The Ladies' Brain Trust & other influential women of the New Deal

In 1938, syndicated columnist Drew Pearson suggested that a Ladies' Brain Trust existed, consisting of four women who advised Frances Perkins. Below are Frances Perkins, the four members of the Ladies' Brain Trust, and several other women important to the New Deal.
  

Above: U.S. Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins leaving the White House, 1939. Perkins was a major architect of Social Security and once wrote, "What was the New Deal anyhow? Was it a political plot? Was it just a name for a period in history? Was it a revolution? To all of these questions I answer 'No.' It was something quite different... It was, I think, basically an attitude. An attitude that found voice in expressions like 'the people are what matter to government,' and 'a government should aim to give all the people under its jurisdiction the best possible life." For more information on Perkins, visit the Frances Perkins Center. Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Above: Ladies' Brain Truster No. 1 - Clara Beyer, right, confers with Frances Perkins, ca. 1938. Beyer was an administrator in the Bureau of Labor Standards and an aide to Perkins. When Beyer passed away in 1990, the New York Times pointed out that she played an important role "in the development of much of the social legislation that marked the New Deal: establishing worker safety, maximum hours, minimum wages and Social Security." And Beyer had been fighting for workers long before the New Deal. In 1922, when the New York Times condemned the concept of a minimum wage, Beyer wrote to them and declared, "If a minimum wage is economically unsound, then Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, France, Argentina, Norway, and all of the Canadian Provinces bordering on the United States with the exception of New Brunswick, as well as twelve of our states and the District of Columbia, are committed to an unsound principle, for in these [areas] minimum wages... are established by law" (Clara Beyer, "The Minimum Wage," New York Times, November 2, 1922). Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Above: Ladies' Brain Truster No. 2 - Mary LaDame, 1933. Pearson described LaDame as a social worker, previously employed by the Russell Sage Foundation, and also the "most active trusterette." During the New Deal, LaDame worked in the employment service division of the Labor Department, and did not hesitate to take her ideas past her supervisor, and directly to Secretary Perkins (Madera Tribune, January 18, 1938). Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Above: Ladies' Brain Truster No. 3 - Congresswoman Mary T. Norton, surrounded by reporters at Capitol Hill, 1939. Norton served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1925-1951. Upon her passing in 1959, the New York Times wrote "Mrs. Norton was a staunch New Dealer and helped to guide the late President Franklin D. Roosevelt's wage and hour legislation as well as to defend it later. She also championed the Fair Employment Practices Act and was instrumental in raising the minimum-wage level from 40 to 75 cents an hour" ("Mary Norton, 84; Legislator, Dead," New York Times, August 3, 1959). Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress.
 

Above: Ladies' Brain Truster No. 4 - Mary Dewson (or "Molly" Dewson) confers with other members of the newly-created Social Security Board, 1937. Dewson not only served on the Social Security Board, she helped shape the Social Security Act itself as an adviser to the Committee on Economic Security. Reflecting on the New Deal, Dewson remarked, "At last women had their foot inside the door. We had the opportunity to demonstrate our ability to see what was needed and to get the job done while working harmoniously with men. The opportunities given women by Roosevelt in the thirties changed our status" (Susan Ware, Partner and I: Molly Dewson, Feminism, and New Deal Politics, 1987, p.193). While certainly a true statement, Dewson was downplaying her own skill as an agent for change- a skill honed by years of working for social justice causes, for example, women's suffrage. Pearson said Dewson was "probably the shrewdest lady around the New Deal high command" (Madera Tribune, January 18, 1938). For more information on Dewson, see her Living New Deal biography here: https://livingnewdeal.org/what-was-the-new-deal/new-dealers/. Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.

Other influential women of the New Deal...

 Above: The Director - Hallie Flanagan at the Lafayette Theatre in Harlem, New York, 1936. After conservative members of Congress shut down down the WPA's Federal Theatre Project (FTP) in 1939 (over concerns about "wasteful spending," communism, and the mixing of races) Flanagan wrote, "If [the FTP] had been less alive it might have lived longer. But I do not believe anyone who worked on it regrets that it stood from first to last against reaction, against prejudice, against racial, religious, and political intolerance" (Hallie Flanagan, Arena, 1940, p. 367). Flanagan and her workers gave 64,000 performances to 30 million Americans. For more information on Flanagan, see her Living New Deal biography here: https://livingnewdeal.org/what-was-the-new-deal/new-dealers/. Photo courtesy of Wikipedia.

