DOCSLIB.ORG

We Are Against Socialized Medicine, but What Are We For?: Federal Health Reinsurance, National Health Policy, and the Eisenhower Presidency

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
We Are Against Socialized Medicine, but What Are We For?: Federal Health Reinsurance, National Health Policy, and the Eisenhower Presidency University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2015 We Are Against Socialized Medicine, But What Are We For?: Federal Health Reinsurance, National Health Policy, and the Eisenhower Presidency Jordan M. Graham University of Montana - Missoula Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Part of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, Political History Commons, and the United States History Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Graham, Jordan M., "We Are Against Socialized Medicine, But What Are We For?: Federal Health Reinsurance, National Health Policy, and the Eisenhower Presidency" (2015). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 4492. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/4492 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WE ARE AGAINST SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, BUT WHAT ARE WE FOR?: FEDERAL HEALTH REINSURANCE, NATIONAL HEALTH POLICY, AND THE EISENHOWER PRESIDENCY BY JORDAN MCKENZIE GRAHAM Bachelor of Arts, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana, 2012 A Thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History The University of Montana Missoula, Montana May 2015 Approved by: Sandy Ross, Dean of the Graduate School University of Montana Dr. Michael S. Mayer, Chair Department of History, University of Montana Dr. Jeff Wiltse Department of History, University of Montana Dr. Robert P. Saldin Department of Political Science, University of Montana Graham, Jordan, M.A., Spring 2015 History We Are Against Socialized Medicine, but What Are We For?: Federal Health Reinsurance, National Health Policy, and the Eisenhower Presidency Chairperson: Dr. Michael S. Mayer This project investigates the foundations of post-war health care in the United States by examining the first major proposal for federal involvement in health insurance, after the defeat of national health insurance in 1949. In doing so, this project aims to also illustrate Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency as one of limited liberal, or “Tory,” reform. The majority of primary sources were located at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene, Kansas. Secondary sources were chosen based on the frequency with which contemporary scholarship continues to rely upon and engage with them. In the first two chapters, the thesis examines the state of American health care coverage and the dialogue of reform that surrounded it. These chapters show that a significant divide existed between the quality of medical care and it’s availability by the 1950s. At the same time, a wide gap divided those who supported either a federal or private solution. Chapters three and four examine the evolution of reinsurance as a bill and its progress through the House of Representatives. The Eisenhower administration’s approach to the issue of health care coverage rested in between liberal calls for increased federal operation and conservative demands to leave the problem for private industry to solve. Eisenhower proposed reinsurance in the hope that it would increase the number of Americans with health insurance, while fending off the socialization of medicine. The thesis demonstrates that, instead of receiving even limited support from both sides of the spectrum, reinsurance was opposed by each. Despite the existence of a welfare state that relied on both public and private support, health insurance proved an inhospitable sector for further federal involvement in the post-war era. While the costs of health insurance prevented nearly 60 million Americans from receiving such coverage by the early 1950s, demands for a direct federal solution were overridden by the demands of industry and fears of increased government controls. Furthermore, reinsurance represented an archetypal illustration of Dwight Eisenhower’s “middle way” presidency. Reinsurance was a measure of Tory reform, designed to increase welfare while preventing a more radical option. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The idea of Dwight Eisenhower’s health reinsurance plan as my thesis topic began while reading the introduction to Michael S. Mayer’s The Eisenhower Years. This was the first I had heard of the program. After researching it further, I found very little literature dealing with health reinsurance directly. This lack of coverage, combined with my interest in the plan itself, drove me to pursue the Eisenhower plan as the ultimate focus of my graduate study. Any project of this size, especially when conducted by a “first-timer” such as myself, is the product of numerous individuals offering their own efforts and insights. Now, two years after I began this project, I gratefully acknowledge those who helped bring this master’s thesis to fruition. They include, first and foremost my advisor, Michael Mayer, history professor at the University of Montana. An exceptional teacher and mentor, he helped grow this project from an idea to the capstone of my academic career. Dr. Mayer has guided me through the world of research, writing, and even job hunting. For the members of my committee, I am grateful for their time and tremendous insights. Dr. Jeff Wiltse and Dr. Robert Saldin were each approached late in the life of this project, yet they provided support whole- heartedly. Dr. Saldin’s acumen for federal health policy, combined with Dr. Wiltse’s expertise in modern American social and cultural history, took the project to new areas and expanded its range and effectiveness in its present form, while offering new directions for future research. The University of Montana’s History faculty and graduate students have also proved invaluable in this process. Their courses helped me to build a foundation of historical understanding, expanding my views of both the past and present. