Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Respect for the Office?
As a kid from a rural agricultural community, I entered UC Berkeley slightly to the right of Barry Goldwater. But I was to leave in 1970 just to the left of Eldridge Cleaver.
Those were the days.
As I knew just about everything there was to know, I challenged my grandfather, just a few days before he died in 1974, regarding his publicly cordial relations with then President Richard Nixon.
It was no secret that there had been a long running Warren/Nixon feud. This dated back to the 1952 Republican convention in Chicago, when Nixon famously promised the California delegates to Ike (even though they were committed to favorite son candidate, Warren) in exchange for the Vice Presidency.
Nixon’s behavior during the Watergate scandal only re-enforced what we already knew about his character and his normal modus operandi.
“How can you even speak to that man?” I scolded, Papa Warren.
He just smiled at my impetuosity. “It doesn’t matter who it is, you always have to show respect for the office,” was his grandfatherly reply.
I knew he was right because we had grown up in an era after World War II when the message to every grammar school kid was, “anyone in America can grow up to be President of the United States.” It was the goal of each one of us back then. What higher honor could there be than to become President?
After Papa Warren died, the archivists found his “Nixon file” empty. It was a mystery. What had happened to all the correspondence, memos, and personal notes that filled it?
I asked Mama Warren once this became public knowledge. “What happened? Why was the file empty?”
Her answer was simple—and so believable. “He didn’t want your children to ever know that a man like that ever occupied the highest office in the land.”
Now this is not about re-fighting the Nixon wars and trying to argue whether he was a good or bad man — or a good or bad President. It is about the office, and what it symbolizes (or once symbolized) to the American people.
Teddy White summed up how Americans felt about the office in his seminal book, A Breach of Faith. He concluded that the one unpardonable sin Nixon committed over Watergate was that he “destroyed the myth that binds America together,” the myth that “somewhere in American life there is at least one man who stands for the law, the President.”
Mr. White encapsulated what we all felt: that the office of the presidency was sacred — not one to be trifled with in any way, shape, or form.
That’s why it is so disturbing to see photographs of the current occupant of the Oval Office holding a “selfie stick” and taking goofy pictures of himself. It’s discombobulating to see him give an interview to a youngster whose claim to fame is a viral You Tube video where she climbs into a bathtub filled with milk to eat Fruit Loops. That’s what earns one an invite to the Oval Office?
These stunts trivialize the most important office in the land — once the most important in the world — to say nothing of how it affects the way a Putin or Khamenei views us.
These acts are not against the law but they demean the office. They bring shame upon a hallowed institution. How can a youngster aspire to grow up to be the leader of the world, when it now involves cavorting in such a frivolous, undignified manner?
Are these the actions of a Commander in Chief in whom one should trust the safety of his son or daughter? Do we want a man who gives interviews to publicity-seeking You Tube stars to be the one making decisions that affect the lives of our children in the military?
Can one imagine a Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Reagan behaving in such a fashion? Even if they may have longed to do so (highly unlikely) they refrained in order to maintain the dignity of the office.
Should we, the people care? If demeaning the office becomes the norm, the next thing you know we’ll have wannabe candidates traveling our highways in vans with nicknames like Scooby Doo.
We’ve come a long way, baby.
Published in General
I didn’t know that! Thanks for passing it along. That is very instructive!!!
Are you aware that there were 14 attacks from Japanese subs off the coast of California right after Pearl Harbor (Google it)?
Are you aware that Canada and the countries of South America interned 10’s of thousands of Japanese as did the US?
Are you aware that it was an executive order,Executive Order 9066, from Roosevelt (Not the state attorney General of the State of California, Papa Warren) which ordered the internment. He only enforced the executive orders, much (much like immigration law today) which was the law of the land?
Are you aware that France interned British subjects have Germany got control, or that EVERY country who was engaged in a fight against the AXIS (and vice versa) interned foreign nationals they felt to be a threat to their security?
Are you aware that it was Churchill who pushed hardest for Executive Order 9066 as he felt it was fifth column activity which caused the quick demise of the French?
