Tag Archives: Political cartoon

Rules to the road

A school authority teaches a child safe driving practices from a book labeled “The Safe Way.”
A school authority teaches a child safe driving practices from a book labeled “The Safe Way.”

In the John Knott political cartoon, “Train Up a Child in the Way He Should Go,” which accompanies the editorial “Traffic Schooling” in the Dallas Morning News, the implementation of driver’s education in schools is depicted. There are two prominent figures in the cartoon: one is a woman labelled “School authorities” sitting in a chair and holding a book titled “The Safe Way” while pointing. The other figure is a small boy around elementary school age that the woman is talking to. In the background are two informative posters, one reading “Traffic Rules” with a block of implied text and the other visually showing instructions on how to turn. Knott uses his cartoon to take a critical stance on the implementation of driver’s education, portraying it as excessive or overzealous.

This cartoon depicts the implementation of driver’s education in schools. When automobiles first rose to popularity from 1900 to the 1930s, there was very little regulation due to the novelty of the technology. At first, there were no “stop signs, warning signs, traffic lights, traffic cops, driver’s education, lane lines, street lighting, brake lights, driver’s licenses or posted speed limits” (Loomis), and due to that there were innumerable car accidents. By 1923 alone, there were 100,000 traffic-related deaths and car accidents were the fifth leading cause of death in 1926 (McShane). Over time, safety precautions were added, but up until the 1930s, the death toll was still too high due to the lack of education about driving.

The general public began to pressure lawmakers and school officials into implementing a driving education program for students approaching driving age. Herbert J. Stack, director of the New York University Safety Center, spoke about the need to add driver’s education to the New York State Congress of Parents and Teachers. (School Aid Urged). School officials eventually succumbed to the public pressure, and by the time the Knott cartoon and its accompanying editorial were posted in 1937, there were already 3,000 schools across the nation that had some sort of driver’s education program.

The accompanying editorial itself covers the importance of formal education when teaching adolescents how to drive and proposes ways to incorporate driving classes into high school curriculums, particularly in Texas. The author restates and supports a recommendation by the State Board of Education to provide all students with a textbook outlining the rules of the road and safe driving practices. At the time, driving in Texas was very accessible; the Texas Department of Public safety began to issue free licenses in 1935 (Automobile), so cost was not an issue for anyone seeking to obtain a license. Due to this easy access, it is understandable that citizens would also want new drivers to have easy access to education.

The main indicator of Knott’s critical stance in the cartoon is the age of the child being taught. The boy is obviously not of driving age, not even the range of 14 and 15 where children started driving in rural communities. The reaction intended is to think that it is unnecessary to start teaching children about driving so early. The driver’s education programs did not actually start teaching that early, so the portrayal is a criticism of the programs being excessive. Another indicator of Knott’s criticism is the word choice of the title. “Train” often has a negative connotation as opposed to teach. “Child” is used instead of a more accurate descriptor such as teen or adolescent, which further emphasizes the point about the young age of the child depicted. While Knott’s criticisms may seem unfounded now, it is important to take into consideration what the people of that time period were accustomed to as far as driving regulations went. To suddenly have an onslaught of new rules added where there were none before would be jarring.

The teacher figure in the cartoon is used to represent school authorities, as the label on her jacket tells us. It is notable that Knott felt it necessary to make the distinction between school authority and regular teacher. This was done because it was the school authorities in particular who were pressured to add driver’s education courses by various advocacy groups and societal clubs (Tebeau). The woman appears stern and serious, sitting in a chair while the student is standing and pointing a finger. Her instruction of the boy looks similar to scolding, which is perhaps Knott’s way of scolding those who made driver’s education courses necessary by practicing unsafe driving. The book she is holding is entitled “the Safe Way,” which further emphasises the way that people had been driving up until that point, implied to be the ‘unsafe way’.

The place in the comic where the most similarity can be found with modern driver’s education are the posters in the background. The “Traffic Rules” poster is shown to have a large block of text accompanying it. To the modern viewer, the norm when learning to drive is learning the various traffic that accompany driving. When driver’s education was first being introduced however, the jump from not having to learn any sort of traffic rule to having to learn a huge block of them would have seemed excessive. The things that were taught in driver’s education when it was first introduced were “recognize the pedestrian’s right of way when walking at a cross-walk or at a green light: and all other traffic rules,” (Wentworth) which seems a very obvious and second nature to the modern driver. The use of the word ‘rules’ instead of the modern ‘laws’ shows how much more regulated and enforced modern driving has become.

The diagram next to the “Traffic Rules” poster shows a seemingly simple instruction on how to properly turn. The simplicity suggests that the drivers of that time were so incompetent that they didn’t know how to turn onto another street correctly and needed detailed instructions to accomplish this. It is likely that this is a subtle criticism by Knott about the incompetence of the drivers of the time.

The unsafe driving practices of the early 20th century culminated with societal pressures to the addition of driver’s education courses in schools. The buildup and public outraged shown is similar to the phenomenon of texting and driving in modern times. The amount of accidents and public pressure has built up to where states are now passing legislature with very strict stances on texting and driving.

 

Works Cited:

McShane, Clay. “1899 Automobile Fatalities.” Disasters, Accidents, and Crises in American History: A Reference Guide to the Nation’s Most Catastrophic Events, by Ballard C. Campbell, Facts on File, 2008, pp. 180-182. Facts on File Library of American History. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=txshracd2598&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX4085100098&asid=16e2c60dac4d7f6141d76c9dfcc03ec5. Accessed 19 Oct. 2017.

Tebeau, Mark. “Accidents.” Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood: In History and Society, edited by Paula S. Fass, vol. 1, Macmillan Reference USA, 2004, pp. 12-14. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=txshracd2598&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3402800018&asid=e56694d5a48fa15aa193ecd1e2e3d77e. Accessed 19 Oct. 2017.

Loomis, Bill. “1900-1930: The years of driving dangerously.” Detroit News, 26 Apr. 2015, www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan-history/2015/04/26/auto-traffic-history-detroit/26312107/.

By E T STRONG, General Sales Manager, Buick Motor,Company. “Efficient Driving Developed as Art Requiring Expertness.” The Washington Post (1923-1954), May 27, 1923, pp. 68, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post, http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/149348020?accountid=7118.

“SCHOOL AID URGED IN TRAFFIC SAFETY.” New York Times (1923-Current file), Oct 04, 1939, pp. 34, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times, http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/103073062?accountid=7118.

By Howard F Wentworth (Winner of first prize in the Nation-wide CIT Safety Contest with his 1936 series appearing in,The Post. “Traffic Experts Begin Classes in Motor Safety at G.W.U.” The Washington Post (1923-1954), Mar 10, 1937, pp. 1, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post, http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/150958398?accountid=7118.

“Fast Facts: The 113-Year History of the Driver’s License.” Automobile, Feb. 20, 2012 http://www.automobilemag.com/news/fast-facts-the-113-year-history-of-the-drivers-license-110875/

Knott, John.  “Train Up a Child in the Way He Should Go.” Dallas Morning News, 28 Feb. 1937.

“Traffic Schooling” Dallas Morning News, 28 Feb. 1937.  Dallas Morning News Newspaper Archive, http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/HistArchive?p_theme=ahnp&p_product=EANX&p_nbid=S66F5DGRMTUxMTIyMjg5Ny4yNDU5MTM6MToxMzoxMjguNjIuMzguMTk2&p_action=keyword&f_pubBrowse=0F99DDB671832188

2008 Bailout of Wall Street

Uncle Sam struggles to bear the burden of Wall Street while distraught President George W. Bush assures Wall Street, not Uncle Sam, that everything will be okay.
Uncle Sam struggles to bear the burden of Wall Street while distraught President George W. Bush assures Wall Street, not Uncle Sam, that everything will be okay.

 

In the early fall of 2008, America’s financial system nearly collapsed. Some of Wall Street’s biggest corporations had engaged in what President George W. Bush called “irresponsible actions” that caused widespread panic. Eventually, the situation became precarious enough to warrant action by the federal government in the American free-enterprise system. The federal government’s plan was to use $700 billion dollars of taxpayer money to resolve the crisis and bailout Wall Street. President George W. Bush addressed the nation on September 24, 2008 to propose the bailout through a joint congressional bill. The federal government promised that the bailout, while costly to American taxpayers, was essential to the maintenance of the financial system, and that the “irresponsible actions” of Wall Street executives would not be ignored (C-SPAN 2). Many American taxpayers begrudgingly agreed in 2008 that the federal government’s plan to bailout Wall Street was necessary; however, the burden of funding the bailout and empty promises made by the federal government eventually led to a high degree of taxpayer dissatisfaction.

In Daryl Cagle’s humorous depiction of the 2008 bailout, Uncle Sam struggles and sweats under the weight of Wall Street. Uncle Sam, a symbol of American taxpayers, is depicted as small and skinny. He holds the entire weight of a fat pig, representative of Wall Street corporations, on his back. The Wall Street pig is dressed in a formal business suit and is accessorized with features of stereotypical Wall Street wealth, such as a large bag of money, a ring, and a cigar. President Bush, representing not only himself but the federal government at large, worriedly screams “Don’t worry! You’re going to be okay!” (Cagle) The President Bush character worries about the pig instead of Uncle Sam; this cartoon reflects the American taxpayer sentiment of dissatisfaction about the actions by the federal government and the consequences of the bailout.

