could be ratified — it was passed by Congress and sent to the states with no time limit (it just happened to be like…one month before the Civil War broke out.)

So, why the time limit on the ERA?  It isn’t really clear, but I bet it has something to do with the face that there were only 13 women in the House and two women in the Senate.  There was also backlash by some conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly, who spread ideas such that women who wanted to be homemakers would be dragged out of the kitchen and drafted into military combat, women would no longer have the protection of rape/sexual assault laws (because equality means it’s suddenly okay for people to commit crimes against you?) and other ridiculous things that don’t even deserve mention.

In the first year, 22 states ratified the ERA, but as opposition became more organized, victories were few and further between.  A few more states ratified the amendment in the 1970s, but even with an extension of the deadline to 1982, Indiana was the last state to ratify in 1977.  Some states even tried to revoke their ratification, but the courts have not looked on this favorably.

(Permission to use with credit to http://www.equalrightsamendment.org)

Some states have recently ratified the ERA — the Illinois Senate just passed it on April 11.  Yeah, like, a week ago.  Things are happening.  The deadline might’ve passed 35 years ago, but this issue hasn’t died.  So the question becomes, can they do that?  If states keep ratifying, can it still become an amendment?  If Illinois’ House ratifies passes the bill, it will become the 37th state to ratify the ERA, and 38 states need to ratify for it to become a constitutional amendment.  Is there a time limit on equality?  We might be coming close to a point where these questions will need to be answered.

It feels appropriate to let the Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg take us out:

“If I could choose an amendment to add to the Constitution, it would be the Equal Rights Amendment.  I think we have achieved that through legislation, but legislation can be repealed, it can be altered.

So I would like my granddaughters, when they pick up the Constitution, to see that notion — that women and men are persons of equal stature — I’d like them to see that is a basic principle of our society.”

(Source) (Source) (Source) (Source) (Source)

Uppity Women Unite!

Yesterday, I spent the day with my grandma looking at all of the buttons.  We brought some to lunch with us and had them spread out on the table at the restaurant, and the girl refilling coffee told us that she also collects political buttons!  She told us about this great company in Ann Arbor called The Pin Cause that creates buttons and donates part of the proceeds to the causes they support — they have great ones for gun violence and the science march right now, so definitely check out their website.

One of grandma’s favorite buttons was this one:

(She’s wearing it in the picture, but it’s hard to tell because it’s a little blurry.)  I can’t find information about the first time this button might’ve been used, and the pin itself doesn’t have any print information on it, but the phrase has been used in many feminist causes fighting the notion that women should “know their place.”  Due to the rusting on the back, grandma suspected that she acquired this button “when not enough women were uppity!”

The Spark that Lit the Flame

My grandma emailed me and shared the first time she became politically active. It’s obviously amazing, so I’ll let her tell you about it in her own words in a moment. But now that I’ve been writing this blog for like, a full ten days, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on what I’ve learned (and I talked about it in therapy last night, so it’s nice and fresh.)

I always knew that my grandma was politically active, but I think I viewed it in the abstract. I would hear stories about it from time-to-time, but since we didn’t live right down the street like some of my other family members, I didn’t really ever see it first-hand. Sorting through all of these buttons made these stories seem more real to me.

I started this blog with the intention of looking into the history of the buttons, but I am realizing that the more interesting story is her story with the buttons. They aren’t all from campaigns or causes that she was involved with, but of the ones that were, I’d like to tell her story. We’ve got a date on Sunday to sit down and go through some of them.

The last thing I’ll say for now is this: researching these buttons, talking to my family and my grandma about her activism, and thinking about the way things are now has made me want to do something. Activism has changed a lot, it seems, and especially for millennials it has moved largely to the internet. I think I definitely fall into that category — I’ll happily defend any issue I believe in, as long as I don’t have to actually speak to anyone or put on real pants or leave my cats. And while it’s great to express your opinion on Facebook and Twitter, real change has always come from people who are willing to leave the house. So, I signed up to volunteer with Planned Parenthood yesterday (and shout-out to the wonderful staff at the Livonia location who might be reading this, we got pretty up close and personal today.)  It’s no march on Washington, but it’s something.

And now, without further ado, onto a great story from grandma:

“Wow! Your acquirement of my button collection, has sent me on a trip down Memory Lane! I’m delighted that you got it and are interested in learning more about the various buttons.

Is there a button for Flavin and Morris for the Ferndale School Board? That is the first campaign in which I became politically involved, and I don’t remember if we had a button or not.

The situation:

My son, Rob was in 3rd grade, and was not learning how to read. He was a very bright child; but he was just not catching on! Then the Ferndale School District introduced a FEDERALLY FUNDED reading program – and with that program, Rob was learning to read!

The Ferndale School District includes part of Royal Oak Township – a black -community. Grant, an elementary school in the township, was all black. The federal government told the Ferndale school board to desegregate Grant school or lose federal funding – including the reading program that was helping Rob. Our school board told the feds where they could go with that money!

Well! I spoke at that meeting urging the board to desegregate Grant. Instead, they voted to keep the status quo. The Feds subsequently cut off funding to the district which, at that time was about, I think, $250,000.00/year – a considerable amount of money!