Internment was the order of the day back then and it had nothing to do with race–for better or worse, whether in occupied France or Alberta Candid, it was about internal security. Picking and choosing California out, is pure ignorance of history.
BTW, Papa Warren Never apologized for the internment. It appeared in his autobiography which was published after his death. Some editor put that in.
At the time he followed the law as laid down by the Feds–nothing more–nothing less.
The English interned or arrested resident Germans, the French did the same to resident British, and of course Germany did likewise to any foreign citizens they felt to be a threat.
Come on. This was how the world was back then!
That’s how the world may well be again.
Mr. Warren, great piece. The Office of the Presidency has diminished, but that is only because the people are no longer capable of having reverence for anything. The older generations, sure, have this capability, but the younger generation, you will find, just is not. I have a personal story that can relate to this. I work in a very prestigious building with a peculiar history in McClean, Virginia. I work in the 7th floor of that building. I recently started working during the days there after two months of working nights where the dress code was a bit more subdued. When I started working days I decided that jacket and tie was going to be the normal attire Mon-Thurs and business casual for Friday. Well some of my supervisors noticed and commented that I am the sharpest looking person in the office consistently. The reason being because I was on the 7th floor of a very prestigious building housing one of the more famed agencies in the federal government. It was out of respect for the people long since passed that I determined to dress with respect for the place. While on days I have rarely seen any of my male, co-shift workers wear a jacket, although they do have ties. Many of my male, co-shift workers are young, in their 20s.
It’s something that we are going to have to get used to I suppose. We can try to raise our children with the notion of giving respect where it is due, but I fear we won’t be able to keep up with the trend among the youth and they will soon want to start having kids themselves. This is why they can vote for a guy who has a “Selfie Stick” and gives interviews to a lady who sits in a bath full of cereal. This is why they can blindly support a guy who feels the need to allow inside the hallowed halls of the White House folks such as Jay-Z. We have to face facts that the persona that our once great country presented to the world–one of True Grit, if you will–is gone and never coming back. Rubio wont’ fix that. Nor Cruz, Paul, or Walker or Bush. That United States is dead and it died in November 2008. You remember, there was a big celebration of its death in Chicago.
This got a little bit of play that December/January when the Clintons moved out of the WH. But not much. They took a bunch of furniture and other pieces that are part of the White House, and belong to the citizens, but hey, it’s theirs now, for the taking.
Just more stuff to put in the Foundation building while they solicit millions from foreign interests. Are we really “Ready for Hillary”? If we are, we are worse than the people we vote into these offices.
Again with the Nixon was the first bad person as President. Have you people not been reading about the debauchery of JFK while President and thanks to the wonderful analysis written by Robert Caro the out and out crookedness of LBJ. Nixon’s actions, IMHO, are small stuff in comparison.
The difference of course was a press that chose what to reveal, aka JFK, and control the narrative. Let’s not forget that the swords were out for Nixon way before he ran for President. He was the politician that made the Ivies and Northeast liberal set look stupid due to their defense of Alger Hiss and they never, ever forgave him for it. Thank goodness he did, or Hiss and the activities of the American Communists may never have come to light.
Yeah, but he was running for president. It was a part of his campaign to look hip and cool. It was a tipping point where we stopped expecting our president to appear serious and wanted him to be current with all the trends. If Nixon were running today he’d probably be dropping Kanye lyrics on us.
I apologize for my poor writing and lack of communication skills. This piece is NOT about whether Nixon was a good man or good President (I thought I said that). It was about how we the people view (or used to view) the office of the Presidency. LBJ may well have been a crook and Kennedy’s peccadillo’s were legendary, but they always acted with dignity and respect for the office when in the public eye. President Nixon, alas, did not–and he brought disrespect to the office. Them’s the facts.
Exactly what would it take for you to not call him Mr President if you met him in public before his term ended?
His actions now would have me refuse a handshake and say nothing or insult him.