The financial crisis of 2008 spurned the need for government action and the bailout after Wall Street made some risky investments. President Bush explained the crisis started when Wall Street lenders, including banks and insurance companies, began giving credit to individuals who could not afford the mortgages on the homes they purchased during the good housing market. When the housing market fell, many homeowners were left with mortgages they could not afford and homes worth very little. As a result, the institutions that had lent the homeowners the money began to fail. In addition, many of these institutions had invested in mortgage-back securities which are risky investments. According to President Bush, these securities allowed the investors of Wall Street to borrow “huge sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk”. He then told Americans that action by the federal government was now vital and explained his administration’s proposal that Congress pass a bill for a bailout funded with $700 billion dollars in taxpayer money (C-SPAN 2). Congress passed H.R. 1424, called the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, in early October 2008 (United States).

President Bush placed the blame of the crisis on Wall Street, which satisfied Americans. The unsatisfactory part of the bailout for taxpayers was that they were expected to cover the expenses of Wall Street’s mistake. While many middle class taxpayers opposed having to pay $700 billion dollars to protect what they saw as money-hungry businessmen, President Bush promised that there would be consequences for the Wall Street executives responsible for the crisis (C-SPAN 2). Regardless, many taxpayers felt that an unfair burden was being placed upon them as reflected in Cagle’s struggling Uncle Sam character. The Los Angeles Times released a poll in late September 2008 that showed fifty-five percent of Americans opposed the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the bailout (Bensinger). Other Americans showed their dissatisfaction through protest. On September 25, 2008 protestors gathered outside of Wall Street to demonstrate their opposal to the federal government’s plan. AFLCIO president John Sweeney told reporters, “We want our tax dollars used to provide a hand up for the millions of working people who live on Main Street and not a handout to a privileged band of overpaid executives” (Weissner). This statement by Sweeney reflects the sentiment of Cagle’s cartoon Uncle Sam who struggles to bear the burden of Wall Street.

As earlier presented, President Bush promised that the bailout was not a handout to Wall Street but rather a way to save America’s financial system (C-SPAN 2). This perhaps made it easier for some Americans to agree to support the bailout. However, this sentiment changed greatly in the aftermath of the bailout. President Bush relayed to Americans in his 2008 speech that top executives on Wall Street knowingly made risky investments, were responsible for the crisis, and would face consequences for those actions; However, The New York Times released an article in 2011 addressing this very issue: “no senior executives have been charged or imprisoned, and a collective government effort has not emerged” (Story). Three years after the bailout, no executives had been criminally prosecuted. In fact, many of the institutions that had received money from the bailout actually gave their top executives large bonuses in 2008 (Bernard). A joint poll released by CBS and the New York Times five years after the bailout in 2013 showed that over sixty percent of Americans did not support the bailout and over eighty percent felt that Wall Street had not faced harsh enough consequences for its risky actions and investments (Kopicki). Americans felt that Wall Street was not only saved by the federal government at the expense of regular taxpayers, but that it also faced practically no repercussions for its actions.

As similarly depicted in John Knott’s 1937 cartoon, “How About Sharing The Load”, American taxpayers are depicted in Cagle’s cartoon as struggling to carry a burden of government. In Knott’s cartoon, a figure labeled “taxpayer” struggles to carry a large bundle labeled “expenses of government”. Another man labeled “public jobholder” looks on while smirking because he has a piece of paper in his pocket labeled “income tax exemption” (Knott). This cartoon refers to the nation-wide public dissent from American taxpayers concerning federal tax exemptions for government job holders in the midst of The Great Depression. While both these depictions reflect strikingly similar sentiments and widespread dissatisfaction from Americans, these two situations in American history have reaped different outcomes. In the case of the 1937 federal income taxes, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s sentiments reflected those of the American population; therefore, he was able to use his influence as president to help ensure change in the form of ending the exemptions. In the case of the 2008 bailout, however, President Bush felt that the burden placed upon American taxpayers was not as great as the importance of the financial crisis on Wall Street, so he was able to use his influence as president to perpetuate the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 despite public dissent.

The financial crisis of 2008 was a large source of public dissatisfaction for average Americans in the early 21st century. While some Americans agreed to support the federal government’s plan to use $700 billion dollars of taxpayer money to bailout many Wall Street corporations in 2008, many Americans later felt that they faced the consequences of Wall Street’s risky actions.  Cartoonists John Knott and Daryl Cagle both reflect public dissent in their respective cartoons by depicting American taxpayers as struggling under a financial burden set upon them by the federal government in a time of economic trouble. Unfortunately, public dissent and frustration did little to reap any kind of change in the 2008 bailout compared to the way it did in the 1937 federal tax exemption issue. Despite this unfortunate outcome, Americans should still voice their opinions to federal government officials in order to keep the average American spoken for as the 21st century progresses.

Works Cited:

C-SPAN 2. “George Bush Wall Street Bailout.” 24 Sept. 2008, Washington D.C., White House.

Cagle, Daryl. “Wall Street Bailout Pig.” DarylCagle.com, darylcagle.com/2008/09/23/wall-street-bailout-pig/.

United States, Congress, Cong. House, Energy and Commerce; Education and Labor; Ways and Means. “Congress.gov.” Congress.gov, 110ADAD. 110th Congress, bill H.R. 1424, www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/1424.

Bensinger | Times Staff Writer, Ken. “Masses Aren’t Buying Bailout.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 26 Sept. 2008, articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/26/business/fi-voxpop26.

Weisner, Christian. “Labor Leaders Decry Bailout.” National Post, 26 Sept. 2008, www-lexisnexis-com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/p. A10.

Story, Louise. “In Financial Crisis, No Prosecutions of Top Figures.”The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Apr. 2011,   www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html.

Bernard, Stephen, and Business Writer. “Bailed-out Banks Gave Millions in Exec Bonuses, NY AG Report Shows.” ABC News, ABC News Network, abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8214818&page=1.

Kopicki, Allison. “Five Years Later, Poll Finds Disapproval of Bailout.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Sept. 2013, economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/five-years-later-poll-finds-disapproval-of-bailout/.

Knott, John. “How About Sharing The Load?” Dallas Morning News 10 April 1937, sec 2: 2. Print.

Ending Income Tax Exemptions

An income taxpayer struggles to carry the expenses of government by himself while a public job holder, not bearing and tax burden, looks on while smirking blithely
An income taxpayer struggles to carry the expenses of government by himself while a public job holder, not bearing and tax burden, looks on while smirking blithely

Clearly stated in Article I, Section VIII, Clause I of the Constitution of the United States of America is the power of Congress to levy taxes to raise funds for the nation. The sixteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1913, gives Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration” (“The Constitution”). Starting that year, U.S. citizens had to pay income taxes in addition to the income tax in their own state if any were levied (“The Constitution”). A national controversy arose after the passage of the 16th amendment; government employees at both state and federal levels were not required to pay income taxes like the rest of the American public. Income tax exemptions for federal employees was a precedent set from the Mccullough vs. Maryland case in 1819 in which the Supreme Court decided that taxing of the federal government (or in this case its employees) might inhibit its ability to “exercise federal powers” (Patch). The controversy over federal income tax exemptions for governmental employees eventually caused President Roosevelt and Congress to take action after the Supreme Court made an unsatisfactory case decision in 1937.

In John Knott’s political cartoon titled “How About Sharing the Load?” published April of 1937, Knott compares the overburdened American public to a relaxed public job holder. In this cartoon, a skinny man with the tag “income taxpayer” on his shirt struggles to walk down the road while carrying an enormous bundle on his back labeled “expenses of government.” A carefree public job holder walks along side him, carrying an “income tax exemption”. The income taxpayer holds his hand out toward the public job holder as if to ask for help to carry the obviously heavy and overbearing load while the latter smokes his cigar with a grin on his face (Knott). The Dallas Morning News published Knott’s cartoon and the accompanying editorial titled “Income Tax Exemption” on April 10, 1937. The editorial supports ending the exemptions by stating that government employees “should be the last to object to contributing to the support of the public services” (“Income Tax Exemption”).

The national controversy over income tax exemptions arose as a consequence from the Whitlock vs. Foster Wheeler LLC Supreme Court decision in early 1937. The Federal government attempted to withhold tax funds from the salary of William Whitlock Brush, the chief engineer of New York City’s water supply system. The Court determined that the federal government could not require state employees to pay federal income taxes. This decision allowed over 200,000 public jobholders to qualify for an income tax exemption (“Supreme Court Ends Income Tax”). Allowing public jobholders to have the exemption placed great financial burden on the American public that was still struggling due to the immense economic downturn of the Great Depression in the 1930’s. The dissent from the public pushed the exemptions to become a national controversy.

The issue of exemptions eventually became such a big problem that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt intervened. In April of 1938, FDR submitted a letter to Congress in which he expressed his disappointment in the Court’s decision to not end income taxes in the 1937 Whitlock decision (“Text of the President’s Tax Message”). FDR encouraged Congress to pass legislation to end the exemptions, but many legislators favored the idea of passing an amendment to the constitution. For example, Senator William King of Utah expressed that ending the exemptions could only “be accomplished by a constitutional amendment”. FDR believed that an amendment would be a “cumbersome and… unnecessary”. (“President Aims at Wealth”). The Supreme Court, responsible for interpreting the law, determined in their 1937 ruling that Congress did not have the power to levy income taxes against public jobholders except under a constitutional amendment (“Supreme Court Ends Income Tax”). This created confusion for Congress in deciding how to actually put an end to the exemptions. This debate further delayed the ending of the exemptions; however, FDR’s interest ensured that the exemptions would remain a leading issue on the national agenda.

