R.I.P., Dale Bumpers

---

---

Dale Bumpers must be a patron saint for anyone who dreams of coming from nowhere and winning whatever the greatest prize in that person's chosen profession happens to be. Bumpers' profession — his calling, if you choose to call it that — was in politics.

He may not be the patron saint of all such people, though. Jimmy Carter, who overcame low name recognition to win the presidency, must hold that title for presidential aspirants. But for those with low name recognition who seek lesser offices, well, they couldn't do better than to have Bumpers on their side.

I spent most of the first 30 years of my life in Arkansas, and it often seemed as if Bumpers, who died Friday at the age of 90, had always been a part of the state's political scene, but the truth was that he spent the first 18 years of his career, after serving in World War II and then studying law at Northwestern, in virtual obscurity as a mostly unknown city attorney in the town where he was born — Charleston, a village in Northwest Arkansas.

He entered state politics in 1970 as a Democratic candidate for governor. The incumbent was a Republican so the Democratic primary was crowded. Bumpers was polling at 1% when he entered the race, but he elbowed his way into a runoff with former Gov. Orval Faubus and won it easily. Then, in the general election, he handily defeated the incumbent, Winthrop Rockefeller, in the process earning the reputation of political giant killer.

That wasn't the last giant he toppled, either. In 1974, after serving two two–year terms as governor, Bumpers challenged five–term Sen. Bill Fulbright in the primary and won by a 2–to–1 margin. He went on to serve four terms in the U.S. Senate.

His most memorable moment in the Senate most likely came a few weeks after his retirement from it in 1999, when he was asked to deliver a closing argument in Bill Clinton's Senate impeachment trial. "H.L. Mencken said one time, 'When you hear somebody say, 'This is not about the money,' it's about the money," Bumpers said. "And when you hear somebody say, 'This is not about sex,' it's about sex."

I always love it when someone works in a quote from Mencken.

Bumpers was frequently mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, and I always thought he would have been a good one. He did whatever he thought was right, not what he thought would win him votes. It's my understanding that, even after serving as governor and senator over a period of nearly 30 years, the accomplishment of which he was most proud was playing an important role in the integration of the school district in his hometown — the first in the old Confederacy.

He always had a sunny disposition, whether he actually believed what he said or not. The thing was that he could make others believe it.

I recall when I was on the faculty of the University of Oklahoma, and I attended a lecture being given by former Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic presidential nominee in 1972, the year Bumpers was re–elected governor in a landslide. After the lecture, I went up to McGovern to introduce myself and shake his hand. I told him I had seen him once, late in that '72 campaign when he made a brief stop at the Little Rock airport, and a crowd of both the curious and the committed gathered in a hangar to see him.

McGovern told me he remembered that stop because Bumpers had assured him he would carry Arkansas when the votes were counted about a week later. It didn't work out that way. Richard Nixon carried 69% of the vote, the first time in precisely one century that Arkansas voted for a Republican for president. It has now done so in all but three of the 10 presidential elections that have been held since — and native son Clinton was the Democrats' nominee in two of those elections.

But through that transition, Bumpers continued to win elections. When he was elected governor, observers speculated that he would be one of a new breed of Southern governors — a group that, at the time, included the likes of Jimmy Carter of Georgia. Carter, as I have pointed out, enjoyed his own meteoric rise when he came from nowhere in 1976 to win the presidency. Bumpers later said he had long believed that 1976 was his best opportunity to be elected president.

Bumpers was often mentioned as a possible presidential candidate, but the talk seemed to be loudest in 1980 and 1984. He declined to enter the race both times. I always thought he would have been successful because he had qualities that served Ronald Reagan so well — that sunny disposition I mentioned and remarkable oratorical skills. On a few occasions as a reporter, I covered Bumpers speaking at Labor Day Fish Fries and Chamber of Commerce luncheons in Arkansas, and I always marveled at his speaking style. It was so engaging, so folksy.

He had a real knack for connecting with people, regardless of their political philosophies. It is why in these last couple of days since his death, both Democrats and Republicans in Arkansas have been speaking highly of Bumpers and his ability to reach across the aisle.

Of course, the political landscape in Arkansas has changed considerably since Bumpers was governor. In those days, reaching across the aisle wasn't really the issue. Democrats held nearly every seat in the state legislature, but Bumpers still had to build a consensus on most issues. The legislature had conservative Democrats, liberal Democrats and moderate Democrats. It was the same challenge that Bumpers' Democratic successors, David Pryor (who followed Bumpers to the Senate four years later) and Bill Clinton, faced as governor.