Above: The Social Justice Dancer - Helen Tamiris, in Vanity Fair magazine, 1930. When Tamiris died in 1966, the New York Times wrote: "Largely through her efforts as the first president of the American Dance Association, dance was included in the Federal Theater of the Works Progress Administration. She served as the theater's chief choreographer in New York from 1937 until 1939. As the nineteen-thirties unfolded, Miss Tamiris's dancing and choreography showed a strong social and political involvement. The despair of the unemployed, the plight of the Southern Negro and the horrors of war all found expression in her work. One of the most successful of these was 'How Long, Brethren?' which was produced in 1937. 'The validity of modern dance,' she explained, 'is rooted in its ability to express modern problems and, further, to make modern audiences want to do something about them'" ("Helen Tamiris, Dancer, Is Dead: Choreographer Put a Stress on Social Responsibility," New York Times, August 5, 1966). Image scanned from a personal copy.

Above: The Teacher - Mary McLeod Bethune, reading from her bible at Bethune-Cookman College, a school she helped create decades earlier, 1943. Bethune was a top administrator in the National Youth Administration and a member of FDR's Black Cabinet. During World War II, Bethune called on African Americans to help the nation win the conflict. She said, "Despite the attitude of some employers in refusing to hire Negroes… we must not fail America…” Congressman Martin Dies (D-Tex), of the House Un-American Activities Committee rewarded her work by calling her a communist, a charge that was quickly withdrawn by the larger committee. When she passed away in 1955, the Washington Post wrote: "Not only her own people but all America has been enriched and ennobled by her courageous, ebullient spirit." Today, a statue of Bethune stands at Lincoln Park in Washington, DC. For more information on Bethune, see her Living New Deal biography here: https://livingnewdeal.org/what-was-the-new-deal/new-dealers/. Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress.

Above: The Tough-As-Nails New Dealer from the South - Ellen Woodward watches as children from low-income families dive into some toys made (or refurbished) on a WPA work project in New York, 1938. Born and raised in Mississippi, Woodward held several positions important to the New Deal, including head of the WPA's Women's and Professional Projects division. Woodward helped secure more work-relief jobs for unemployed women, told the red-baiting (and publicity-seeking) House Un-American Activities Committee that they were the ones who were un-American, and bristled at the idea that WPA wages were too high for African American women, declaring: "Government isn’t justified in paying people starvation wages because they only got that much before." For more information on Woodward, see Martha Swain's book, Ellen S. Woodward: New Deal Advocate for Women, 1995, as well as her Living New Deal biography here: https://livingnewdeal.org/what-was-the-new-deal/new-dealers/. Photo courtesy of the National Archives and the New Deal Network.

Above: The First Lady Extraordinaire - Eleanor Roosevelt visits a WPA work project in Des Moines, Iowa, 1936. Few, if any people in history have done as much for civil and human rights as Eleanor Roosevelt. During the New Deal she opened up more opportunities for women, minorities, and youth - the director of the National Youth Administration wrote: "Her unfailing interest, her deep and sympathetic understanding of the problems of youth, and her endless courage were a source of great strength and guidance to the NYA, to the youth on its program, and to the youth of America." After the New Deal, Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the UN Commission on Human Rights and helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 25 of the Declaration states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." We haven't come anywhere near these aspirations of course, not even in the United States (the supposed wealthiest country in the world) but someday, when humanity is informed and mature enough, Eleanor Roosevelt's work will be there to tap into. For more information on Eleanor Roosevelt, see her Living New Deal biography here: https://livingnewdeal.org/what-was-the-new-deal/new-dealers/. Photo courtesy of the FDR Presidential Library and Museum.

Above: Women in New Deal Work Programs - A statue of a WPA worker at the Norfolk Botanical Garden in Virginia. Hundreds of thousands of formerly-unemployed women in the various New Deal work programs were influential because they answered a call; because they proved that they could perform all manner of work if someone just gave them opportunities instead of insults. During their time in the WPA, women worked on scientific projects to fight disease, preserved our nation's history, delivered books to Americans in remote rural areas, fed the nation's children, cared for the nation's sick, clothed the needy, provided administrative support for infrastructure projects, and much more. And when America entered World War II, they contributed by sewing and repairing various military gear, and enrolling in the National Youth Administration's defense industry training - many Rosie the Riveters and Wendy the Welders came from the NYA. All these women, through their voluminous work, justified the New Deal and its work programs. Author Nick Taylor wrote of WPA workers: "These ordinary men and women proved to be extraordinary beyond all expectation. They were golden threads woven in the national fabric. In this, they shamed the political philosophy that discounted their value and rewarded the one that placed its faith in them, thus fulfilling the founding vision of a government by and for its people. All its people" (American-Made, 2008, p. 530). Photo courtesy of the Norfolk Botanical Garden.