On February 8, 1939, the Dallas Morning News released a poll that showed much support from the American public for the ending of the exemptions. When asked if people who work for the government should pay income taxes, eighty-seven percent of respondents answered “yes” (Gallup). This sentiment reflects the depiction of the disgruntled “income tax payer” in Knott’s cartoon. The accompanying editorial to Knott’s cartoon points out the “psychological advantages” of ending the exemptions. According to the editorial, ending exemptions would not only address and resolve the grievances of the overburdened public, but also make public jobholders tax conscious (“Income Tax Exemption”). The Dallas Morning News also reported that while public jobholders opposed ending the exemptions, many of them understood the public’s desire for the exemptions to end (“Plugging Tax Loopholes”). Knott’s cartoon does not reflect this sentiment through its grinning and smug “public jobholder” figure.

Support for ending the exemptions from both FDR and the public encouraged other governmental officials to take action. In August of 1938, Treasury officials produced a report for the Secretary of the Treasury at the time Henry Morgenthau. The report supported FDR’s request of action through Congressional legislation to end exemptions (“Treasury Asks State”). In January of 1939, four Federal officials appeared before the Senate Committee and requested a statute be made to end exemptions. This took place a few days before FDR submitted another request to Congress which reiterated his support for ending exemptions (“Tax Exemption Elimination”). These actions by officials ensured that the government would address the public’s grievances; however, the Supreme Court actually took action before Congress could enact new legislation to end the exemptions.

In March of 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that states could withhold taxes from governmental employee salaries. This decision opposed the previous precedent that the court set with their ruling to extend exemptions to more public jobholders in 1937 (“Text of The Supreme Court’s Decision”). Because of increasing pressure from the public, the president, and the likelihood of a statute by Congress, the Supreme Court decided to end exemptions by breaking its previously established precedent. This resolved the national dilemma of exemptions and ensured that the public would no longer struggle to pay the expenses of government on its own.

John Knott’s “How About Sharing the Load?” humorously depicts how average Americans felt that they alone were being forced to carry the expenses of the federal government. Knott’s cartoon and the editorial that accompanied it in The Dallas Morning News in 1937 exemplify how publicized the issue of exemptions became. Repealing the exemptions on federal taxes for public job holders would have been much more difficult without regular Americans voicing their dissatisfaction over the exemptions. In 21st century America, however, public dissatisfaction is sometimes not enough to cause change in policy because the federal government has grown significantly in its power since the late 1930’s.

Works Cited:

“The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution

Patch, W. B. “Exemptions from Income Taxation.” CQ Researcher by CQ Press, library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1937061700.

Knott, John. “How About Sharing The Load?” Dallas Morning News 10 April 1937, sec 2: 2. Print.

“Income Tax Exemption.” Editorial. Dallas Morning News 10 April 1937, sec 2: 2. Print.

“Supreme Court Ends Income Tax on Salaries of More City Officials.” New York Times (1923-Current file), Mar 16, 1937, pp. 1, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times

“Text of the President’s Tax Message.” New York Times (1923-Current file), Apr 26, 1938, pp. 2, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times

“President Aims at Wealth Now Tax-Free.” Dallas Morning News, City ed., 26 Apr. 1938, p. 1.

George Gallup. “Wages Favored in Poll.” Dallas Morning News, 8 Feb. 1939, p. 4.

“Plugging Tax Loopholes.” Dallas Morning News, 7 Sept. 1938, p. 2.

“Treasury Asks State, Federal Salary Taxes.” Dallas Morning News, 8 Sept. 1938, p. 2.

“Tax Exemption Elimination Wins Support.” Dallas Morning News, 19 Jan. 1939, p. 9.

“Text of the Supreme Court’s Decision Permitting a State to Tax Federal Pay.” New York Times (1923-Current file), Mar 28, 1939, pp. 16, ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times

 

Come to Texas!

Come to Texas!

 

John Knott’s political cartoon Come to Texas! provides an illustration of the decentralization of highly-centralized industries to Texas during the late 1930s. Depicting the decentralizing industries as a crowd of businessmen with briefcases marked “fair practices,” many highly-centralized businesses during this time were branching out, coming to Texas because of its better conditions towards the end of the Great Depression (Southwestern Industry). However, Texas was not content to accept just any company since a number of these industries were coming to Texas from a wealth of problems, leaving in their wake issues such as poor worker treatment (Gardner). The sign above the Texan’s head exemplifies this concern, cautioning against industries seeking to exploit Texas’ more-business-friendly economic climate in an effort to protect Texans. Texas is still happy to have the industries, hence the cartoon’s depiction of the Texan giving a warm welcome to the arriving industries; however, if the incoming industries wanted to employ Texans, they must first take care of Texans. The editorial entitled “Southwestern Industry” that accompanied Knott’s cartoon helps provide additional historical context for the events in the cartoon. It explains that while Texas had an abundance of raw resources, “relatively little progress [had] been made in the manufacturing of cotton and woolen cloth” (Southwestern Industry). This meant that many of Texas’ raw materials had to be shipped to industrial centers in other states to be processed, manufactured, and reimported once completed. The editorial goes on to advise that there “should be no welcome sign in Texas for the manufacturer who wants to get away from some other State merely because he is unwilling to pay fair taxes or reasonable wages” (Southwestern Industry). In a nutshell, the editorial maintains that increased manufacturing in Texas would be good for the state, but not at the cost of shoddy work practices coming to Texas with the intent of exploitation. Overall, Knott’s depiction of decentralizing industries coming to Texas provides an overview of the decentralization of jobs to Texas as well as Texas’ concerns with fair work practices.

Beginning in the mid-1930s, the unemployment rate dropped as the US started recovering from the Great Depression (“Miss Perkins Urges Job Security Plans”). Although the Great Depression didn’t completely end until the onset of World War II, Knott’s cartoon and the accompanying editorial were published in 1937 when the economic situation of the nation was starting to improve. While the highly industrialized and centralized areas of the US were only just starting to get back on their feet, Texas’ economy had fared better overall throughout the Depression (Hammons). The hardships faced by Detroit, Michigan, during the Great Depression provides a prime example of how dissimilar the conditions of industrialized and non-industrialized parts of country were. In the case of Detroit, all of the nation’s car production was centralized in a single area to allow the heads of business easy access to all of their production sites. However, when the economy took a sharp downturn in 1929, it became much harder for the average person to afford a car. When car sales tanked, that region crashed (Nystrom). Conversely, the lack of compact industries in Texas “helped to buffer Dallas from the worst of the Depression” (Hammons). Because Texas wasn’t as industrialized, it wasn’t hit as hard. The Depression was still crippling, but comparatively speaking, Texas fared marginally better.

In order to combat the troubles of highly-centralized production, centralized industries began to spread out, decentralizing production to other areas of the country (Southwestern Industry). According to the International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, decentralization “signifies the disbursement of power from the top down… lead[ing] to higher levels of efficiency” (Decentralization 250). To put it in layman’s terms, a centralized company branches out, setting up production in other places to take advantage of the different locations’ benefits, such as cheaper production, looser regulatory laws, cheaper labor, and closer proximity to resources. In this particular time period, decentralization was primarily used to diversify in response to the problems of highly centralized industries during the Depression (Bowman). Highly centralized industries began because of big-name tycoons, such as Ford or Rockefeller, because it was easier for management to oversee all of their productions by having them nearby (Jahn). However, just like the saying ‘having all one’s eggs in the same basket,’ the Depression hit those highly-industrialized areas the hardest, causing the highly-centralized companies to crash. Decentralization was harder on management since moving industries from Chicago to Texas meant no longer having immediate access to all nearby production; however, it was much better for the industries overall. The cheaper production costs and delegation of smaller tasks to other areas let management focus on the bigger picture instead of trivialities of day-to-day production (Jahn).

Due to its abundance of raw resources and available labor source, Texas made for a very promising-looking market for highly-centralized industries looking to decentralize. An especially alluring factor was Texas’ rapidly-growing market, meaning more workers in production and more buyers of finished products (Texas 822). In addition, by relocating branches of industry to Texas, companies didn’t have to pay such high transportation costs to import the raw resources and then ship the finished product from the North-East back to the South. Although Texas had an abundance of natural resources, such as cotton, wheat, wool, and cattle, it lacked the industries needed to process the raw materials, especially in the textile department (Southwestern Industry). By allowing industries centralized in other states to decentralize to Texas, Texas would also gain jobs and a boost to its economy. However, despite all the advantages the added industrial boost posed, both the editorial and Knott’s cartoon stressed the fact that there remained a number of possible drawbacks in allowing out-of-state industries to set up production in Texas.