I guess I have to apologize for poor communications skills also. The aura of respect for the office you ascribe to JFK and LBJ were perceived that way because the Press was each their benefactor. Had the Publisher of the Washington Post revealed the story that JFK took the virginity of an intern at a DC swimming pool and then offered her to his friend for a BJ, then our perceptions of JFK as a President”acting with dignity and respect” might not be so solid. That Washington Publisher admitted he did not report the story because he did not want to hurt JFK or the Democratic party. The same standard was applied too LBJ. To say that now that we know about their transgressions has no impact on American’s perception of the Presidency is ludicrous. All the time we hear justifications about the Clinton’s or Obama is look at what President’s did in the past. It reminds me of how liberals brand every conservative as a McCarthyite, yet they are the ones trying to implement speech codes at Universities. Mr. Warren, talk about sleepwalking though history, you are a poster child.
Kay of MT: In retrospective maybe we should have trusted our Japanese citizens, but there were also the stories of the Massacre of Shanghai.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_massacre_of_1927
Hi Kay, Thanks again for the personal stories relating to global events.
I’m guessing you are referring to the Imperial Japanese invasion and civilian massacres of 1937 in Shanghai – that the 1927 might be a typo – so please forgive my impertinence in supplying an additional link for those not familiar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shanghai
I am so with you on the “no call to criticize Earl Warren” bit. I get it all the time, of course. I finally found a rejoinder (besides mentioning That Canada did it, the South American Countries did it, the French interned English citizens and the British rounded up German citizens, that 14 ships were attacked off the California coast by Japanese subs right after Pearl, etc. etc. etc.) It was standard procedure in both wars. No one wanted 5th column terrorist activities.
However the rejoinder that gets the best response (Zero) is, “I agree with you. Could you please show me the letters or pictures of your parents or grandparents protesting the internment. I’d love to read them or view them.” For some reason I’ve yet to have seen one such letter (though I do know that there were those who fought bravely to stop the internment).
It just kills me that people my age criticize my Grandfather for doing his duty as he saw it, yet can provide NO evidence that their Grandparents fought against it. Interesting, No?
Jeffery: It just kills me that people my age criticize my Grandfather for doing his duty as he saw it, yet can provide NO evidence that their Grandparents fought against it. Interesting, No?
According to my mother, very few people protested the internment. The vast majority of the population was terrified CA was going to be bombed same as Pearl Harbor. And don’t forget Tokyo Rose, broadcasting. The president ordered the internment and your grandfather carried out the order. In retrospect, yes, things could have been different. But who are we to judge? You are the same generation as my daughters, and they aren’t very interested in history. I would suggest that a lot of your contemporaries aren’t either. I feel you are very fortunate to have had the teacher you did.
My mother, who was terrified of the Japanese during the war, became very good friends with the Japanese Soroptimist Chapter, and was a delegate to the Soroptimist International of the Americas in Kyoto, Japan 1990. I have a portrait of my mother, drawn by K. Kawakami hanging upon my wall.
I’m sorry to question your memories, but the fire balloon attacks didn’t occur until late 1944 and 1945, long after the internments.
I’d be interested in hearing details of this “burning plane … shot up over the Pacific”. I’ve never heard of that happening near the US mainland. As far as I know the Japanese succeeded in getting just one submarine-launched airplane into the skies anywhere near the US, and that one didn’t get involved with any US planes. Otherwise there were a few torpedo attacks on US shipping, and one or two cases of ineffective submarine-based shelling of coastal installations, most famously an oil refinery near Santa Barbara.
Which is not to say you didn’t see a burning plane, but I’d be shocked to learn it was a result of enemy action as opposed to some sort of mechanical failure.
Because you didn’t hear about it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. I have publicity photos of that plane, and it’s crew which survived the landing, in my mother’s papers somewhere. My mother knew most of the pilots as did my dad, as he was a class A ground mechanic for the planes. I don’t know though, maybe they were all just lying for propaganda purposes.
Here is why the Americans (by en large) supported the Internment. Rumors along with underground photos like these abounded. The rumors may not have been “facts” but the perception was there–not only here, but in Canada and South America where thousands were interned.