New Deal Art: "Aspects of Suburban Life: Public Dock"

Above: "Aspects of Suburban Life: Public Dock," an oil painting by Paul Cadmus (1904-1999), created while he was in the WPA's Federal Art Project, 1936. The painting shows a chaotic reaction to a loose eel. Image courtesy of the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

The U.S. Department of Energy Creates New WPA-Style Posters

Above: The U.S. Department of Energy recently created a set of posters "Inspired by iconic New Deal-era posters from the Works Progress Administration (WPA)..." You can see large images of the posters here, and you can download high-resolution pdfs here. Image above courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy.

Above: A WPA poster showing the Old Faithful geyser, ca. 1938. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress.

New Deal Art: "Engine House and Bunkers"

Above: "Engine House and Bunkers," an oil painting by Austin Mecklem (1894-1951), created while he was in the New Deal's Public Works of Art Project, 1934. Image courtesy of the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

The Democratic Party has become the Bleak Hill Boarding School

The Democratic Establishment scolds its party members who support Bernie Sanders, and scolds those who support Sanders' call for radical change to the status quo of money in politics, financial fraud, and income inequality: 

Above: In this 30-second video (a scene from the Our Gang episode, "Mush and Milk") we see what the Democratic Party has devolved into - a mean, cantankerous shadow of its former New Deal self, completely dismissive of its non-elite members - members who resist subscribing to their neoliberal, corporate-friendly agenda. In their eyes, if you support Bernie Sanders and his non-Wall Street candidacy, you're a crazy wide-eyed dreamer who hasn't grown up yet. They seem to collectively say, "Eat your mush!"

Another hit piece on Bernie Sanders is on the Huffington Post today, this time from Dr. Ruth Nemzoff, a scholar at Brandeis University. She tells us that even though Sanders is a nice guy--heck, she's even dated guys like him!--he won't be able to govern like good ol' Hillary "Wall Street" Clinton: "He may have wonderful progressive ideas, but Hillary is a policy wonk. She understands the need for compromise..." Nemzoff then closes her piece with a dismissive sneer: "The young want revolution... Guess maybe I have become an old fuddy duddy, but you won't find me sitting around allowing simple answers (fantasies) to rule" ("Bernie is Nice Enough But Hillary Is the One Who Can Govern!," Huffington Post, 2-23-2016).

Nimzoff's op-ed is just the latest in a bombardment of articles, letters, and op-eds from elites in (or supporters of) the Democratic establishment. These writers scold Sanders and his supporters as idealistic dreamers who are going to throw away their votes in a fit of wide-eyed impracticality.

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman disciplined left-leaning voters who don't plan on supporting Clinton, by writing: "there’s nothing noble about seeing your values defeated because you preferred happy dreams to hard thinking..." Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright has warned that there's a "special place in hell" for women who don't vote for Clinton. Actress Beth Broderick fears potential tax increases under Sanders and says "Already our wealthiest individuals and corporations are relocating themselves to avoid the existing tax rate and there is very little we can do to stop them... I just prefer a more pragmatic approach."

Wow, there is little we can do to stop tax avoidance and tax evasion?? - this is typical of Democrats who've thrown up their hands and said, "I give up, let's just capitulate to unpatriotic Americans and white collar criminals - and let's certainly not listen to Bernie Sanders and his supporters when they say they want to hold tax evaders accountable." And you can expect this same jelly-spined philosophy to be in full force if Clinton ends up in the Oval Office, along with a whole cadre of Wall Street cronies finding jobs in her administration.

(During the New Deal, policymakers weren't afraid to fight white collar crooks. Image used by permission of the Estate of Rollin Kirby Post.)

Recently, four economists with ties to Obama and Clinton (i.e., the Democratic establishment) penned a letter scolding another economist's positive assessment of Bernie Sanders' agenda. They wrote: "We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan — claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence." Paul Krugman and Mother Jones' journalist Kevin Drum agreed and said, in effect, "Yeah, Friedman and Sanders are crazy!" (see here and here)

But here's the problem: It doesn't appear that any of them have actually evaluated the claims in any detail. Friedman responded, "I don't think they read the report. If they did, I don't think they would have said no credible economic research."  University of Texas economist James K. Galbraith, a former executive director for the congressional Joint Economic Committee, picked up on this too, writing to the four economists:

"You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans.  On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman's study.  I found nothing there... It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman's methods are extreme.  On the contrary, with respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream.  Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman's paper a rigorous review.  You have not."