That is the exactly the argument Knott’s cartoon presents. While the Texan depicted in the cartoon is happily receiving the incoming industries with his arms outstretched in welcome, the sign above the Texan’s head expresses the concern “No exploiters of cheap labor, tax dodgers or fly-by-night industries wanted” (Knott). The meaning drawn from Knott’s cartoon paints a picture of a state that wanted the benefits of industrialization – just not at the cost of adopting the problems that some of the industries brought with them. In looking at poor work practices in other areas of the country during the same time period, namely the case of the Radium Gals, the concern depicted in Knott’s cartoon becomes even more apparent. The Radium Gals were a group of women hired during the 20s and 30s to work at the Radium Dial company painting watch faces with a special radium paint (Suppan). Exploited by the company they worked for, these women were paid far lower wages than men and were slowly poisoned and killed by the radiation from the radium paint (Suppan). With such adverse publicity surrounding cases such as the Radium Gals, the editorial and Knott cartoon cautioned against accepting decentralizing industries that were seeking to exploit laborers or exercise dubious business practices (Gardner). Since companies that utilized shifty work practices were seen as “author of the general misery, … cutter[s] of wages, … and the tax-dodging embodiment of the general irresponsibility that pervades the American business community,” Texas was not keen on hosting industries that were going to exploit Texas’ market and workers (Castranovo 61).

In summation, Come to Texas! is a political cartoon by John Knott that provides commentary on the decentralization of industries to Texas towards the end of the Great Depression. Despite the fact that decentralizing industries presented numerous advantages to Texas, both the editorial and the Knott cartoon emphasize how important it was for Texas to be wary of allowing just any industry to relocate, stressing that if the decentralizing industries wanted to employ Texans, they had to take care of Texans.

 

 

Works Cited

Bowman, Joel. “The Great Decentralization.” Non-Dollar Report. Non-Dollar Report, 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 29 Nov. 2016. <http://nondollarreport.com/2014/11/economic-evolution-the-great-decentralization/>.

Castronovo, David. “The Artist as a Young Reporter.” Edmund Wilson Revisited. New York: Twayne, 1988. 51-71. Twayne’s United States Authors Ser. 695. Twayne’s Authors on GVRL. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

“Decentralization.” International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by William A. Darity, Jr., 2nd ed., vol. 2, Macmillan Reference USA, 2008, pp. 250-251. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=txshracd2598&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3045300532&asid=c07ec128b7f5c795f9358d1289944f66. Accessed 29 Nov. 2016.

Gardner, Virginia. “Former Watch Painter Faints; Halts Hearing.” Chicago Tribune 11 Feb. 1938: 1+. Chicago Tribune Archive. Web. 23 Oct. 2016. <http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1938/02/11/page/1/article/woman-tells-living-death-at-radium-quiz>.

Hammond, Carlyn. “The Great Depression and World War II – Texas Our Texas.” Texas Our Texas. Texas PBS, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2016. <http://texasourtexas.texaspbs.org/the-eras-of-texas/great-depression-ww2/>.

Jahn, Christine. “Organizational Structure.” Encyclopedia of Business and Finance. Ed. Burton S. Kaliski. Vol. 2. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2001. 669-674. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 29 Nov. 2016. http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=txshracd2598&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3402700343&asid=fbfa946d055263c2440c408246c59a88

Knott, John. “Come to Texas!” Cartoon. Dallas Morning News. 27 March 1937. Sec 2: 2. Print.

“MISS PERKINS URGES JOB SECURITY PLANS.” New York Times (1923-Current file): 11. Jan 01 1937. ProQuest. Web. 17 Nov. 2016 .

Nystrom, M. A. “Second Great Depression in Detroit.” Second Great Depression in Detroit | M.A. Nystrom | Safehaven.com. SafeHaven, 3 June 2008. Web. 29 Nov. 2016. <http://www.safehaven.com/article/10420/second-great-depression-in-detroit>.

“Southwestern Industry.” Editorial. Dallas Morning News 29 Mar. 1937, sec. 2: 2. Print.

Suppan, Heinz-Dietrich. Marking Time: The Radium Girls of Ottawa. N.p.: Outskirts, 2016. Print.

“Texas.” Worldmark Encyclopedia of the States. Ed. Timothy L. Gall. 7th ed. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale, 2007. 803-31. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 23 Oct. 2016.

Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare

Signe Wilkinson for the Philadelphia Daily News published on June 29th, 2015, depicts two men rushing an injured and well-dressed elephant in a suit to an ambulance labeled “OBAMA CARE”.
Signe Wilkinson for the Philadelphia Daily News published on June 29th, 2015, depicts two men rushing an injured and well-dressed elephant in a suit to an ambulance labeled “OBAMA CARE”.

The political cartoon, Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare, by Signe Wilkinson for the Philadelphia Daily News published on June 29th, 2015, depicts two men rushing an injured and well-dressed elephant in a suit to an ambulance labeled “OBAMA CARE”. One of the men can be seen to be carrying a gavel and wearing a robe, indicating he is a judge. The latter is seen wearing a suit and tie and can easily be identified as the current president at the time the cartoon was published, President Barack Obama. The judge in this scenario is a cartoon representation of the Chief of Justice of the time, John Roberts. The unconscious elephant being carried in the stretcher is representative of the Republican party, as the elephant is the symbol most associated with the Republicans. Wilkinson’s cartoon demonstrates the struggles ObamaCare faced against the Republican Party and the eventual defeat the Republicans experienced once the Act was ruled constitutional on more than one occasion despite the Republican Party’s efforts to repeal it at its inception.

The question of whether the United States should have a universal health-care system can be traced back to Harry S. Truman’s presidency in the mid 1940s. Truman proposed the idea of a universal healthcare system as he felt that it was an aspect that was not covered by the previous president, Franklin D Roosevelt, in his progressive New Deal legislation (Taylor). It was reintroduced in the early twentieth century and was revisited in the early 1990s during Bill Clinton’s first term as president. Claiming that it was one of his greatest goals, Clinton worked towards a health-care system, but was unable to obtain sufficient support to do so in his years as president. However, in the late 2000s, President Barack Obama built his presidential campaign to feature a health-care reform as its top priority. Elected as president in 2008 at a time when Democrats “controlled both houses of Congress,” Obama was successful at being able to gather the support needed in order to pass a health-care reform (“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”).

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as ObamaCare, was drafted with the purpose of providing Americans with better healthcare opportunities. Complete with a “Patient Bill of Rights,” the Affordable Care Act works to protect patients from mistreatment at the hands of insurance companies. According to the Act, insurance companies can no longer deny a patient coverage due to preexisting conditions. Additionally, patients are now given the right to protest and request to appeal a coverage decision made by an insurance company if the patient believes it to be unjust. In order to make healthcare more accessible to the American public, a government website, Healthcare.gov, was made in 2014 to allow people to browse and pick from different insurance plans coverages that would be accommodating to their needs and income. With the implementation of these sections of ObamaCare, the Obama Administration and Democrats alike hoped to bring affordable healthcare coverage to those that were in need and could not afford it beforehand (“Affordable Care Act”).

Although the Democratic Party held more seats in Congress than the Republicans, they were met with strict opposition from Republicans, who agreed a health-care reform was necessary as the Republican candidate who ran against Obama in 2008, John McCain, also ran a campaign with a focus on health-care reform, but disagreed with Obama’s Affordable Care Act. There was much debate between the two parties as they could not reach an agreement when Obama called for the Democrats to unite and pass the law quickly. The debate in the Senate was so extreme they met on Christmas Eve in efforts to pass the bill for the first time since 1895 (“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”). Obama successfully signed the Act as public law in March of 2010. However, the Republicans refused to admit defeat.

As soon as the act was passed, Republicans vowed to repeal it. Organizations and citizens called for the Supreme Court to review it, as they challenged the constitutionality of the act. The Court agreed to review the Act in 2011 and ruled most of the Act constitutional except for a provision that called for Medicare expansion (“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”). In the following years up to 2016, ObamaCare was revised and saw over fifty repeal attempts by the house and the senate before it was taken to the Supreme Court for the last time in 2015 in the King v. Burwell case (“Supreme Court ObamaCare”). However, according to an msnbc article written by Steve Benen, the case saw even more attempts after the King v. Burwell case and saw upwards of 60 repeal attempts by February of 2016.

The Chief of the Justice, John Roberts, was the one to deliver the 6 to 3 decision of the Court on June 25th, 2015. Roberts “soberly” revealed that he was with the majority opinion in ruling the case constitutional (Vogue and Diamond). Roberts’ siding with the liberal wing of the court and swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy surprised and angered conservatives for a second time since the first case in 2011 as he was a justice who was known for his conservative views as he was appointed to the Court by Republican President George W. Bush following the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2003 before becoming the Chief of Justice in 2005. Roberts had supported the constitutionality of ObamaCare the times it reached the Supreme Court, which angered most Republicans that sided with him on most issues (“John Roberts Biography”). This is ultimately what Wilkinson is poking fun at in his political cartoon as President Obama and John Roberts rush the Republican Party elephant into an ambulance labeled ObamaCare.

The opposition the Obama Administration met in their efforts to implement the Affordable Care Act can be compared to the opposition Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) was up against when he fought to pass his New Deal legislations in an effort to mobilize the U.S. economy after The Great Depression of the 1930s. When Roosevelt took office in 1933, his administration spared no time in beginning to draft and implement laws that would benefit the economy. However, a great portion of Roosevelt’s New Deal was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. FDR struggled to find ways to get the government involved in ways that were constitutional in the Court’s eyes, and was a battle he fought throughout his entire presidency. At one point, Roosevelt even tried to change the rules and regulations surrounding the tenure given to justices. The central idea around democracy is the existence and allowance for checks and balances between the different branches of government, ensuring that the constitution is upheld, but can also be a cause for conflict as it was in these two situations.