All three understood that it is necessary for each side to give a little, to compromise if great things are to be accomplished. They may not be quite as great as each side envisioned, but they will be better than doing nothing.

Arkansas was fortunate to be governed by such men in times of tremendous change — and doing nothing was not an option.

Of Flowers And Water And Bullets

---

---

There certainly were a lot of lingering images from Baltimore last week.

There were, of course, the images of the plundering of small businesses, the burning of public property, the clashes between protestors and police. Those images overwhelmed everything else.

There were also the images of a city government that was caught flat–footed in the aftermath of Freddie Gray's death while in police custody. One had to wonder if this was an isolated incident, or if this sort of thing, albeit on a much smaller scale, goes on all the time. Could the government of Baltimore really be that inept, that incompetent?

And there was the image of the Baltimore mom slapping her son around. I think there must have been a lot of people who applauded that assertion of parental authority. There seems to be far too little of it these days.

I felt some of the most powerful images from Baltimore were the less public moments, the ones that photojournalists always seem to find. Sometimes, unfortunately, those moments have been manufactured, but the spontaneous ones have the power to remain in your memory.

Like the one at the top of this post of the black child distributing bottles of water to city police in riot gear.

It reminded me of a mental image I've carried with me for many years — I say mental because it is entirely the product of my imagination based on accounts I have read and heard. As far as I know, there is no photograph of it. But it is said to have happened 45 years ago — yesterday, I believe, maybe the day before — in Ohio.

To put it in historical perspective, President Nixon had just told the world about the Americans' previously secret invasion of Cambodia. Angry protests had erupted on college campuses all across the country. In Ohio, the National Guard had been called out to bring order to the campus of Kent State University.

Lots of people think that the Guard only appeared in Kent on the day of the shootings — Monday, May 4, 1970 — but the Guard was there that weekend. Sometime that weekend, Allison Krause, who had just turned 19, approached one of the Guardsmen with a flower in her hand. She placed it in the barrel of his weapon and said, "Flowers are better than bullets."

---

---

On Monday, May 4, Krause was one of four Kent State students who died after being shot by Guardsmen. Her comment about flowers and bullets is chiseled into the stone that marks her grave.

It seems to me that those two moments, separated by nearly half a century, summarize the differences in the thinking of the two sides in our ongoing political debates.

Liberals are like the image in my mind of Allison Krause. They see an ideal world that doesn't exist — but, in their minds, it should, and it frustrates them that it does not.

Conservatives are like the young black boy distributing water bottles to combatants. They see the world — and deal with it — as it is. They wish the world was better, but it is not, and it frustrates them that it is not.

I wonder if the two sides will ever find common ground.

Innocence Lost: Four Dead in Ohio

---

---

In so many ways, May 4, 1970, seemed like a fairly typical spring day.

Then as now, young people were preparing for the end of the school year. On college campuses, students were anticipating final exams. Those who were about to graduate were thinking about their lives after school. Some were polishing their resumes and their references. Others — who had no well–placed connections or lacked the resources for graduate school to rescue them from the draft — expected to soon be on their way to the jungles of Southeast Asia.

I was a mere child at the time, looking forward to summer vacation, but I was well aware of what was happening on the other side of the globe. Like everyone else, I knew about the war in Vietnam. I saw reports about it every night on the evening news. I saw articles about it in the morning paper, whether I read them or not as I made my way to the comics.

And I heard the adults in my world talk about it. My father was a professor at a small college in Arkansas. He and his colleagues often spoke about what was happening. Sometimes their conversations turned to young people who had been in their classrooms and wound up dying in combat.

As I was growing up, I became friendly with several of my father's students. We lived in the country, and my father's students often came to perform odd jobs for him when he was landscaping our property. I came to regard them as surrogate older siblings, and it was through them that I came to appreciate the divisions of the day, even if I didn't always understand the issues.

There were many things tearing at the fabric of American society in those days, but the war in Vietnam, in which hundreds of Americans were dying every week, was the great demarcation line between the generations in the late 1960s and early 1970s. There were exceptions, of course, but, in general, young people were against the war and older people supported it.

That, however, was based on the assumption that everyone knew where and how the war was being waged. Americans had been lied to many times about the progress of the war effort during the Johnson presidency, but, until that time, the belief was that the hostilities were confined to North and South Vietnam.

But that changed in late April 1970. On April 30, President Nixon went on national television to announce the "Cambodian campaign," which came as a shock to many, regardless of whether they supported or opposed the war.

Less than two weeks earlier, Nixon had announced the planned withdrawal of 150,000 troops during that year. Although Nixon never actually said so, this withdrawal suggested that there would be no military action in Cambodia or other nearby countries like Laos and Thailand. His secretary of state had even assured the House Appropriations subcommittee that there were no plans to escalate the war.