Looks like the same thing the muslims are doing to the Christians and others now. The evil doesn’t change, only who is doing it and our reaction to it. Jeffery, attitudes are not going to change just because you give facts. American was the big bad wolf in all wars, and we were evil, and didn’t let ourselves be slaughtered. Same with Israel. They are the bad ones, because they defend themselves. Samantha Powers stated at the UN, the US will no longer protect Israel.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5609/israel-us-ally
I’m not denying a plane on fire, but I’d still like to see some documentation that it was a result of being “shot up”. There’s a lot of information about Japanese action in and around the US Mainland. I detailed some of it in my response. I’ve done a fair amount of “popular history” reading of the era, and I’ve *never* heard of a plane being “shot up” by enemy action close enough to the US to reach the mainland while on fire.
Japanese aircraft carriers never made it east of Hawaii (at least south of the Aleutians), and I already mentioned the one documented case of a seaplane being launched from a submarine.
This is pure speculation on my part, but maybe the plane was hit by friendly fire during one of the false hysteria “attacks” in the days immediately following Pearl Harbor?
Also as mentioned, the fire balloons could not have been a factor in the internments, because the fire balloons didn’t happen until late 1944.
There were many more massacres of which the Rape of Nanking was only the worst. Here’s an expert of a Massacre which took place in a British Hospital in Singapore in February of 1942 as Yamashita was defeating Percival. Remember: these were not secrets. People wrote letters and (more rarely) actually telephoned, telegraphed, or ham radioed to one another what was happening. All this was whispered up and down the state of California.
Alexandra Hospital massacre[edit]
See also: British Military Hospital, Singapore
A plaque commemorating the massacre and expanding on the hospital’s history after the war
At about 13:00 on 14 February, Japanese soldiers advanced towards the Alexandra Barracks Hospital.[29] A British lieutenant—acting as an envoy with a white flag—approached the Japanese forces but was killed with a bayonet.[30] After the Japanese troops entered the hospital, a number of patients, including those undergoing surgery at the time, were killed along with doctors and members of nursing staff.[31] The following day about 200 male staff members and patients who had been assembled and bound the previous day,[32] many of them walking wounded, were ordered to walk about 400 m (440 yd) to an industrial area. Anyone who fell on the way was bayoneted. The men were forced into a series of small, badly ventilated rooms where they held overnight without water. Some died during the night as a result of their treatment.[33] The remainder were bayoneted the following morning.[34]
Private Haines of the Wiltshire Regiment—a survivor—had been in the hospital suffering from malaria. He wrote a four-page account of the massacre that was sold by his daughter by private auction in 2008;[35] Haines described how the Japanese did not consider those who were weak, wounded or who had surrendered to be worthy of life. After surrendering, staff were ordered to proceed down a corridor, where Sergeant Rogers was bayoneted twice in the back and another officer, Captain Parkinson, was bayoneted through the throat. Others killed included Captain Heevers and Private Lewis. Captain Smiley and Private Sutton were bayoneted but survived by playing dead. Many who had not been imprisoned in the tiny rooms in the industrial area were systematically taken away in small groups and bayoneted or macheted to death. This continued for 24 hours, leaving 320 men and one woman dead. Those who lost their lives included a corporal from the Loyal Regiment, who was impaled on the operating table, and even a Japanese prisoner who was perhaps mistaken for a Gurkha.[citation needed]
There were only five known survivors, including George Britton (1922–2009) of the East Surrey Regiment,[36] and Private Haines. Also Hugo Hughes, who lost his right leg, and George Wort, who lost an arm, both of the Royal Malay Regiment.[37] There may have been others. Haines’ account came to light only after his death. Survivors were so traumatised that they rarely spoke of their ordeal.
Just looked at a map. McClellan air base is near Sacramento. That’s pretty far inland for someone who got shot up “over the Pacific” and was on fire to want to travel before getting on the ground. So yeah, maybe they were all just lying for propaganda purposes. There was a lot of that then. You should have heard some of the stories my Dad told me about his aerial gunnery training!