The injured elephant in Wilkinson’s cartoon represents the Republican Party’s failed attempts at striking down the Act, and the sense of betrayal Republicans felt in hearing Roberts’ verdict. Wilkinson’s mockery of the situation is extended through the use of irony in the cartoon as the Republican elephant is seen being carried into the ambulance that represents the exact Act they fought against incessantly in the years since its inception. Ultimately, the political cartoon is a satirical representation of the struggles experienced on both sides of the ACA battle of the late 2000s and early 2010s.

“Affordable Care Act.” Health and Wellness, edited by Miranda Herbert Ferrara and Michele P. LaMeau, Gale, 2015, pp. 213-218. Life and Career Skills Series Vol. 3. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=txshracd2598&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3626900053&asid=a839c32d69a3950087068d49ee305873. Accessed 16 Nov. 2016.

 

Benen, Steve. “On Groundhog Day, Republicans Vote to Repeal ObamaCare.” The Maddow Blog. Web. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016, http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/groundhog-day-republicans-vote-repeal-obamacare

 

“John Roberts Biography.” Biography.com Editors. Accessed 14 Nov. 2016, http://www.biography.com/people/john-roberts-20681147

 

“King v. Burwell 576 U.S. ___ (2015).” supreme.justia.com, Accessed 15 Nov. 2016, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-114/

 

“Supreme Court ObamaCare | Ruling on ObamaCare.” obamacarefacts.com, Accessed 16 Nov. 2016, http://obamacarefacts.com/supreme-court-obamacare/

 

Taylor, Jerry W. “A Brief History on the Road to Healthcare Reform: From Truman to Obama.” beckershospitalreview.com, Web. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016, http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/news-analysis/a-brief-history-on-the-road-to-healthcare-reform-from-truman-to-obama.html

 

“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law, edited by Donna Batten, 3rd ed., vol. 2: Health Care to Travel, Gale, 2013, pp. 877-880. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=txshracd2598&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX2760300181&asid=2479ea0abb5dd9387b350cefa7289042. Accessed 16 Nov. 2016.

 

Vogue, Ariane de and Diamond, Jeremy. “Supreme Court Saves ObamaCare.” CNN. 25 June 15. Web. Accessed 16 Nov. 2016, http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/politics/supreme-court-ruling-obamacare/

 

Look!

Cartoonist John Knott illustrates the power struggle between Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and the United States Supreme Court regarding the implementation of the New Deal.
Cartoonist John Knott illustrates the power struggle between Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and the United States Supreme Court regarding the implementation of the New Deal.

John Francis Knott’s political cartoon titled, “Look!” published on Wednesday, March 31st, 1937, depicts eight anthropomorphized scrolls outside of a building labeled “Supreme Court”. All eight scrolls are seen outside this building, however, three are walking out of the building with a smile on their faces and a big “OK” stamped on their sides, whereas the other five, battered and bruised, incredulously peer up from the side of the stairs. Each of these scrolls, made to look like people, are labeled. Among the injured scrolls, the words “NRA”, “AAA”, and “Guffey Act”, with the others reading: “RR. Labor Act”, “Frazier-Lemke Act”, and “Minimum Wage Law” (Knott 2). In his political cartoon, John Knott is depicting some of FDR’s New Deal acts and administrations that were ruled unconstitutional in contrast to others that were upheld. The cartoon also illustrates the power struggle between Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and the United States Supreme Court regarding the implementation of the New Deal. The cartoon indexes to the dynamic between the Supreme Court, FDR, and his attempts at court-packing by increasing the number of justices in the Supreme Court that would sway the balance of opinion (“Court Packing Plan”).

The accompanying editorial, “The Court Decides,” provides background information and context for the cartoon in regards to the decisions made by the Court the previous Monday, March 29th, 1937. It explains how the Supreme Court had been reviewing cases involving the New Deal and had actually sustained and upheld over 60% of the New Deal legislation, contrary to the popular belief that it had struck down most of the laws and acts of FDR’s national recovery plan. It further describes the American public’s trust in the Court and the Court’s dedication to “interpret the Constitution as it stands” as they “do not have their ears to the ground, they keep their feet on it.” (“The Court Decides” 2).

As a result of the Wall Street stock market crash on October 24th, 1929 and widespread panic that ensued, The Great Depression of the 1930s was an economic breakdown that began in the U.S. and ultimately led to a worldwide economic collapse. It is the most severe depression of the Western world to date. The United States alone suffered a 30 percent decline in real gross domestic product and unemployment rate was at around 20 percent at its highest point. The American public was desperate for work and the American spirit was at an all-time low (Romer and Pells).

Upon becoming the 32nd president of the United States in the midst of the Depression in 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt did not hesitate to begin working towards nationwide recovery. The United States was in shambles and needed political and economic reform as most of the nation’s banks came to a close, industrial production plummeted, and as many as 15 million people were unemployed. Roosevelt was burdened with responsibilities as he had been elected president to solve the worst economic problem in the history of the United States (“The Great Depression and World War II (1929–1945)”). In his first 100 days in office, known as his great productive opening period, FDR worked with the new democratic congress to enact bills that would begin to stimulate the economy and increase public confidence (Freidel and Sidey). With his New Deal legislation, Roosevelt hoped to put an end to deflation, lighten lower-income group debt, and provide employment to those who had become unemployed as a result of the depression (Dickinson). However, the Supreme Court ultimately stepped in between 1935 and 1936 and struck down eleven pieces of New Deal legislation, explaining that they violated the separation of powers and intruded on states’ reserved powers (“The Great Depression and World War II (1929–1945)”).

These decisions made by the Supreme Court are ultimately what John Knott is referring to in his political cartoon. The three pieces of legislation depicted on the side of the steps of the Supreme Court building in the cartoon, battered and bruised, are the NRA (National Recovery Administration), AAA (Agricultural Adjustment Act), and Guffey Act. The National Recovery Administration or NRA, was a government agency established to work to implement codes promoting fair-practices. The NRA was an element of the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of June 1933 that was intended to work to eliminate unfair trade practices and reduce unemployment. The agency established codes that affected around 22 million workers across several workforces, but came to an abrupt end in 1935 when the Supreme Court invalidated it when ruling it unconstitutional beginning with a specific provision dealing with petroleum industry regulations, but ultimately coming to the conclusion to invalidate the entire act and administration, stating that the NIRA “unconstitutionally extended the power of Congress to regulate commerce among the states to intrastate commercial transactions-that is, business dealings occurring entirely within the boundaries of a state” (Brand).

The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933 was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. A prominent feature of the New Deal alongside the NRA, the AAA aimed to aid the agriculture industry by restoring purchasing powers to farmers, as they had experienced before World War I. The act was “designed to restore parity prices for ‘basic agricultural commodities’—initially defined as wheat, cotton, corn, hogs, rice, tobacco, and milk—by reducing supplies in artificial scarcity. Benefit payments would compensate participating farmers who agreed to curb acreage or kill excess livestock” (Chen). This was made possible through a tax levied on processors of agricultural commodities. This tax increased commodity prices by reducing supplies and enhanced famers’ purchasing power, but faced invalidation as the Court stated that it, like the NRA, intruded on the reserved rights of the states to regulate production. The Court used the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution in their argument as it states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” “Assuming that Congress could not directly compel farmers to reduce acreage or cull livestock” (Chen). However, the AAA was rewritten in 1938 and upheld by the Court in Mulford v. Smith in 1939.

The last of the unconstitutional acts portrayed in the cartoon is The Guffey Act of 1935. Originally named The Bituminous Coal Conservation Act, the Guffey Act was named after its sponsor, Joseph Guffey, a Senator from Pennsylvania, and was passed by congress to regulate and bring stability to the coal industry. The act outlined a minimum price for coal and protected the rights of those who worked for the industry. Additionally, this act worked to established wages and improve working conditions as coal mining had a reputation of being a “sick” industry with frequent worker strikes due to unhealthy and dangerous working conditions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional in 1936 as it interfered with private commerce, similar to the NRA and AAA (O’Neal).

Although many of FDR’s New Deal policies fell under the jurisdiction of the Court and bankers and businessmen turned more and more against his New Deal programs, fearing the way he allowed for deficits in the budget, he was re-elected by a large margin in 1936 (Freidel and Sidey). Because of the problems his New Deal legislation faced in the eyes of the Supreme Court, when re-elected, Roosevelt proposed a new plan to change the Supreme Court. His plan, later known as “Court-Packing” proposed that “for every judge over seventy who did not retire (there were five) the president could appoint an additional justice” (“FDR’s Supreme Court”) Roosevelt claimed the purpose in his proposition to be to expedite the Court’s work, but many believed it was an attempt to place justices that would support his programs. He was met with a heated debate and suffered a loss in credibility in the eyes of the public as they had supported the New Deal, but did not agree with the idea of interfering with the Supreme Court.

Although Roosevelt’s New Deal had suffered a lot by the hands of the Court’s rulings, there were some acts that remained as they were constitutional. The acts Knott decided to include in his cartoon are the R.R. (Railroad/Railway) Labor Act, Frazier-Lemke Act, and the Minimum Wage Law.