But that assurance disappeared like a puff of smoke in a gust of wind when Nixon announced the Cambodian campaign.

An agonized outcry arose from college campuses across the nation, and angry demonstrations followed. As I recall, the National Guard was summoned to many campuses. That was hardly news. Guardsmen had been called out to restore the peace in many places in recent years as public opinion began to turn against the war in Vietnam. They had even been called upon to break up riots, and there had been times when their tactics were far from genteel. Thus, their presence on college campuses that weekend may have been unsettling to some, but it was hardly surprising.

In fact, there were even some opponents of the war who felt it was necessary for someone to restore order. Demonstrations that were sparked by Nixon's announcement turned violent in many places, including Kent, Ohio, the day after Nixon's speech. The wrath of the antiwar protesters soon turned on the ROTC building on the Kent State University campus.

Now, most people had never heard of Kent, Ohio, in early May 1970. Fewer were aware of the existence of Kent State. But that soon changed.

---

---

On Monday, May 4, 1970, the Guardsmen opened fire on a crowd of protesters on the Kent State campus. Four students were killed, including a fellow named Jeffrey Miller, over whose body a young runaway knelt, her face contorted in anguish, as a photojournalism student named John Filo snapped a picture that later won a Pulitzer Prize.

That photo may have been the most prominent of many images that came to symbolize the Vietnam era for millions.

The events of May 4 — in only 13 seconds, 67 bullets were fired — had a profound influence on the people of the day. For many, I suppose, it was a loss of innocence — if much innocence was left to lose.

For me, I would have to say it was perhaps the strangest moment of my childhood.

I was in elementary school, and I have no memory of anything that was said there, by anyone, in the aftermath of that bloody confrontation. I don't remember any of the teachers mentioning it, nor do I remember talking about it with my classmates.

But I vividly remember watching the news reports and being aware of the fact that young people, the same age as the people who were enrolled in my father's classes, had been shot down while trying to exercise their rights. I had seen many disturbing images in my brief life, but Kent State was the most disturbing for me.

Perhaps the most disturbing part was what came after the four students had died and nine others had been treated for their wounds. I guess the only appropriate word for it would be "ghoulish."

Apparently, many people — presumably supporters of both Nixon and the war effort — found it necessary to malign the dead.

For example, two of the four dead students were female — and one wasn't even a participant in the protest, just happened to be walking to class when a bullet struck her in the neck. Their families probably hadn't had time to claim their remains before completely unsubstantiated rumors were circulating about all four victims but especially the girls.

The girls were filthy, infested with lice, the rumors said. Neither wore underwear — which probably surprised no one since other rumors contended they were sexually promiscuous and even pregnant with illegitimate progeny. One of the girls was said to have been sick with syphilis and would have died soon, anyway.

In fact, the rumors indicated that all four victims were dirty (in keeping with the popular image of the time of unclean "hippies"), even though photos from that day and in the months prior showed four young people who appeared to be clean and well groomed.

As outrageous as the stories were, there were those who believed them, and, in 40 years, I have been able to reach only one conclusion. Those who died were guiltless. It was necessary to vilify them as much as possible to justify their deaths because, if their deaths could not be justified, the blame for those deaths rested with society.

And there were many in American society who simply would not accept that blame. It was easier for them to accept the idea that the four young people had brought their deaths on themselves.

It was a confusing time. It was often difficult to know who — or what — to believe. But the vitriolic nature of the rumors was reprehensible.

Nixon often spoke of unidentified "agitators" who, supposedly, were intent upon undermining the war effort — but, in hindsight, it seems more likely that Nixon feared that antiwar demonstrations undermined him.

The governor of Ohio didn't help matters by insisting that the protesters were "worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and the vigilantes." In hindsight, that seems to have been part of the campaign of character assassination against the victims, to equate them with the worst figures of history.

I get the sense, looking back on that event, that a certain amount of radicalization occurred and continued to occur in an ever–expanding wave, the way that ripples from a tiny stone in a pond grow ever wider as they move away from Point Zero.

The extent of radicalization varied from one individual to the next, but I think it was the point where the younger generation of Americans began to realize that they had not always been told the truth by their elders, that there were some things in American life that were wrong and always would be wrong and that, if there was to be a change, it truly had to start with them.

Maybe they had inklings about that before, but most managed to rationalize some things that they could no longer rationalize after four people were killed by National Guardsmen at a place where young people believed they were safe.

If that wasn't true, what else had they been told that wasn't true?