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research added: "it is more than a bit annoying to hear these four distinguished economists telling the world that we should listen to them because they are experts.  I respect all four of these people as economists, but I want to hear their argument, not their credentials."

All of this, and more, has reminded me why I left the Democratic Party. The establishment and the elites of the Party seem to have no respect for my desire for radical change. Perhaps, since they are doing well financially, they can't fathom why anybody would want more than incremental (if any) change. It also shows me that the Democratic Party has turned into the Bleak Hill Boarding School, as seen in the video clip above. They seem to be saying to their fellow, non-wealthy Democrats, "I'm sorry you don't like crushing student loan debt.  And I'm sorry you don't like stagnant wages.  And I'm sorry you're upset that the Obama Administration chose not to prosecute big banks who engaged in fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, insider trading, and manipulating the world's currency.  But I think you're being very immature to demand an abrupt change. Now, eat your mush!"

So, good riddance Democratic Party. I'm so glad I left you... and, yes, I know you really don't give a damn that I left... but, that's sort of my whole point, isn't it?

The New York Times on the Civil Works Administration: A "door into a new kind of civilization"

(CWA laborers working on an athletic field in Dayton, Ohio, 1934. Photo courtesy of the FDR Presidential Library & Museum and the New Deal Network.)

In 1934, when the editors of the New York Times reviewed a book about the Civil Works Administration (a New Deal program that offered job opportunities to the unemployed) they wrote that the CWA was a "policy and program wholly new in all the history of civilization... here has been a drafting of wealth that, instead of going up in smoke and death and destruction, was poured into the service of the country, saving life and health, hope and spirit, and creating instead of destroying..." They described the book as a "door into a new kind of civilization" ("A Vivid Record of CWA Construction," New York Times, September 2, 1934, reviewing the book America Fights the Depression: A Photographic Record of the Civil Works Administration).

 

Unfortunately, that "new kind of civilization" did not last very long. After the New Deal era, it slowly withered away. Today, most people have never even heard of the CWA, the NYA, or the WPA, let alone taken their lessons to heart. Instead of a new civilization, we poison millions of children with lead-contaminated water from old & filthy pipes; test for lead in ways that mask the true extent of the problem; and then collectively roll our eyes, shrug our shoulders, and say, "Who cares, it would cost too much money to replace those pipes anyway." Instead of hiring the unemployed, we insult them. Meanwhile, our Congress--completely oblivious to crumbling roads, bridges, and dams--spends $8 million per hour on perpetual war. 

 

And so, as we drive "the global surge in militarization," arming both our allies and our enemies, and as we neglect infrastructure needs, we can only weep for what could have been... had we remembered the work programs--and the spirit--of the New Deal.

Mayors across America would like more federal assistance with their infrastructure. They won't get it.

(Unlike today, where the answer to lead-poisoned drinking water is "Sorry, we can't help you," and the answer to crumbling infrastructure is, "Sorry, but tax breaks for the rich are more important," the New Deal's Public Works Administration (PWA) made massive investments in our nation's infrastructure. This graphic shows PWA money flowing towards buildings, ships, dams, water treatment plants, bridges, and more. We're still using much of this infrastructure today, well past its intended lifespan. Image from a PWA publication.)

 

America's mayors tell us they desperately need help. Republicans shrug.

 

In a recent survey, "Mayors across the U.S. say they worry about their cities' aging infrastructure and they'd like more state and federal support..." Further, "Mayors say aging and underfunded infrastructure is their most pressing challenge. Mass transit, roads and water top the list of priorities."

The mayors' worry is understandable. After all, children across the nation are being poisoned by their drinking water (see my last blog post) and, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, "obsolete road designs and poor road conditions are a factor in about 14,000 highway deaths each year."

But, despite the worry, the poisonings, and the deaths, American mayors are unlikely to receive additional federal assistance; and whatever amounts they're currently receiving will likely be cut in the near future. That's because our Republican-controlled Congress has zero interest in our nation's infrastructure. And if a Republican is elected into the White House, it will only strengthen the right-wing's resolve to neglect our roads, bridges, airports, water mains, etc. For example, if you go to Donald Trump's website or Ted Cruz's website, you will see no mention of improving our infrastructure on their "issues" pages (or, if it is mentioned, it's buried somewhere that's hard to find). Instead, you will see, prominently displayed, things like, "Second Amendment Rights," "Secure the Border," and "Live Free or Die." They seem to be saying, "Who cares about neurotoxins in your children's drinking water, when you can have 50 guns, 80,000 rounds of ammunition, explosives, body armor, and no questions asked?"

