First some disclosure. I moved to the Washington DC area in October of 1982. In April of the following year Hollings declared for the 1984 Democratic nomination for President, and for the first time in my life I became seriously involved in a presidential campaign. I was never paid staff, but having recently moved from Pennsylvania I somehow wound up as a part-time acting field director for Pennsylvania and Delaware. I never really got to know the candidate, but several times took his wife Peatsy (given name Rita) to events. In later years I would periodically encounter them in events in Charleston SC and in the DC area.
Hollings is a complicated man. He has perhaps the most acerbic wit I have ever encountered in a major politician. I remember in particular one debate in the 1984 primary campaign that was moderated by Barbara Jordan. Reuben Askew spouted the extreme praises of that Texan, noting that had the 1976 convention thrown open the VP nomination after her keynote address, she would have been nominated by acclamation, whereupon one immediately heard the South Carolinian voice of Fritz saying "would that mean we wouldn't have Mondale?" and the place cracked up. He was a fiscal conservative who believed in raising taxes for government service, and balancing budgets. He opposed free trade because he saw what it did to workers and industries, but he was also a strong supporter of Right To Work - he was, after all, from a Southern state. He was one of the lawyers hired by the Governor of South Carolina, Jimmy Byrnes - yes, the same man who we associate with FDR - to argue what in the 1953 court term was the lead school desegregation case, Briggs v Elliot from Clarendon County, but which in the rearguing in 1954 was displaced by the case from Topeka Kansas by which we now know that decision. Hollings is an honest man, one capable of self-criticism. He acknowledges that he followed the lead of Gov. Byrne and during the 1950's and later opposed the Brown decision. As he writes on p. 36
Every candidate for statewide office in the 1950s and even into the 1960s had to make clear his outrage over the Court's infringement on state prerogatives. I was no different.
And yet on his way out the door as Governor in 1963 (SC in those days was one term and out) he took a tack that when you read, you might understand why I began this diary as I did:
Almost a decade later, I had to tell South Carolinians that it was time to accept change. It was in 1963, when I was Governor and parted company with other southern politicians who were waging war against the federal government and whose constituents were shedding blood to defend their "way of life." I said that it was time for citizens in South Carolina to accept the fact that, like it or not, once we had run out of courts, we had to obey the law. As a result the admission of African-American student Harvey Gantt to segregated Clemson was achieved peacefully. It showed the naysayers that they were wrong. Government had worked. Change was achieved without violence. The sky didn't fall.
Hollings was probably never a racist, at least not in his public career, although he was originally too willing to go along with custom. On page 13 he writes about his response to a newspaper inquiry when he first ran for the legislature in 1948. He notes that he had seen the efforts of black troops during the recent war, that he "had served with black troops in Africa - troops ready to give their lives for the cause." Thus when the daily paper in Charleston asked all the candidates "Do you or do you not solicit the Negro vote?" his response is telling:
I was put off by that inquiry. It was perhaps the first time in my political career - but there would be plenty of others - in which my quick tongue got me in a tangle with the media. I thought the News and Courier was trying to stir up controversy. I responded to the newspaper's inquiry with a question of my own: "Do you or do you not solicit Negro subscribers and advertisers to your newspaper?" That's all I put down. They stayed angry with me for some twenty years.
Right after that election, the superintendent of education for Charleston County quietly took Hollings on a tour of a local black school. He describes the experience as an eye-opener. He learned that white teachers were paid an average of $1,296 for teaching a single class, while the teacher whose work he observed, Mrs. Simmons, was teaching two classes for $900.
Instantly I had a cause. Public education had to be improved - for all students, black and white.
Education and poverty would become key issues during the public career of Fritz Hollings. At a federal level he helped create and get through the Senate the Womens, Infants, and Childrens (WIC) program. Let me offer two quotes that show the strong support Hollings has given to public education. The first is in the context of being pro-business and wanting a sensible tax structure:
after fifty years of encouraging industries to locate in the Palmetto State, I'm convinced that a favorable tax structure, good roads and transportation, and a skilled labor market all take a backseat to outstanding public schools as the most important factor in inducing industry to choose one town over another.
And to go with that,
As much of a fiscal conservative as I have been throughout my career, I never thought it good policy to scrimp on education programs.