Young white people of that time had been told that, all visible evidence to the contrary, things really were "separate but equal" for black citizens. Young males began to acknowledge that females of their own age were not being paid the same for doing the same job.

I think, on that day 40 years ago, the seeds were planted that made it possible for a black man and a white woman to battle for the presidential nomination in 2008.

The maturation process took awhile, but, perhaps, on May 4, 1970, young Americans began their journey to realizing what Thomas Jefferson really meant when he wrote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Maybe that is the legacy of Kent State.

When Failure Was Not an Option

---

---

It struck me as ironic — perhaps that was by design? — that Barack Obama came to the Kennedy Space Center this week to defend the changes he has proposed for the space program.

I say that, not because of the Tea Party's now annual April 15 protests or the increasingly strident criticism that comes Obama's way from the Republicans, but because this month marks the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 13 space mission.

In fact, today is the anniversary of the Apollo 13 crew's return to earth, so Obama made his remarks during the 40th anniversary of that ill–fated mission.

Jeffrey Kluger, a writer for TIME magazine who co–authored "Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13" with Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell, reflected in TIME recently that the mission was a miracle that was "due to the extraordinary technological and navigational improvisations the people on the ground and in the spacecraft dreamed up along the way." But he also gave considerable credit to Lovell and flight director Gene Kranz and their "surreal cool."

---

---

As well he should.

Essentially, Lovell and Kranz were products of a special mindset that has always existed at NASA. Some folks would call it a "can–do" spirit. In a memorable scene from Ron Howard's movie about the mission in 1995, Kranz (played by Ed Harris) summarized it for the ground crew during the crisis — "failure is not an option" — although it is my understanding that Kranz never said that.

Maybe that's an example of the differences in word usage from one generation to the next. In 1970, an option was something extra you had installed in your car. "Option" simply wasn't used in that "failure is not an option" context in those days. But it was used in that context when the script writers were doing their interviews in preparation for the 1995 film.

Dramatic dialogue, yes, but it also pretty efficiently describes the problem that NASA faced in April 1970.

It may be hard for many modern people, conditioned by the convenience of the internet and cell phones and global positioning systems, to imagine how challenging Apollo 13 was. The folks on the ground had to figure out how to bring the crew back to earth when an oxygen tank exploded — I guess it was more or less understood immediately that, once that tank blew up, the original mission was out of the question.

After the crew returned safely to earth 40 years ago today, it was frequently called a "successful failure" as people learned how remarkable the accomplishment had been, even though the original mission had to be scrapped.

President Nixon didn't seem to be nearly as jubilant posing with a crew that never made it to the moon as he did the year before when he was only too happy to bask in the glow that came from Apollo 11. I always thought Nixon regarded the Apollo 13 crew as losers. Well, it was an election year. Perhaps he felt he had been deprived of a victorious photo for campaign pamphlets.

I was pretty young at the time. I remember the incident and being as stunned as everyone else to discover that something actually could go wrong on these space missions, which often seemed to be routine. But I don't think I understood the issues that had to be dealt with.

And I don't think many outside NASA's ground crew and the three men in space knew how perilously close the crew came to losing their lives.

To preserve power, the crew had to power down. Back on earth, the ground crew had to design and then describe "the mailbox" that would remove carbon dioxide. It had to be built from materials that were on board the space ship — it wasn't just laying around the capsule.

Modern folks, immersed as they are in 21st–century technology, may wonder why an image wasn't transmitted to Apollo 13. But there was no e–mail in 1970. I don't know if fax machines existed, but, if they did, no one had figured out how to send a fax from earth to outer space.

In fact, the computer you use at work or at home is far more powerful than the computers NASA was using 40 years ago. In hindsight, the space program was nowhere near as advanced as most Americans believed it was — but it did represent the best that was available at the time.

It wasn't primitive, but if it sounds primitive, that is only in comparison to what we have now. But let's not lose our perspective. Modern technology was made possible to a great extent by the research that was done by America's space program in the 1960s and 1970s. Even Apollo 13 made its contributions to scientific knowledge.

So, when Obama insists that the federal government will continue to support NASA financially as it has done over the years, I hope he is telling the truth.

I hope he will always remember the United States consistently and adequately supported NASA, even at those times when its work could not be linked to any tangible benefits.

And let's all remember a couple of truisms that emerged from NASA's moon program:

First, discoveries don't follow preset timetables. They happen when they happen.

Second, when the new technologies of tomorrow emerge from the research that is being done today, let's take steps to use it to benefit our economy. Let's encourage companies to keep the jobs that will be created by new industries we can't even imagine here instead of outsourcing them to other lands.