(Today, mayors across America are having problems with mass transit infrastructure funding. During the New Deal, the PWA loaned money to railroad companies to build trains, re-employ workers on furlough, and improve tracks. Photo from a PWA publication.)

 

Clinton & Sanders on Infrastructure:

Hillary Clinton is better on infrastructure than Republicans, and is promoting a $275 billion plan. But it's spread out over 5 years, and I'm not sure how effective an additional $55 billion per year will be. Essentially, that's a boost of about $1 billion per state, per year; but the nation's needs are far greater than that. In 2013, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimated that we need about $3.6 trillion for our infrastructure by the year 2020.

Bernie Sanders has a much more detailed and substantive plan, and promotes a $1 trillion boost over 5 years, bringing us much closer to the difference between current spending levels and ASCE recommended levels. Unfortunately, most Democratic voters seem to be opting for continued plutocracy (i.e., Clinton and her Wall Street allies), so Sanders is going to have a tough time making it to the Oval Office to promote his plan. Further, if Clinton ends up in the White House, and follows the Obama method of leadership, she's likely to water-down her infrastructure proposals--before negotiations even begin--in an effort to appease the GOP/Tea Party (Clinton has been praising Obama's legacy lately, and calling him a "progressive," but this is hard-to-swallow after he (a) backed away from the public option during health insurance reform, (b) offered to cut Social Security, (c) tried to sell the TVA, (d) refused to prosecute white collar crimes committed by those over a certain income level, and (e) crafted the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement by bringing Corporate America into the negotiations... but shutting workers out).

(Today, mayors across the country are having problems with road improvement funding. During the New Deal, the PWA granted money for road projects, like the Belmont-Concord Road in Massachusetts shown above. Photo from a PWA publication.)

 

If billionaires won't pay more, who will? You will - in fact, you already are.

So, where does all of the above leave us on the issue of infrastructure? Well, infrastructure will continue to crumble, of course, and what little improvements we do make will be funded mostly through regressive taxes, tolls, fees, fines, and utility rates at the state & local level. And this is a problem because already, "Virtually every state tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from low- and middle-income families than from wealthy families." Yep, during an era where billionaires keep adding more billions to their wealth but the middle-class and poor are stuck with stagnant or dropping wages, it is the latter who will be forced to pay more. A recent example of this phenomenon can be seen in the town of Fountain, West Virginia. To extend water service to more customers, existing customers are being asked to pay 80% more on their water bills. The extension project is being funded with grants of $2.5 million and a loan of $8.5 million payable over 40 years (hence the need to saddle the middle-class & poor with higher and regressive rates).  ("Fountain water customers oppose proposed 80 percent rate increase," Cumberland Times-News, February 2, 2016, start page 1A.)

Compare the situation in Fountain (a situation that is occurring on a regular basis in cities and towns all across America; just Google search words like "water rate hike") to the funding method of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the New Deal era. Back then, as long as a town could fund about 20% of an infrastructure project, the federal government--through the WPA--would kick in the rest. Another New Deal program, the PWA (shown in the photos of this blog post) used a mix of loans and grants to fund even more infrastructure projects. New Deal policymakers were able to offer this infrastructure assistance, in part, by tax hikes on the wealthy. But today, for some inexplicable reason, millions of voters are saying, through their votes, "No, don't tax billionaires more. Tax me more! Even though billionaires are getting richer, and buying more private jets and more private islands--while I can barely make ends meet--I want to be taxed more! Leave the billionaires alone!" Even worse, the rest of us are being impoverished by these voters. We're being forced to pay higher utility rates, higher bridge tolls, higher traffic fines, higher vehicle registration fees, higher sales taxes, higher property taxes, higher tuition, and so on, to satisfy their desire to serve the rich (see, e.g., "After Cutting Taxes On The Rich, Kansas Will Raise Taxes On The Poor To Pay For It," ThinkProgress, June 16, 2015).

Isn't that amazing?

(Today, mayors all across the country are having problems with their drinking water infrastructure. During the New Deal, the PWA helped bring clean drinking water to cities and towns all over the nation, like the drinking water brought to San Francisco from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir (shown above). Photo from a PWA publication.)