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Kyle Volk who tailored course projects to support my thesis, iii spent countless hours working to expand and improve it, and organized the Lockridge History Workshop where I was allowed to present what became my third chapter. The tireless efforts of Diane Rapp, the department’s administrator, proved extraordinarily valuable to my coursework and research. Our numerous discussions offered much needed support over the past years. The majority of this project was built on the research I conducted while at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene, Kansas. Archivist Kevin Bailey spent weeks finding and preparing research material prior to my visit, while he and Chalsea Millner worked with me everyday throughout my visit. This project certainly would not have been possible without the material collected in Abilene. This research trip was made possible through a generous grant from the Montana History Department’s H. Duane Hampton Fund. I know this project could not have even begun if it was not for the support of my family, friends, and especially my wife, Allison. Not only did they endure my academic absences and preoccupations, they have consistently participated in the project’s growth by listening, asking questions, and offering insight. Again, my wife Allison has proved my greatest asset. Not only did her tireless work to actually earn money allow me the ability to pursue this degree, she has continually provided balance to a life that would have otherwise been consumed entirely by academia. This thesis is dedicated to her. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………….…………...ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………..………………………………………….……...iii CHAPTER Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………..…1 1. Health Reinsurance, American Health Policy, and the Battle Over “Socialized Medicine”…...7 2. Post-War Health Policy and the “Fratricidal Twin Brothers”………………………..……….21 3. Health Insurance in the “Middle Way” Presidency……………………………………..…….41 4. We Are Against Socialized Medicine, but What Are We For? ……………………..…….….62 5. “The Camel’s Nose in Their Tent:” Evaluating the Failure of Reinsurance……………….....89 BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………...………………….104 Introduction: On January 6, 1954, Dwight Eisenhower wrote to his brother Milton, one of his closest confidents and advisers, to offer his understanding of the federal government’s role in the “maintenance of prosperity.” Such a role, the President contended, must vary with times in which it exists. Given the economic uncertainties in post-war America, Eisenhower stated, “In these days I am sure that the government has to be the principal coordinator and, in many cases, the actual operator for the many things that the approach of depression would demand.” While he did not list health care as an example within the letter, President Eisenhower’s belief that the government had a role to play in American welfare foreshadowed his call for a new form of federal involvement in the field of health care.1 Eisenhower delivered his second State of the Union Address on January 7, 1954. The first Republican president in over two decades, he had won a landslide election campaigning to end what conservative Republican senator, Karl Mundt, called, “K1C2” or “Korea, Communism, and Corruption.” By the end of his first year,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Debunking the Government Takeover Myth
    Debunking the Government Takeover Myth By Stan Dorn and Stephen Zuckerman Of the many unfounded claims now coloring the health care debate, at least one can be taken off the table. As President Obama told the nation September 9, it’s time to stop making “wild claims about a government takeover of health care.” He’s right and here’s why. For starters, pending legislation would leave our largely private medical care system intact. Right now, more than 90 percent of doctors are in private practice and 84 percent of all hospital admissions are to private facilities. That wouldn’t change as a result of any reform proposals. If it’s Big Brother in the examination room that seems chilling, that’s not at issue either. Nothing in the thousand pages of reform proposals would give the federal government any new authority to intervene in private health care decisions. “Death panels” are as imaginary as Lord Voldemort, and government’s role would be largely what it is now: helping low-income Americans pay for health coverage and regulating insurance companies so they better serve consumers. Under the new proposals millions of Americans would see their health care options increase. Workers covered through small firms, for instance, could choose from a range of health plans available in a new health insurance “exchange,” a convenient new marketplace that could make both private and public options available. Today, three fourths of these workers are offered only one health plan by their employer. And when people work for themselves or a company that doesn't provide any insurance at all, they are on their own today.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican Leader Michael C. Burgess, MD
    Republican Leader Michael C. Burgess, M.D. Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee “Proposals to Achieve Universal Health Care Coverage” December 10, 2019 As Prepared for Delivery Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding this hearing on various universal heath care coverage proposals, including Medicare for All. Ranking Member Walden and I requested a hearing on Medicare for all numerous times this year, and I appreciate that you took our request seriously enough to hold today’s hearing. I would like to ask unanimous consent that our two letters be included in the record. Coverage does not equal care. Chairman Pallone and Chairwoman Eshoo stated in noticing this hearing that “universal health care coverage has long been the North Star of the Democratic Party.” Every bill before us today is paving that road to the North Star – to accomplishing one-size-fits-all health care coverage. Page 1 of 6 I’m not sure the three wise men would appreciate your comparison, as this North Star journey would lead our health care system as we currently know it to disintegrate into ashes. If we’re listening to Joni Mitchell, then the northern star is not very reliable as it is constantly in the dark. Medicare for All would eliminate private insurance, employer- sponsored health insurance, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Plan, upon which many Americans depend. I am concerned about the consequences for existing Medicare beneficiaries, as this policy would raid the Medicare Trust Fund, which is already slated to go bankrupt in 2026. Our nation’s seniors have been depending on the existence of Medicare for their health care needs in retirement for their entire lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Les Sénateurs Des États-Unis Et La Mise En Oeuvre De La Résolution Vandenberg (1948- 1949)