Hollings' career was too extensive, too full of important moments, for me to go through all of them. I have chosen to focus on his commitment to education not only because I am a teacher, but because it is illustrative of his belief that the job of politicians should be to make government work, to provide the services that improves the lives of all. Despite being a strong fiscal conservative, he has never wavered in his belief that appropriate but fair taxation is the necessary price that we should be willing to pay to have a government that serves us, that provides what we need for a better life. That starts with safety, and Hollings has always been an advocate of a strong military. Perhaps that is because he is a graduate of The Citadel, the state military college in South Carolina, or because he earned multiple battle stars and a Bronze Star during his time in World War II. But he can be blunt about military matters as well. Soon after being elected to the Senate he took a trip to Vietnam. This was 1964 and the commanding General, William Westmoreland, was a fellow South Carolinian. He viewed the restrictions on targeting imposed on the pilots as nonsense, but came to realize the folly of what we were trying to do. And he applies what he learned to the situation that confronts us today. Let me offer two long paragraphs from page 125 to illustrate what I mean:
I would make two more trips to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, during which I learned a lesson. It is a mistake to try to build and destroy a nation at the same time. You've got to first secure the country and then allo the native population to tke charge. The mistake played out in Vietnam, as we went out in the daytime over a ten-year period - with lots of firepower, including helicopters, gunships, and flamethrowers - with the goal of trying to secure the towns. The our troops returned to camp for a six-pack of beer and a movie. At night the Vietcong moved into the village and took over. All the while the village leader, trying to stay alive, played it both ways. In the daytime he was for the GI - at night he was for "Charlie." we never did secure the country. And all too often as we tried to secure a village, we destroyed it.
Now we are repeating the wrongheaded strategy in Iraq - but I hope not for ten years. After more than ive years, the world's superpower has yet to secure Iraq. We have never had realistic expectations in that region. We somehow expected different religious sects to fll in love, form a democracy, and secure the country. Today in Iraq we are faced with the same dilemma as in Vietnam. It would take too many troops to secure the country, and a secure Iraq probably won't last anyway. The best we can do is to secure the borders to keep the insurgents and weaponry out - and hope that the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds finally see it in their own interests to reach a settlement.
As I copied those two paragraphs, for each a memory was evoked. The contrast between night and day in the first inevitably reminded me of words from Billy Joel, from Goodnight Saigon:
We held the day
In the palm
Of our hand
They ruled the night
And the night
Seemed to last as long as six weeks
On Parris Island
We held the coastline
They held the highlands
And they were sharp
As sharp as knives
They heard the hum of our motors
They counted the rotors
And waited for us to arrive
And the idea of securing the borders? That was what General Jones, then NATO commander and former Marine Commandant, wanted to do when he was approached about taking command in Iraq, but when the administration refused he turned down the opportunity for a third 4-star position and retired.
Hollings is very blunt about the mistakes we have made in Iraq. In his final chapter, entitled as is the book as a whole, we read his words (written as is the book with the assistance of co-author Kirk Victor):
The nation's security is in jeopardy. The security of the nited States rests on a three-legged stool: one leg is the nation's values; the second is its defense; the third is its economy. The world has respected for years the sacrifices of the United States for individual rights, freedom and democracy. But our preemptive invasion of Iraq has caused the world to question our values.
And I quote those words not only because they indicate his opposition to our current folly, but they connect with another of his key passions. Hollings is not and never has been a free-trader. He has in fact been one of the strongest protectionist voices of the past half-century. It is incomprehensible to him that we can open borders to trade with countries that lack our environmental and labor standards and then be surprised that jobs go to where the costs are lower. He had no trouble with agreements between "like" countries, and thus he supported a free trade agreement when it was only the US and Canada, but strongly opposed NAFTA, even helping brief Ross Perot for his debate with Al Gore. On that point he acknowledges that he had not covered the Smoot-Hawley tariff, the point with which Gore got Perot to implode. Hollings reminds us that those tariffs did not CAUSE the Great Depression because they were not passed until some months after the depression started (although he probably does not fully grant how the cycle of tit for tat trade barriers around the world may have deepened the depression).
Hollings sees our trade problems as interconnected - with our deficits, with weaknesses in international trade agreements, with our campaign finances. I am no economic or trade expert, but Hollings is, at least from the perspective of one writing laws, and one who had as governor dealt with these issues. He is willing to take on conventional wisdom. For example, after writing on p. 321 "Our problem is not a lack of educated people but a lack of jobs for educated people" he goes through a litany of comparisons between capitalist and controlled (such as China) economies. Let me offer the beginning of that litany, which is in part a criticism of the ideas of Thomas Friedman (about whom he later says "The world is still round. It is the United States Government that is flat."):
The capitalist requires a minimum wage; the controlled a maximum wage. The capitalist requires clean air; the controlled permits dirty air. The capitalist pays overtime; the controlled denies overtime pay.
He continues with workplace safety, child labor, plant-closing notices and parental leave, price fixing, antitrust rules, open markets. He then writes
The WTO permits the controlled government to rebate at export 17 percent of its production taxes; the WTO prohibits the capitalist government from rebating at export its production taxes, giving controlled production a 17 percent advantage.
This has caused much US production to move to China, and as Hollings notes "
Ironically, with a national mission to spread democracy, the United States is making Communism work.
In his final chapter Hollings offers a list of 14 suggestions to rebuild the United States. he is in favor of moving to a Value Added Tax, as have many nations around the world. He wants to withdraw from WTO. He wants to replace the corporate income tax with a corporate revenue tax. He proposes some restructuring of the government.
But perhaps the most important suggestion he has to offer is a one-sentence Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. He first presents it on p. 168 in this form:
Congress shall have power to set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that may be accepted by, and the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of or in opposition to, a candidate for nomination ... or for election to Federal office.