The Railway Labor Act (RLA) was a very important piece of labor legislation implemented prior to FDR’s New Deal; however, it was amended in both 1934 and 1936 during President Roosevelt’s first term, and later in 1951 and 1966. The act secured the rights of railway workers and employers in light of numerous strikes that began happening in the late nineteenth century. The1934 amendment to the act addressed concerns of railway workers and unions. Criminal penalties were introduced “in the case of violation of the act’s provisions related to collective bargaining” (McCartin). It allowed for workers to choose their collective bargaining representatives and also created the National Railroad Adjustment Board (NRAB), a board of 34 members that equally represented carriers and unions that corresponded with disputes before they advanced to the National Mediation Board. The amendment of 1936 extended the act to apply to common air carriers of both interstate and foreign commerce as well as transporters of the U.S. mail (McCartin). The decision the Court made on Monday, March 29th, 1937, sought to avoid interstate commerce from being interrupted as a result of strikes and disputes between employers and workers that concerned wages or working conditions on the railroads. It upheld and promoted the practice of collective bargaining in which negotiation could be held between an employer and a labor union as it was a “declaration of public interest and policy”.

The Frazier-Lemke Act, also known as the Farm Bankruptcy Act, was named after its sponsors: North Dakota Senator Lynn Frazier and North Dakota Representative William Lemke. It was passed by congress in 1934 as part of FDR’s First New Deal, its purpose was to restrict banks as they began to repossess farms that faced hardship during the Great Depression. This act allowed the federal courts to lower a farmer’s debt to a level proportional to the existing value of his property. They, under certain conditions, could give these farmers a three year stay of foreclosure in which they did not have to begin debt repayment right away. This law was sustained by the Supreme Court on March 29th, 1937 as it was an amended version that secured creditors’ property rights (Bonner and Eriksson).

The Minimum Wage Law referred to in the editorial explicitly claims that it regarded women. In making this reference, one can conclude that Knott’s political cartoon refers to the Court’s decision on West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish made that previous Monday. The court case involved the West Coast Hotel Company and Elsie Parrish, a maid who worked at the Cascadian Hotel in Wenatchee, Washington. Parrish sued the company due to a discrepancy in her pay and the decision the Court made was in her favor as the Court concluded that the state had an authority to interfere in labor contracts if it “appeared that the parties were not equal in bargaining power or where the failure to intervene would endanger public health” (Goble). The Court argued that in denying a woman a living wage was a danger to their health and community, and subsequently warranted the enactment of a minimum wage law for them.

Look! is a political cartoon by John Knott published in the Dallas Morning News that illustrated the constitutionality of different acts of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal. As FDR worked tirelessly to implement legislation for the betterment of the American economic system, he was faced with continual backlash from the Supreme Court in terms of unconstitutionality in regards to some of his acts. Knott’s use of portraying the individual acts as men dressed up as scrolls that have either been approved or kicked ‘to the curb’ can show how the “majority of conservative America” had the “utmost confidence” in the Supreme Court’s ruthlessness and dedication to uphold the constitution as well as the continuing power struggle experienced between the Courts and FDR (“The Court Decides” 2).

Bonner, Jeremy, and Erik McKinley Eriksson. “Frazier-Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act.” Dictionary of American History, edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 3rd ed., vol. 3, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2003, p. 457. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=txshracd2598&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3401801593&asid=cbc7cb890562d387a1b7746b03d7d431. Accessed 14 Nov. 2016.

 

Brand, Donald R. “National Recovery Administration.” Encyclopedia of U.S. Political History. Ed. Robert H. Zieger. Vol. 5: Prosperity, Depression, and War, 1921 to 1945. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2010. 247-251. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.

 

Chen, Jim. “Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933).” Major Acts of Congress. Ed. Brian K. Landsberg. Vol. 1. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 9-13. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.

 

“Collective Bargaining.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

 

“Court-Packing Plan.” The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. Ed. David Schultz and John R. Vile. Vol. 1. Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference, 2005. 244-246. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.

 

Dickinson, M.J. (1996) ‘Creating the resource gap: Bargaining costs and the First New Deal, 1933–5’, in Bitter Harvest: FDR, Presidential Power and the Growth of the Presidential Branch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–85.

 

“FDR’s Supreme Court: How did the Supreme Court Weather the Attempt by Franklin D. Roosevelt to Increase the Number of Justices in Response to Its Rescinding New Deal Legislation?” History in Dispute. Ed. Robert J. Allison. Vol. 3: American Social and Political Movements, 1900-1945: Pursuit of Progress. Detroit: St. James Press, 2000. 24-31. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.

 

Freidel, Frank and Sidey, Hugh “The Presidents of the United States of America,” Copyright 2006 by the White House Historical Association. Web. 16 Oct. 2016. https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/franklindroosevelt

 

Goble, George W. “West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish.” Dictionary of American History, edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 3rd ed., vol. 8, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2003, p. 445. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=txshracd2598&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3401804515&asid=9a8e9208da11f626b34fcb4d75776ce2. Accessed 15 Nov. 2016.

 

McCartin, Joseph A. “Railway Labor Act.” St. James Encyclopedia of Labor History Worldwide, edited by Neil Schlager, vol. 2, St. James Press, 2004, pp. 166-171. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

 

“National Recovery Administration (NRA)”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 07 Nov. 2016.

 

O’Neal, Michael J. “Guffey Act.” St. James Encyclopedia of Labor History Worldwide. Ed. Neil Schlager. Vol. 1. Detroit: St. James Press, 2004. 407-410. Gale Virtual ReferenceLibrary. Web. 17 Oct. 2016.

 

Romer, Christina D. and Pells, Richard H.”Great Depression”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 08 Nov. 2016 <https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Depression>.

 

“The Great Depression and World War II (1929–1945).” Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. History: Government and Politics, vol. 2, Gale, 2008. Gale Virtual Reference Library, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=GVRL&sw=w&u=txshracd2598&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CCX3048400016&asid=591a52c4bb42666249bf026343a3ecd3. Accessed 20 Nov. 2016.

 

“Virginian Railway Co. v. Railway Employees 300 U.S. 515 (1937).” supreme.justia.com, 15 Nov. 2016, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/300/515/

Nice Work!

The United States’ economy took a hard strike in 1929. Since that devastating moment in history and throughout the time frame of economic struggle, the active presidents did what they could, in their opinion, to help the economy from self destructing. The Dallas Morning News’ November 25, 1933 editorial visits one of the methods used to succor the nation in times of hardship. In addition, John Knott’s political cartoon accompanies the editorial depicting Lewis Douglas, the director of the Bureau of Budget and Planning during Fredrick D. Roosevelt’s term in office, trying to cut down the national budget to save the economy. The Bureau of Budget and Planning director primarily inspects government activities, coordinate fiscal estimates, and generally control expenditures. The editorial and political cartoon render an illustration of the vigorous attempt to rescue the United States from its state of penury.

On October 29, 1929, also known as Black Tuesday, the United States fell into the worst economic period of the twentieth century when the American stock market crashed. Due to the Great Depression, banks failed, the nation’s money supply diminished, companies went bankrupt causing them to fire their workers in flocks. President Herbert Hoover urged patience and self reliance and claimed that it was not the government’s job to try and resolve the issue. Thus, 1932 was  the blackest year of the Great Depression with one-fourth of the work force unemployed. Once Franklin D. Roosevelt became the nation’s thirty-second president, he acted swiftly to try and stabilize the economy and provide jobs and relief to those suffering. As it turns out, Roosevelt actually created more problems for the government in his attempt to help and by creating the New Deal. Although, not in the beginning. At first, when Lewis Douglas was chosen as the Director of the Bureau of Budget, the nation was contempt with his plans. Douglas was an advocate of balanced budgets and limited government expenditures.

The $2,600,000,000 Budget editorial that is paired with the cartoon voices Lewis Douglas’ plan for the nation. He set a goal of two billion six hundred million dollars for normal annual expenditure by the government. This plan cuts off twenty-five percent in the figure for the fiscal year. The article also mentions how the budget director would have to deal with Congress. Since Douglas’ budget was undoubtedly astray from the normal budget, congress decided to proceed with caution as far as permitting this plan. In contrast, the article articulates that the nation’s taxpayers would love Douglas, for the budget required drastic reductions in pension programs and also economy in all offices. The budget director would not be popular in Washington, but would be worshipped by the tax-bearing citizens.

The political cartoon, Nice Work! by John Knott, a rather rugged man is shown chopping off a portion of a tree log, while another more comfortable looking man is shown sitting on the opposite end of the log. The tree log laid out on the ground is labeled ‘National Budget’ and is already partially cut through. The man holding the ax in the air getting ready to continue chopping the log is Lewis Douglas. His arm is labeled ‘Douglas’ and he is not wearing a coat and has his sleeves rolled up. Douglas is illustrated with a sweaty, frustrated, yet determined face. This portrays how Douglas was hard at work to cut down the national budget. The taxpayer sitting on the end of the log has his hand up and his mouth open as if he is alarmed by what Douglas is doing. Although the taxpayer is not showing any sign of stopping him. Taxpayers are alarmed by this proclamation that the director of budgetary is suggesting because the nation has never seen this done and they are not sure if this will necessarily help their current economy’s issues. The cartoon is ironic since the taxpayer should actually be cheering Douglas on for cutting down their taxes, rather than what Roosevelt has in store for them. The government is the one who should be worrying about this new plan when their salary will be cut down just like the tree log.