    "The United States would extend the support which the situation requires": les sénateurs des États-Unis et la mise en oeuvre de la Résolution Vandenberg (1948- 1949) Mémoire Myriam Cyr Maîtrise en histoire - avec mémoire Maître ès arts (M.A.) Québec, Canada © Myriam Cyr, 2020 RÉSUMÉ Ce mémoire se propose d’étudier le processus d’adoption et d’application de la Résolution 239 du Sénat des États-Unis, de 1948 à 1949, une mesure législative pivot dans l’histoire politique américaine. D’une part, nous analysons les raisons pour lesquelles les sénateurs adoptent massivement la résolution proposée par Arthur H. Vandenberg le 11 juin 1948. Il s’agit d’une période névralgique marquée par le début de la guerre froide et la volonté des Américains de se retrouver en position de force à l’échelle internationale vis-à-vis des Soviétiques. C’est aussi la première fois que les États-Unis acceptent de s’allier à des puissances étrangères – européennes de surcroît – dans le but d’assurer une sécurité collective en temps de paix. D’autre part, nous nous penchons sur les échos de la Résolution Vandenberg en examinant les différentes étapes législatives menant à la signature et à la ratification du Traité de l’Atlantique Nord, culminant le 21 juillet 1949. Grâce à l’étude des Hearings et du Congressional Record, journal officiel des débats du Congrès des États-Unis, ce mémoire cherche à identifier quels sont les fondements de la Résolution Vandenberg, les motivations des sénateurs – y compris des dissidents et des abstentionnistes, à analyser le contenu de leur discours et à percevoir l’influence des évènements sur l’évolution de celui-ci.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Payer FAQ's Americans Spend Over Twice As Much Per Capita On
    (https://fixithealthcare.com/) –FAQs FAQs Home (https://fixithealthcare.com) / By The Numbers (https://fixithealthcare.com/by-the-numbers/) / FAQs Single-Payer FAQ’s (http://fixithealthcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Single-Payer.jpg) Simply put, single-payer is health insurance. A public agency organizes all healthcare financing. Delivery of care remains private. The confusion of thousands of insurance policies, (https (http://fixithea manuals, and uncertainties about coverage will be ended. A single-payer system could eliminate deductibles, co-pays, and out- of-pocket expenses (at the point of care), while providing healthcare for all Americans. Savings anticipated in the US: $504 billion a year. (https://w All Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services. Patients would regain choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care. Americans spend over twice as much per capita on health care as the average developed country. Q? How will it be funded? A. First, recognize that approximately 50% of US healthcare is currently funded through taxes – and 50% through business and household pockets. A single-payer system would be financed through a transfer of money that Americans and the country’s employers currently pay insurance companies. The premiums we and employers now pay insurers would be transferred to a federal program, which would be the single-payer for health care services. The cost to all of us – either through taxes or out-of-pocket expenses goes way down, with savings of over $700 billion per year, including negotiation for prescription drugs, a unified fee schedule, and greatly reduced administrative expense.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting Ready for Health Reform 2020: What Past Presidential Campaigns Can Teach Us
    REPORT JUNE 2018 Getting Ready for Health Reform 2020: What Past Presidential Campaigns Can Teach Us Jeanne M. Lambrew Senior Fellow The Century Foundation ABSTRACT KEY TAKEAWAYS ISSUE: The candidates for the 2020 presidential election are likely to Campaign plans are used by emerge within a year, along with their campaign plans. Such plans will supporters and the press to hold presidents accountable. Though include, if not feature, health policy proposals, given this issue’s general voters are unlikely to believe that significance as well as the ongoing debate over the Affordable Care Act. politicians keep their promises, GOAL: To explain why campaign plans matter, review the health policy roughly two-thirds of campaign components of past presidential campaign platforms, and discuss the promises were kept by presidents likely 2020 campaign health reform plans. from 1968 through the Obama years. METHODS: Review of relevant reports, data, party platforms, and policy documents. Health policy will likely play FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Proposals related to health care have a significant role in the 2020 grown in scope in both parties’ presidential platforms over the past election, with Republicans focused on deregulation and century and affect both agendas and assessments of a president’s capped federal financing success. Continued controversy over the Affordable Care Act, potential and Democrats backing the reversals in gains in coverage and affordability, and voters’ concern Affordable Care Act and a suggest a central role for health policy in the 2020 election. Republicans Medicare-based public plan will most likely continue to advance devolution, deregulation, and option. capped federal financing, while Democrats will likely overlay their support of the Affordable Care Act with some type of Medicare-based public plan option.