At about 13:00 on 14 February, Japanese soldiers advanced towards the Alexandra Barracks Hospital.[29] A British lieutenant—acting as an envoy with a white flag—approached the Japanese forces but was killed with a bayonet.[30] After the Japanese troops entered the hospital, a number of patients, including those undergoing surgery at the time, were killed along with doctors and members of nursing staff.[31] The following day about 200 male staff members and patients who had been assembled and bound the previous day,[32] many of them walking wounded, were ordered to walk about 400 m (440 yd) to an industrial area. Anyone who fell on the way was bayoneted. The men were forced into a series of small, badly ventilated rooms where they held overnight without water. Some died during the night as a result of their treatment.[33] The remainder were bayoneted the following morning.[34]
Private Haines of the Wiltshire Regiment—a survivor—had been in the hospital suffering from malaria. He wrote a four-page account of the massacre that was sold by his daughter by private auction in 2008;[35] Haines described how the Japanese did not consider those who were weak, wounded or who had surrendered to be worthy of life. After surrendering, staff were ordered to proceed down a corridor, where Sergeant Rogers was bayoneted twice in the back and another officer, Captain Parkinson, was bayoneted through the throat. Others killed included Captain Heevers and Private Lewis. Captain Smiley and Private Sutton were bayoneted but survived by playing dead. Many who had not been imprisoned in the tiny rooms in the industrial area were systematically taken away in small groups and bayoneted or macheted to death. This continued for 24 hours, leaving 320 men and one woman dead. Those who lost their lives included a corporal from the Loyal Regiment, who was impaled on the operating table, and even a Japanese prisoner who was perhaps mistaken for a Gurkha.
It is 90 miles from Sacramento to San Francisco, a short flight from the Bay to the Field, with cruising speed of 180 mph. The B-17s were work horses and known for surviving. The fact that the plane didn’t crash, (pilot was able to land it) and nobody was killed, (the Field was able to get the fire under control) just may be why it wasn’t in a book you read. If the plane had crashed, blown up and all 10 crew members killed, it probably would have made it into a book. Photos of badly damaged B-17s that made it back to their bases.
http://www.daveswarbirds.com/b-17/fuselage.htm
I know all about the ability of B-17’s to survive incredible combat damage and keep flying.. My Dad flew on B-17s. *I* was able to fly on a B-17 in 2001 (in the nose position on take-off – way cool!)
My point is there is no record of any kind of aerial combat taking place on the west coast of the US mainland during WWII, period. That’s the kind of thing that would make it into the history books whether there were casualties or not.
The record shows exactly 5 instances of “combat” involving the mainland US and Japan (excluding ships being torpedoed), all of which involved submarines, or in one case a submarine launched seaplane that dropped incendiary bombs in an attempt to start forest fires.
Miffed: case a submarine launched seaplane that dropped incendiary bombs in an attempt to start forest fires.
. . . in Washington State, right?
I can’t remember off hand but think some reached Northern CA, Organ and WA. You can research it.
According to Wikipedia, in 1942 there was a shelling of an oil field near Santa Barbara, shelling of a lighthouse near Vancouver,shelling of Fort Stevens in Oregon, and incendiary bombing near Brookings Oregon, all of the preceding from Submarines. That and the fire balloon attacks in 1944 and 1945 were the extent of Japanese operations against Mainland US (and Canada).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Theater_%28World_War_II%29
[edit: It is not my intent to pick on Kay, please believe me. But given the above somewhat desultory record of Japanese attacks on the mainland, it’s a stretch to believe that a plane could have been “shot up” over the Pacific, landed in flames at a mainland airbase, and not be remembered today.
To be clear, I have little doubt that Kay did in fact witness a plane landing in flames. I just believe it much more likely to have been a case of mechanical failure rather than Japanese combat action.]
I have little doubt that Kay did in fact witness a plane landing in flames.
To make this more clear, I did not see the plane land. I was standing in the front yard of our home as the plane flew over. It was so low my mother who was standing in the yard with me, screaming in terror, identified the pilot. I could clearly see the people in the cockpit. My father was also there, trying to calm my mother. As a 6 year-old child the whole scene is etched in my memory, of the flames, the smell of fumes, and the smoke. We lived <2 miles from the air base.
I found the 8×10 photos after my mother’s death in 1998, in a box of her papers and cannot remember where I’ve put them.