In the long run, Lewis Douglas was only awarded with a short term in the spotlight. Roosevelt later downplayed efforts to cut costs and balance the budget causing Douglas’ role to diminish. A month after signing the Economy Act on March 20, 1933 to fulfill Douglas’s expectations, Roosevelt restricted gold imports, signaling his turn toward inflationary measures. Given Roosevelt’s new change in direction for the economy, the government needed more funding than what was available so they increased taxes. The monetary extraction from hardworking America prolonged the depression. Lewis Douglas resigned which magnified the increasing divergence between what Frederick D. Roosevelt had promised during a 1932 presidential campaign and what played out to be even more problems for the economy.

Works Cited

Dickinson, Matthew J. “The BoB and Other Institutional Staff Agencies.”Bitter Harvest: FDR, Presidential Power, and the Growth of the Presidential Branch. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1996. 59-62. Print.

Hazlitt, Henry. “Lewis Douglas Dissects The New Deal: The Former Director of the Budget Thinks We Are Heading Toward Collectivism.”The New York Times 28 July 1935, The Liberal Tradition sec.: BR4. Print.

Patton, Mike. “A Brief History Of The Individual And Corporate Income Tax.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 31 Oct. 2015. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

History.com Staff. “New Deal.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2009. Web. 06 Nov. 2015.

Knott, John. “Nice Job!” Cartoon. Dallas Morning News 25 Nov. 1933, 2nd ed. Print.

“$2,600,000,000 Budget” Editorial. Dallas Morning News 25 Nov. 1933, 2nd ed., sec. 2: 2. Print.

It’s All Greek to Me

A confused Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras holding a book entitled, “Basic Economics".
A confused Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras holding a book entitled, “Basic Economics”.

Since the global recession of 2008, Greece’s economy has been struggling. While Europe suffered from a debt crisis following Wall Street’s crash, Greece was hit the hardest by the recession. In October 2009, Greece revealed the severity of deficit  (of about 317 billion Euros) admitting that it had been understated for years. Many countries in the European Union(EU) began to worry about the country’s economic status. Because the European Union shares economic responsibility of all states between every member state due to a shared currency, the state of Greece’s economy has a large effect on other countries in the EU. The EU decided to take preventative measures by refusing Greece’s requests to borrow money; however, without the ability to borrow, Greece spiraled into bankruptcy, so the International Monetary Fund, European Central Bank, and European Commission issued two bailouts for Greece that totaled about 240 billion Euros. Although, these bailouts did not come without strings attached. Greece was required to revamp its economy, instituting harsh austerity measures, deep budget cuts, and large tax increases. The lenders also wanted Greece “to overhaul its economy by streamlining the government, ending tax evasion and making Greece an easier place to do business” (New York Times). This crisis illustrates the importance of proper financial reporting and decision making in a nation.

While the two bailouts were supposed to help stabilize Greece’s economy, most of the money has gone to paying Greece’s outstanding loans.  in July of 2015, Greece’s economy was in a dire situation and its relationship with the European Union was in a fragile state. Greece’s Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has been unable and unwilling to make many reforms that were necessary for a successful economic reform. They have made no reforms, and many people, including Tsipras, believe Greeks are too proud to change. Even though the EU has imposed austerity measures onto Greece in exchange for the bailout money, Tsipras said, “We don’t believe in the measures that were imposed upon us” (Petroff). Tsipras has refused to make any internal reforms other than those imposed upon the country by their lenders. This has led to disagreement on lending from the EU countries, such as Germany.

Now after receiving a third round of bailout money from the EU, Greece’s creditors are angry that no significant economic or governmental reform has been made in Greece because Greece’s economy affects their creditors. Now many members of the EU want Greece to leave the union as Greece does not contribute enough financially, yet needs constant support (New York Times). While many believe that Greece’s economic situation is straining the EU’s economy, others believe that Greece should be supported during their economic hardship until they can recover and once again contribute to the EU’s economy.

This political dilemma is the focus of Michael Ramirez’s political cartoon in Investor’s Business Daily on July 7, 2015, we see Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras holding a book titled, “Basic Economics,” and saying, “it’s all Greek to me.” Ramirez employs a classic cliche relating to Greece, “It’s all Greek to me,” which colloquially means that something is impossible to understand like Greek letters. The usage of this phrase is comical due to the fact that Tsipras is Greek, so not only should he be able to understand his own language, but as the Prime Minister of a country that founded Western Civilization, he should be able to understand basic economics. Ramirez’s cartoon claims many of the economic issues in Greece are due to Tsipras’s inability as a Prime Minister to enact change effectively, and his exaggerated drawing of Tsipras’s illustrates him as baffoonish and caveman-esque with his large brow ridge and jowls.  Since Tsipras is pointing at an economics book and saying that it is impossible to understand, Ramirez is highlighting Tsipras’s ineptitude as a Prime Minister. He has been unable to employ successful economic and political reform following the bailouts, and he could not convince his fellow politicians to accept the bailout.

In Knott’s comic, There Ain’t No Such Animal, he focuses on Germany’s reparations and their affect on other nations, just as Ramirez focuses on Greece’s economic woes and the effect of this on the EU. Both comics employ an exaggerated caricature holding signs to illustrate their political meaning. Both cartoons focus on the economic strife of a country, and other countries reaction to said economic trouble. In Knott’s comic, he illustrates the world ignoring the struggle of Germany due to their compliance with stringent reparations, while Ramirez illustrates Greece’s ineptitude and the EU’s disapproval of Greece’s economic policies. While both cartoons deal with complex economic situations and the world’s reaction to those economic policies, they differ in the reactions.

Greece’s Economic crisis has had a huge effect on the global economy, and the crisis has shown the importance of economic reform and proper usage of bailout funds. Due to this crisis and inability to control the Syriza part, Tsipras resigned his post as Prime Minister of Greece on August 20 (The Economist). If Greece had been able to control their financial reports and made better financial decisions in the years leading up to the 2008 recession, this situation could have been avoided, but due to poor financial planning and an ability to cooperate with creditors Greece has earned a reputation within the EU as uncontrollable and risky, and its exit from the Union and return to the Drachma could be soon to follow if things do not change in Greece.

Works Cited

Alderman, Liz, et al. “Greece’s Debt Crisis Explained.” New York Times [New York City] 9 Nov. 2015: n. pag. nytimes.com. Web. 17 Nov. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/greece-debt-crisis-euro.html?_r=0>.

Data Team. “Another Greek Vote: Tsipras Resigns.” The Economist 20 Aug. 2015: n. pag. The Economist. Web. 17 Nov. 2015. <http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/08/another-greek-vote>.

Hatzigeorgiou, Andreas. “The Greek Economic Crisis – Is The Euro To Blame?.” World Economics 15.3 (2014): 143-162. Business Source Complete. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Knight, Daniel M. “The Greek Economic Crisis As Trope.” Focaal 2013.65 (2013): 147-159. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Petroff, Alanna. “Tsipras: I Don’t Believe in New Greek Reforms.” CNN Money.  N.p., 14 July 2015. Web. 29 Nov. 2015. <http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/14/   news/economy/greece-crisis-tsipras-parliament-vote/index.html>.

Ramirez, Michael. “It’s All Greek to Me.” Cartoon. Investor’s Business Daily: n. pag. Investor’s Business Daily. Web. 17 Nov. 2015. <http://www.investors.com/default.htm>.

There Ain’t No Such Animal

Uncle Sam as he passes by the "Germanese Twins"
Uncle Sam as he passes by the “Germanese Twins”

There Ain’t  No Such Animal

John Knott ~ December 28, 1931

World War I was an enormous global conflict that completely altered the geopolitical landscape and changed the way the world thought about war. Many societies, including the United States, were astonished by the unprecedented death toll that occurred due to advances in weapons, machines, and trench warfare. The introduction of tanks, the automatic gun, and use of chemical weapons, such as tear gas, led to horrors that had never been seen before. With a generation of young men killed and injured due to the Great War, society was left changed, and the United States’s view of the contributing factors and aftermath of this war were broadcast throughout the nation in newspapers. In the political cartoon There Aint No Such Animal, by John Knott from the December 28, 1931 issue of the Dallas Morning News, we see a satirical and politically biting interpretation of the controversial war reparations brought upon Germany by the Allied powers.

Following World War I, at the Paris Peace conferences, the Allied powers had to decide what punishments to divvy out to the Central powers. The Allied powers decided to force the defeated Central powers to pay reparations. However, the other Central powers could not pay reparations because many countries were bankrupt and their governments had broken apart, such as the dissolution of Austro-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, Germany was forced to take sole responsibility for World War I and for the reparations. Many countries recognized there were other contributing factors to World War I and believed the reparations would be too harsh, which would lead to geo-political and economic consequences in the future (Webb, 786). However, France believed Germany deserved to pay all these reparations due to France’s destruction at the hands of German troops. The debate over reparations was a point of contention throughout the Paris peace conferences. Germany had to pay thirty-three billion US dollars to the Allied powers in 1931, which is the equivalent of five hundred and sixteen billion dollars in 2015 (Webb, 793-4). The Allied powers should have had the foresight to see that these penalties were too harsh and would ultimately lead to further tragedy, such as World War II.