    [Show full text]
  • Provide a Better Prescription Than Medicare-For-All
    PROVIDE A BETTER PRESCRIPTION THAN MEDICARE-FOR-ALL The current U.S. health care system is plagued by high costs, Quick Take industry consolidation, and a poorly functioning marketplace. Democrats believe the prescription for these challenges is a form Medicare-for-All amounts to a federal takeover of of single-payer system. Socialized medicine won’t solve the American health care. challenges our health care system faces – it would nationalize the entire health care sector and wreck the economy. Democrats cannot answer how to fund their socialized medicine plans without wrecking the BACKGROUND American economy. Congress should consider U.S. health care spending accounts for approximately 18 percent reforms that address the burdens plaguing our of America’s gross domestic product (GDP).1 Government current system. spending on health care makes up a substantial portion of that amount. In 2018, Medicare accounted for 21 percent of health care spending at $750 billion, and Medicaid carried a 16 percent share at $597 billion.2 Nationwide, “personal healthcare spending is currently projected to be $3.859 trillion in 2022,”3 while national health expenditures are estimated to reach $4.562 trillion in 2022.4 According to one estimate, average households spend more of their income on hospital visits (18.6 percent) than they do on federal taxes (13.9 percent).5 Source: Avik Roy, Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity6 REPUBLICANPOLICY.HOUSE.GOV @GOPPOLICY [email protected] Democrats have introduced two major so-called “Medicare-for-All” proposals which have received national attention. The first is Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) plan, S.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Moore's Sicko Offers No Cure for U.S. Health Care
    Moore’s Sicko Offers No Cure for U.S. Health Care 2007-20 by Paul Guppy, Vice President for Research There he goes again. Michael Moore health care results in rationing, price controls, earlier this year released Sicko, a new waiting lists and low-quality care. “documentary” movie about American health care. I put the word in quotation marks For example, the Canadian courts because documentary films usually present recently ruled in favor of patient George facts. Zeliotis, who lived in pain for a year while waiting for a hip operation under Canada’s But for Moore, a film is called a socialized “health care for all” system. The documentary not because it is based on fact – justices found that Canadians had suffered and his films actually contain serious errors – but even died while waiting for care. because he does not use professional actors, meaning he does not have to pay the people In Britain, waiting lists for routine care who appear on camera. Apparently, the only are so long that one of the most popular person who gets paid for appearing in a products sold in drug stores are do-it-yourself Michael Moore film is...Michael Moore. In dental kits. Sicko, Moore attacks for-profit health care and calls for adoption of a socialized, state- Socialized health systems are managed health care system. chronically plagued by rationing, shortages, labor strikes and disputes over doctors’ pay. Yet Moore is not adverse to securing The poor quality of socialized medicine helps handsome profits in his own field. Disney explain why so many foreigners travel to the Corporation paid Moore a dazzling $21 United State to receive medical care.
    [Show full text]
  • “Socialized” Medicine: Oppositional Rhetoric and Obama’S Health Care Reform
    Bryant University Bryant Digital Repository History and Social Sciences Faculty Journal History and Social Sciences Faculty Articles Publications and Research 3-2013 The Enduring Narrative of “Socialized” Medicine: Oppositional Rhetoric and Obama’s Health Care Reform Richard Holtzman Bryant University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/histss_jou Part of the Oral History Commons, and the Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Holtzman, Richard, "The Enduring Narrative of “Socialized” Medicine: Oppositional Rhetoric and Obama’s Health Care Reform" (2013). History and Social Sciences Faculty Journal Articles. Paper 71. https://digitalcommons.bryant.edu/histss_jou/71 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the History and Social Sciences Faculty Publications and Research at Bryant Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in History and Social Sciences Faculty Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Bryant Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Enduring Narrative of “Socialized” Medicine: Oppositional Rhetoric and Obama’s Health Care Reform Richard Holtzman Associate Professor, Bryant University To Cite this Article: Richard Holtzman (2013): “The Enduring Narrative of ‘Socialized’ Medicine: Oppositional Rhetoric and Obama’s Health Care Reform.” Itineration: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Rhetoric, Media, and Culture March 2013. Itineration: Cross-Disciplinary Studies in Rhetoric, Media and Culture March 2013 itineration.org ISSN: 2169-561X © Abstract President Barack Obama and his promises of health care reform were met with strong public support when he took office in January 2009. By the time Congress ultimately passed legislation in March 2010, not only had a majority of citizens turned against health care reform, but many had come to interpret it as inimical to American values.