He views the "free speech" interpretation of funding in Buckley v Valeo as having amended the Constitution and he has wanted to fix it for three decades. He considers that decision to be as detrimental to the nation as was Plessy v Ferguson. And he views the money chase that has resulted from that decision to be very destructive of our political comity. Let me offer a few illustrations of his prose from this final chapter:
Congress won't organize the government to compete and rebuild our economy until we first limit the money chase.
Even outstanding public servants shouldn't be allowed to buy the office. Worthy candidates, knowing that public office can be bought, decline to run.
Most contributors would be relieved by enactment of a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress to limit spending in elections. I know as a senator that such a spending limit would be a relief.
Ideas, policies, programs all ought to predominate over money. But today there is no change with the deluge of money in politics. The cumulative effect of special-interest money is prohibitive. Remove this effect by limiting campaign spending, and the money is still necessary but not controlling.
Hollings offers an anecdote from his first days in the Senate to make a point about comity. It is worth reading to understand his point of view:
I hadn't been in the Senate but for a few months when one morning, as I had cast my vote, I got a tap on the shoulder. I looked up, and there was the most senior Republican Senator, John Cooper of Kentucky. Remember, I was seated in the next to the last seat for Democratic Senators in the corner of the Senate In the middle of the oll call, Senator Cooper had hastened all the way from the opposite side of the chamber to counsel "Change that vote; change that vote." I did automatically. Senator Cooper explained that he was from horse country and knew the horsemen of South Caroline were for me - and I had just voted against their interests. He didn't want me to lose their support. He knew that I would have a hard time explaining a vote against them on an issue that was passing overwhelmingly. I thanked him profusely. That was when the Senate was a club. Form then on, it if wasn't against South Carolina's interests, John Cooper of Kentucky had my vote. I became a fast friend of this All-American basketball player from Kentucky. His wife, Lorraine, and my Peatsy became close, and we socialized regularly on weekends. We used to have four or five republicans and four or five Democratic Senators rotate at one Senator's home each Wednesday night, taking potluck and having a wonderful time arguing about the happenings of the day. No more.
Fritz Hollings was and is a complicated man, not easily categorized. He had a notable career of public service, and in this book offers his perspective and insight. You will not agree with all he has to offer. I certainly don't, and yet I was a strong supporter in 1983-84. Even more than two decades ago, his campaign was doomed by his inability to raise sufficient funds - he had to pull out of Iowa, where in a caucus state he might well have been able to surprise people, because he simply lacked funds to compete there and in NH (where he finished well back with only 5% of the vote). he was also somewhat handicapped being a Southerner so soon after the presidency of Jimmy Carter. I have often wondered how different our history might have been had he been able to get the 1984 nomination. It would have been difficult to beat Reagan, but of all the candidates Hollings was perhaps best positioned to puncture the false imagery of "morning again in America" having seen the catastrophic effect Reagan's policies were already having. Even assuming he would have lost, I suspect he would have done far better in the electoral college, which might have given him meaningful leverage to address things like the ballooning deficit from his continued tenure in the Senate. But all that is hypothetical.
What is not hypothetical is that this book provides the reader with a sweeping overview of more than half a century where our nation went through significant changes. Hollings acknowledges that he was not always right on key issues, race for example (although he does not tell you that in 1988 he supported Jesse Jackson, in part because of issues of economic and social inequity that still persisted, even as they do today). Clearly he has a lifetime of experience to apply as he analyzes where we are, and proposed ways we can address the crises that confront us. The book, while not perfect, is nevertheless well worth the time spent reading it.
If you watched Bill Moyers on Friday, you got a sense of the man. If you did not, perhaps you might go here to read a bit about him, then watch the video or read the transcript.
For now, let me end with one quote, from his final page. It is from his penultimate paragraph, and gives a sense of why he wrote this book:
Our forefathers sought government, and we now have the government they sought. The country is in serious trouble, and we don't have the luxury of antigovernment politicking. It is our duty to make the government work
We here are political. We are so because we want to change the direction of our nation, and to do that we have to change the control of our government. Yesterday I wrote about another book, by Markos, which provides guidance for how to achieve the political victories. Today I write about a book which gives context to what we will confront. Both authors have a belief that government matters, that we have to make it work.
Let me briefly return to my choice of title. For Hollings, the safety of the people has to include their economic safety and their political safety. Yes, he was always a proponent of a strong defense. But he viewed security more broadly, which is why his passion for education, for health, for a fairer tax system, for paying our bills and not passing on our debts to our progeny, for making the political system less dependent upon money and more responsive to the needs of the people and the nation.
You may not be a Hollings fan. I acknowledge that despite his flaws and the places where I disagreed, I remain one more than two and half decades after I first volunteered in his doomed presidential bid. I think he has been one of the most important public figures of my lifetime. This book will give you some sense of why I feel that. Of far greater importance, it may even give you some ideas not only of the nature of the problems we confront, but expose you to some different perspectives, so that even if you continue to disagree with Fritz, you draw value from what he writes. I encourage you to read this book.
Peace