After that meeting, I was invited to attend another meeting with a group of people who were looking to replace that school board which would sacrifice our kid’s education for their own racist reasons. That’s when I became politically involved.

It took years of campaigns to change the board (7 seats; with 2 up for election every year). We’d win two, then lose one, etc. etc., but eventually we got a majority – and then the whole board!

Rob learned to read through that federally funded program– and now, instead of being a drop-out, he is a physicist who works for the U.S. Army.

I thank God for allowing me to see the results of all that time and all that work.”

Morality…in the Eye of the Beholder?

The Moral Majority was a political organization in America founded in 1979 by televangelist/Baptist minister Jerry Falwell.  It was created as a response to changes in the 1960s and ’70s that many Christian fundamentalists worried undermined the moral values of the country, like the silly women burning their bras, black people marching every-which-way, or those gay people with the audacity to think that they have the right to exist (how much sarcasm is too much sarcasm?  Asking for a friend.)

The organization, aiming to advance conservative social values, expanded very quickly to include lobbyists, voter registration, and fundraising efforts.  They were even credited with helping Ronald Reagan win the presidential election of 1980.

These buttons were both issued in 1980.  The first was not only used by progressive groups opposing the Moral Majority, but also other members of the Christian right who opposed Jerry Falwell’s hard line beliefs.  The suggestion that the Moral Majority is neither “moral” nor the “majority” applied to both the Christian community, as well as America as a whole.

Progressives began to use the term “immoral minority” as a point of pride and opposition to the the Moral Majority.  An organization was formed in Washington under that name and attempted to counteract some of the Moral Majority’s propaganda through humor.

The Moral Majority remained a strong presence in American politics for most of the 1980s, but eventually dissolved in 1989 due to internal difficulties and scandal (to nobody’s surprise, I assume.)  Even though it does not officially exist anymore, it helped to firmly establish the religious right in American politics.

(Source) (Source) (Source) (Source)

Not Smiling Anymore

This button doesn’t have any copyright/printer information on the back, so I’m not sure which of Phil Mastin’s campaigns it came from, but I bet he stopped handing them out after 1983.  A Michigan Democrat from Pontiac, he won elections for the State House of Representatives in 1970, 1972, and 1974.  After a failed bid for Oakland County executive in 1976, he won a seat in the State Senate in 1982.

Taxpayers were not smiling when the Democrats in the Senate approve a 38% tax increase proposed by newly-elected Governor James Blanchard.  Many recall efforts across the state were attempted, but two succeeded — Mastin on November 22, 1983, and Democratic Senator David Serotkin on November 30th.  This gave Phil Mastin an unfortunate place in Michigan history, becoming the first state legislature to be recalled by his constituents.  When Republicans won both special elections to fill the seats, it also flipped the majority in the Senate from Democratic to Republican — and they have kept it ever since.

(Source) (Source) (Source)

One Issue Wasn’t Enough

It’s not exactly a secret that my grandma is pretty liberal, so I actually thought this button was a joke at first — being a single-issue candidate is usually an accusation from an opponent, not something celebrated on a button.

As it turns out, there was once a pretty good reason for Republicans to be a single-issue party: It’s 1932, the world is in the midst of the Great Depression, and your presidential candidate is the guy who many Americans are pointing the finger at, incumbent Herbert Hoover.  He was not the most popular guy in America, as his promise of “a final triumph over poverty” in his acceptance speech for the Republican nomination in 1928 had turned out to be super ironic.  A few months after taking office, the stock market crashed, and the world’s economy began to fall into the Great Depression.

It’s not fair to say that Hoover did nothing to try to stop the Depression, but it probably looked like that from the outside.  He encouraged business leaders not to cut wages or layoff workers, pushed for Congress to pass public works initiatives that would create jobs, and asked local and state governments to work with private charities around the country.  He just didn’t believe in intervention by the federal government, or widespread government aid.  But, to the average citizen standing in line for bread as unemployment skyrockets to almost 25% and over 5,000 banks fail, a little government intervention would’ve been welcome.

Enter: Franklin D. Roosevelt and his promise of “a new deal for the American people.”

While Democrats essentially ran a single-issue campaign, too, they had a couple things going for them.  First, people tend to blame the party in charge for problems that happen on their watch.  Another big factor, though, was the fact that Hoover rarely made public speeches or radio addresses — he actually had a fear of public speaking.  This made it easy for Democrats to paint him as a cold, aloof leader who didn’t care about the average American.  It also allowed for FDR to make grand speeches about the “new deal” without having to give many specifics about what that might entail, because Hoover wasn’t giving any indication as to what his recovery plan would be, either.  FDR was full of idealism and optimism, while Hoover was…well, nobody really knew.

Anyways, the American people were in on FDR.  Hoover got completely destroyed in the election (and almost on the campaign trail, a few times, when multiple citizens tried to assassinate him.)  FDR won 42 or 48 states as well as the popular vote, and Democrats won control of both Congressional houses.  These victories also ended a period of Republican dominance in federal government.

(Source) (Source) (Source) (Source)