In the political cartoon, There Aint No Such Animal, we see Uncle Sam passing a store front acknowledging, yet walking away from the ‘Germanese twins’.  The title of the cartoon alludes to the idea that this colossal amount of debt and reparations had never been seen before because no war resolution had ever resulted in such large reparations directed at one country. As we see Uncle Sam peering into a window, in shock at the two fat twins, and he is trying to wave at them. Yet, the twins look back angrily through the window. Germany was angry because America was one of the countries that contributed to the reparations, and the German people believed the reparations were unfair and humiliating to their country. The twin’s size illustrates that Germany had a large war debt. Uncle Sam’s facial reaction alludes to the American people’s guilt of Germany’s financial situation. The ‘Germanese twins’ represent the massive war debts and the one hundred and thirty-two billion gold marks of war reparations that Germany had to pay (Taussig, 37-8). Knott employs the use of humor through his characterizations of the two global superpowers. The emblem of Uncle Sam is supposed to demonstrate American military heroism, yet here Uncle Sam shies away from his own actions. The large size of the twins and their angry expressions are literal in demonstrating Germany’s large debts and reparations and their anger about said debts and reparations, and Knott illustrates the humiliation and reduction of Germany as a country by placing the twins behind a glass window. The glass window allows others to ignore their plight and their accountability.

The Basel Report opinion article that is paired with the cartoon explains the economic consequences of Germany’s war debts and reparations. The article states that economists in over eleven nations believed that Germany was unable to pay these reparations due to their “declining business, departures from the gold standard, tariff bars, and heavy interest charges on loans and credits” (The Basel Report).  Another issue set forth in the article is that taxes could not be raised to pay the reparations. There was growing fear that Germany’s economic crisis could start a global economic decline. In the cartoon, we see Uncle Sam shying away from the twins, but also staring at them in fear of what troubles they could bring. The issue that the war debts and reparations were part of the same issue and could not be separated is demonstrated in the cartoon by representing them as twins. Basel asks, “If war debts due us cannot be met in full, they should be reduced. Why worry over the loss of driblets, when billions of dollars are being lost annually through the continuance of hard times and unemployment?” (The Basel Report). Clearly the reparations were not the answer to global economic repair, and many people found the reparations to be ridiculous and humiliating, as the cartoon illustrates.

Ultimately, these reparations were unjust and shortsighted because they forced Germany into a financial crisis from which they could not recover. As world renowned economist John Keynes said this was a ‘Carthinagian’ solution that ultimately led to the complete destruction of Germany’s economy and political system. The economic collapse and degradation of the ineffective Weimar Republic led to poor quality of life, rampant poverty, and desperation in Germany that ultimately led the German people to alternatives like the Nazi party to save the country from total disaster.

Works Cited

Bradley, Megan. “Reparations.” The Encyclopedia of Political Science. Ed. George Thomas          Kurian. Vol. 5. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2011. 1459-1460. Gale Virtual Reference              Library. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

Knott, John. “There Ain’t No Such Animal.” Cartoon. Dallas Morning News 28 Dec. 1931, 89th ed. Print.

Taussig, F. W.. “Germany’s Reparation Payments”. The American Economic Review 10.1 (1920): 33–49.

“The Basel Report.” Editorial. Dallas Morning News 28 Dec. 1931, 89th ed., sec. 1: 4. Print.

Webb, Steven B.. “Fiscal News and Inflationary Expectations in Germany After World War I”. The Journal of Economic History 46.3 (1986): 769–794.

 

Caveat Emptor: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Political Corruption

Two men waiting in line for a handout from a government official while behind a fence around the Capitol
Two men waiting in line for a handout from a government official while behind a fence around the Capitol.

Economic turmoil created heavy doubt in civil servants in 1930’s Dallas. Political scandals didn’t help the federal government’s case when trying to win over the good hearted people of Dallas, Texas. The Dallas Morning News’ 1933 editorial “Civil Service Needed” is an outcry against the job buying problem in political machines. Knott’s political cartoon, “Caveat Emptor,” perfectly captures political bosses ripping off Congressmen in a back alley deal. Knott’s humorous insight and the Dallas Morning News sheds light on corruption at the federal level.There are many factors that prelude to the punchline in Knott’s cartoon. Political machines created problems long before 1933, such as the Tweed Ring of the late 19th century (Kennedy 473). Progressive legislation from the Theodore Roosevelt Administration simmered down political machines (Jackson); however, with FDR’s New Deals creating about three million empty jobs at the state and local levels (Kelber), the system began to pick up some more momentum. Traditionally with this form of corruption, people at the lower rung of the machine would give funds and votes to a certain candidate. A newly elected and corrupted official would then rig legislation to give jobs and contracts to contributors to his campaign, cutting out the poor souls who believed in hard work over money. Now with such a large increase in government owned jobs in Depression era America, who was to determine the allocations of these jobs? Enter newly surcharged political machines, ready to give out jobs to the highest bidder.

The good folks of Dallas, Texas weren’t so keen on government handouts made by the political machines. An November 3rd 1933 editorial in the Dallas Morning News titled, “Civil Service Needed” strongly urges, “the wider need of civil service in state employment” The editorial serves as a response to new revelations of campaign solicitation within the Treasury Department (Dallas Morning News 18), which slides perfectly into the definition of political machines. According to the Editorial, corruption can’t be eliminated until change has been brought at the highest level, a burning need for legislation that penalizes political machines higher and higher. It’s also pretty safe to say the, “evil revelation” of job buying is also shared by the mass majority of Americans, a time where nobody found new jobs in a broken economy.

Knott’s cartoon repeats this message against job solicitation, but allows the audience to laugh at the powerful individuals involved. The young man with his hand in his deep pocket portrays congress. His happy-go-lucky face clearly describes he has no idea what is going on. His counterpart to his left has a better idea of a bigger picture. The cigar, large gut, and authoritative demeanor of the man to the left makes him literally large-and-in-charge in the transaction. Cigar man can easily be related to the political bosses who ran the machines, holding a parchment titled state jobs. He’s not the only boss, the next guy behind him is expecting the same treatment and handout from congress on the right. The fence in the background makes the action in the foreground very wrong, like some back alley drug deal. So clearly Knott is saying political machines are shady, and this process is happening again and again. What’s humorous comes from the relationship between the two parties. In a political machine, the representative is meant to be seen as the guy in charge, as he is the one giving the jobs to the highest bidder. Though the other guys look more aware of what’s going on, after all, “the job buyer is no less guilty of political corruption than the job seller” (Dallas Morning News 18). Very much akin to the image of the communist spy in the war room in Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove; two parties who think they have the upper hand, but in the end are still the loser. Knott flips that around because the bosses are ripping off the corrupt congress, instead of politicians apparently selling to the highest bidder.

Can there be any benefits to job distribution? Or does Knott’s cartoon serve as the ultimate warning to corrupt politicians? The cartoon title, “Caveat Emptor” translates from Latin to “Let the buyer’s beware” Although, the machines weren’t so wary against they’re actions, they believed corruption was in the right. The political machines did manage to benefit those who were a part of it, and they were the only way to, “ultimately provide stable and reliable government,” in an already corrupt system (Ehrenhalt). Take Mayor Daley’s Chicago in the 1950s, where his political machine built many jobs in and around the city (Ehrenhalt). So to some Americans, and I guess some politicians, in order to move forward as a nation, jobs must be bought, and loyalty must be seized, and men must appear with big guts and cigars behind fences. There are definitely men such as Mayor Daley who oppose Knott’s opinions, saying he’s just Knott funny. According to machine supporters, if you corrupt an already corrupt system, then two wrongs can make a right.

Political Machines bought and sold jobs like hot commodities during the Great Depression. The desperate American people and general apathetic feelings toward government allowed corruption to spread. Nevertheless, the people at the Dallas Morning News weren’t afraid to show their true colors. Knott’s cartoon made politicians look like the fools that they are, creating humor in an otherwise dark subject.  The impact of the article at the time may have been small, but in today’s world of information, the archives help show how Americans thought in 1930s Texas. Knott was a forefather in political satire, a sign of not only more mistakes made by politicians, but great satirists such as Stanley Kubrick. Both the editorial and Knott’s cartoon make America’s voice heard in an otherwise silenced nation, crying against any form of political corruption, and making fun of those who do.

Sources:

Dallas Morning News, ed. “Civil Service Needed.” Editorial. Dallas Morning News 3 Nov. 1933: 18. America’s Newspapers [NewsBank]. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Ehrenhalt, Alan. “Why Political Machines Were Good for Government.” Why Political Machines Were Good for Government. Governing, July 2015. Web. 03 Nov. 2015. <http://www.governing.com/columns/assessments/gov-political-machines-positives.html>.

Kelber, Harry. “How the New Deal Created Millions of Jobs To Lift the American People from Depression.” How the New Deal Created Millions of Jobs To Lift the American People from Depression. The Labor Educator, 9 May 2008. Web. 26 Oct. 2015. <http://www.laboreducator.org/newdeal2.htm>.

Jackson, Bill. “Political Machines.” Political Machines. The Social Studies Help Center, 2015. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Kennedy, Robert C. “Nast, Thomas (1840–1902).” Encyclopedia of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era. Ed. John D. Buenker and Joseph Buenker. Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference, 2013. 473-474. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.