    [Show full text]
  • Tuna-Dolphin Controversy, the World Trade Organization, and the Liberal Project to Reconceptualize International Law Benedict Kingsbury
    DukeLawMagan~n~e ____________ DEAN EDITOR ASSOCIATE EDITOR DESIGN CONSULTATION Pamela B. Gann Evelyn M. Pursley Janse Conover Haywood Azalea Graphics CONTENTS From the Dean ........................................................................ FORUM Germany's Unification and its Discontents Herbert L. Bernstein.................................................................. 4 The Tuna-Dolphin Controversy, the World Trade Organization, and the Liberal Project to Reconceptualize International Law Benedict Kingsbury.................................................................... 8 An International Manual for the Law of Armed Conflict at Sea Horace B. Robertson, Jr. ...................... ....................................... 14 ABOUT THE SCHOOL Duke's World Rule of Law Center and Founder Arthur Larson Made World Peace a Priority .................... ................. ....... ........ 20 Law School Center Promoting National Security Law Conferences ...... ........................................ ....... ................. 24 Duke Law Students Research Issues for War Crimes Tribunal ................................................................ 25 Duke Law School Faculty: Becoming International in a Variety of Ways............................ 27 Asia-America Institute Established ........................................... 33 THE DOCKET Faculty Profile: Donald L. Horowitz Exploring Ethnic Conflicts ....................................................... 35 Duke Law Alumni Practice Around the Globe......................... 38 Specially
    [Show full text]
  • The Conscience of a Conservative
    The Conscience of a Conservative Barry Goldwater Foreword by Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D. Previous President’s Essays A Letter to My Children 1986 Whittaker Chambers Up from Liberalism 1987 Richard Weaver The Economic Necessity of Freedom 1988 Wilhelm Roepke Errand Into the Wilderness 1989 Michael Novak Isaiah’s Job 1990 Albert Jay Nock Freedom, Tradition, Conservatism 1991 Frank S. Meyer Enlivening the Conservative Mind 1992 Russell Kirk Responsibility and Freedom 1993 F. A. Hayek The Conservative Framework and Modern Realities 1994 William F. Buckley, Jr. A Letter to the Young 1995 Midge Decter The March of Freedom: The Westminster Speech 1996 Ronald W. Reagan Capitalism and Freedom 1997 Milton Friedman Liberty and Property 1998 Ludwig von Mises Farewell Address 1999 George Washington Four Essays 2000 Leonard Read The Minister to Freedom: The Legacy of John Witherspoon 2001 Joseph Loconte Defending U.S. Interests and Principles in the United Nations 2002 Jeane J. Kirkpatrick The Contexts of Democracy 2003 Robert Nisbet Most of these essays have been collected in the second edition of The March of Freedom by Edwin J. Feulner, Jr. Foreword © 2004 by The Heritage Foundation. From the book The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. © 1990. Published by Regnery Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted by special permission of Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, D.C. Foreword mong the many analyses about the 2004 Republican National Convention, one offered by the eminent con- A servative columnist George F. Will caught my eye. “Barry is back,” he wrote, referring to Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who won the Republican presidential nomination forty years ago but was then crushed by President Lyndon B.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington City, 1800-1830 Cynthia Diane Earman Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School Fall 11-12-1992 Boardinghouses, Parties and the Creation of a Political Society: Washington City, 1800-1830 Cynthia Diane Earman Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Earman, Cynthia Diane, "Boardinghouses, Parties and the Creation of a Political Society: Washington City, 1800-1830" (1992). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 8222. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/8222 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BOARDINGHOUSES, PARTIES AND THE CREATION OF A POLITICAL SOCIETY: WASHINGTON CITY, 1800-1830 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in The Department of History by Cynthia Diane Earman A.B., Goucher College, 1989 December 1992 MANUSCRIPT THESES Unpublished theses submitted for the Master's and Doctor's Degrees and deposited in the Louisiana State University Libraries are available for inspection. Use of any thesis is limited by the rights of the author. Bibliographical references may be noted, but passages may not be copied unless the author has given permission. Credit must be given in subsequent written or published work. A library which borrows this thesis for use by its clientele is expected to make sure that the borrower is aware of the above restrictions.
    [Show full text]