Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one” - A.J. Liebling
My father Bob Wilson took this to heart, and bought one and started his own newspaper, the Prairie Post of Maroa, Illinois in 1958, and ran it until he died in 1972. It never had a circulation of more than 2500 or so, but every week, he would fire off editorials at everyone and everything from local events to the actions of the nations of the world.
He may have been a Quaker peace activist in a Republican district, but his love and support of the farming communities garnered him enough respect that he eventually ran for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1962, though he lost. (He might have tried again, had he not died of an accident while only 49.) Many of his views ring true today. And he might have been willing to change the ones that fell behind the times. Although raised in the casual racism of the 1920s and 1930s, at the age of 15 he took stock of what he was being taught and discarded much of it as being wrong, and lived his life with respect for all.
I decided to transcribe his old editorials (I may make a book for some of my relatives) and every once in a while I will repost one here, as a view of how the world has changed wildly, or remained stubbornly the same.
June 14, 1962
TWO UNEVEN PIECES
You have all seen the TV commercial. “Buy Sunbeam bread”, goes the idiot chant, “It's tenderer because it's batter-whipped!”
The nice lady holds a slice of bread, right side up, and tears it. “See?” she inquires; “Two even slices!”
We do not know what mechanical procedure was used to weaken the structure of the loaf along the division line, but we know that tenderness has nothing to do with it.
How do we know? Turn a slice of the same bread SIDEWISE and attempt to part it; it tears into jagged segments just like anyone else's “tough” bread.
How silly is it possible to get?
June 21, 1962
THAT RUNAWAY DEBT
We have examined the discussion in the House of Representatives, as reported by the Congressional Record, relative to raising the debt limit to $308 billion.
It is not too difficult to follow the explanation that the public debt is not growing anywhere near as fast as the American economy. We may in the end outgrow it.
On the other hand, we cannot agree with the philosophy that deliberate, continual deficit financing is a good thing. Expenditures cannot be cut back in a recession, because this would jerk the rug clean out from under the economy and turn the recession into a real bust.
In times of full employment, full production and general prosperity however, the expanded tax income of our government should yield a solid surplus. Over the term of a business cycle, the budget should balance out and even permit a reductions of outstanding debt.
No-one can tell us it is a healthy situation for this great government to be sunk so deep in debt that the mere interest on it each year is a sum greater than that spent on benefits for veterans of our armed forces!
The problem is that almost no-one, specifically including the members of Congress, is willing to do what must be done in order to spend less.
It was a little amusing – though the whole sorry spectacle offers little occasion for merriment – to read of one Republican after another rising to declare he is going to vote against the increase, “although I have voted for previous increases in the public debt.”
Naturally, those increases were requested by Mr. Eisenhower, and they were “necessary”, like his 1957 deficit of $12.3 billion, the largest peacetime deficit on record. (in the same way, the powers exercised by Mr. Eisenhower were always “necessary”, while the same powers requested by Mr. Kennedy are “dictatorship”)
Why cannot spending be reduced? First, because it is political suicide for a Senator or Representative to advocate the cutting off of federal monies that flow into his own district; and somebody howl with pain whenever the paring knife of economy makes an incision. Generally, the offended party raises a host of friends who fear they may be next!
The second reason spending cannot be reduced is that defense expenditures are a sacred cow. Any attack may be tolerated on programs to help the aged or the blind, to build schools or restore forests; but most members of both parties fear to raise any question concerning the money that goes to the military forces.
It would be so easy to misinterpret in an election year; anyone who suggests there is corruption, and waste in our military procurement no doubt would – and will – be accused of wanting to dump all our armaments in the ocean next Tuesday at 9 a.m., and turn the country over to the Communists!
The servility of our legislators towards the armaments industry is shown in the comments by the two congressmen that they had been visited by gentlemen (they mean lobbyists) representing war plants in their districts, who claimed they had word from the government their contracts might have to be cutback if the debt ceiling was not raised.
One can fairly see these legislators as they rose, their pink cheeks trembling with outraged virtue, to accuse the President of “Low-down, underhanded political blackmail”.
Further along the Record, we note with surprise the statement of Representative Wilson of Indiana (no relation to Editor Bob Wilson, who is a candidate for Congress this year) that he has made a 15-month study of military procurement policies, and he fears that as much as 33¢ out of every dollar we spend on defense is being stolen from us. Dishonest business firms, working closely with dishonest people in our military procurement program, have for many years been “negotiating” contracts instead of submitting sealed bids.
Congressman Wilson reveals that three big names in the radio world have for years been dividing the government contract for “walkie-talkie” portable radios. They charged you – the taxpayer – over $400 per set. Last year, the Kennedy administration determined to try sealed bids on these radios. The successful bid was $269.51 per set!
That is not the worst news. Somebody in the Pentagon, ignoring the bid figure from last year, has just slipped a new contract to one of the radio companies at $414.00 per set!
Of course, we note that the firm making the low bid was an Indiana firm, and Congressman Wilson is an Indiana representative! Few people in government... only Senator Paul Douglas and a handful of others – have courage and stature enough to propose anything which would reduce the flow of federal money into his own district.
Another dead weight opposing anyone who would reduce the cost of government, is the common view that a job in government is not an opportunity to serve, but a free ride at the taxpayer's expense. We need thousands less $15,000 men drinking cocktails in Washington (the city with the highest per capita alcohol consumption in the world) and thousands more young people in shirtsleeves, building a better world through the Peace Corps at almost no salary at all.
“Ask not what your country can do for you...” Isn't the real problem that our government simply reflects our national character... wasteful, extravagant, debt-ridden? Isn't it true we can expect honest and providence to prevail in government, only when it prevails in the private lives of our people?