by Dan Donovan
When she was a recent graduate of Tulane University, Ms. Tailor’s reputation as an incisive interviewer began with her series of talks with Dr. Martin Luther King during his 1970 campaign for the U. S. Senate in Georgia. During the course of a week, as a correspondent for an Atlanta TV station, she was allowed to see most of the inner workings of the campaign. Day by day she brought Dr. King into homes across the State as a dedicated husband, father, minister and worker for the people. His chief issue was to make the provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act as the next Amendment to the Constitution. Although the Acts were established law each required periodic renewal by Congress.
Dr. King believed this could subject the provisions to manipulations at a later date; as part of the Constitution the provisions, and the rights of the people, would have strengthened safeguards.
[Note: Senator King’s proposal was ratified as the 26th Amendment to the Constitution in 1982, during his second term in office.]
In the final interview of the series, Ms. Tailor drew Dr. King out of his reluctance to discuss Memphis 1968. In an unusually muted voice he related the events. “A march had been scheduled in the city to support a striking municipal workers’ union. However, a thunderstorm and an early settlement of the strike changed my plans. The next day’s headlines showed what might have been. In a boarding-house, nearby to a motel where I had reserved a room, I was told that one of the tenants had failed to properly close his room door. As another tenant exited her room across the hall, an open window allowed through a gust of wind. This pushed in her neighbor’s door. On a chair in the room was a rifle. I later heard that a telescopic sight was attached. The man was asleep on the bed. There were some beer cans on the floor. The woman ran to the manager, who called the police. The report of a gun brought them quicker than usual to the neighborhood. The man was arrested. I was told there was some evidence that implicated him and others in a plot…” (Against you?)…Yes. (Do you think his being shot and killed at the courthouse by a sniper the following day was part of the conspiracy?)…Only God knows for certain.”
Lottie Tailor won several TV and journalism awards as a result of the interviews, plus a program of her own.
Now sitting beside her was another person whose schedule had been changed by fate.
“General…”
“Ms. Tailor.”
“Corrie.”
“Lottie.”
They laughed, and the studio audience joined in. Over the next uninterrupted hour and a half she encouraged him to relate the struggle he and his family confronted with Kenneth’s illness, hospitalization and his final day. A man who had witnessed the demise of many in war, now with difficulty, discussed the death of one in a commentary at once clinical and deeply heart-breaking.
“And as a tribute, Corrie, you have Kenneth’s Fund—the foundation created and named to honor your son.”
“Yes…it’s a means for my family and I to still have, in a way, a physical connection to Kenneth…Life each day is a remembrance of who went before. We set ourselves to follow their achievements, to avoid their mistakes. When we remember a loved one we conflict ourselves with memories of joy and sorrow. My family and I are blessed for having had Kenneth with us…for…a short time…we…strive to see the joy, the accomplishments rather than the sorrow. It’s what any family strives to do with its memories. The foundation will help individuals and families strive to achieve what can be a better future for themselves and this nation.”
“And you may yet strive to help the country in other ways?”
“Is that a question or a prediction?”
“Let’s talk again in six months,” concluded Lottie Tailor with a bemused smile.
Since 1952 the number of States conducting a Presidential Preference Primary had grown every four years; by 2000 the States seemed on the verge of open hostilities in the jostling to be The First In The Nation primary. New Hampshire’s demand to retain this status in Presidential election years was based on its assertion of a superior record in picking winners out of the pack. Political scientists dismissed the claim, pointing out that New Mexico was the true champion in the art of siding with future, or renewing, tenants at Washington’s most distinguished public housing address. Since entering the Union in 1912 the “Land of Enchantment” had voted with the popular vote victor in every November Presidential election except in 1976.
Seeking to establish order to the process, the National Committees of the two major parties had agreed in 2006 on a revised format for the next round of primaries. A series of four regionally-based contests would be held on the third Tuesday of each month from March through June. The regions were set as the Northeast, the South, the Central Midwest and the West. Each would have a turn at being first over the years, but the initial first would be the Northeast. By great historical fortune Cory Stratton was a resident of New York. The State’s Governor, Nelson Balboa, was determined to draft Stratton as a Favorite Son candidate in the Federalist Party primary. Unless Stratton was planning on physically restraining him boasted Governor Balboa, he would campaign non-stop for Stratton throughout all eleven States in the region. So, in a great pincer movement with his non-campaign Foundation activities and the Governor’s unofficial draft movement, Cory Stratton rolled over his competition and forced them to smile about it. Stratton projected himself as he honestly was—straight forward, intelligent, committed to the All-American virtues of hard work, family and morality based on the loving-God teachings of a faith that had endured for centuries. He was no goody-goody fool; when aggravated by obstruction caused by arrogant, narrow-mindedness Stratton could unleash a verbal fury that few with combat experience cared to endure. Of course, this only helped to generate support for him. The common response by the public was, “Hey, if it bugs Stratton, who’s as cool as ice, it must really be bad. Tell Cory to let the thunder roll.” This last remark comes from a Persian Gulf War story concerning arguments Stratton had with the White House. He purportedly said, “We’ve hit them with the lightning (the month-long air and missile assault on Iranian targets), now we must let the thunder roll.” (Unleashing an unrestricted armor-supported ground assault—with its goal being downtown Tehran).
Sensing they were in a no-win scenario Stratton’s competition conceded him the Northeast, and redeployed their forces to the remaining regions. On Primary Day Eve, Cory Stratton finally made it official; he announced his candidacy on the steps of City Hall in Brooklyn, New York. He spoke to the nation, and gave fair warning to Edward Galway (the presumptive Libertarian candidate) that the political thunder was set to roll, with its goal being downtown Washington.
[In this history Brooklyn is a separate city from New York City, which has three boroughs.]
“We gather here today as Nature brings rebirth to our beloved land. This nation has also endured the long, dark bitterness of the passing political season. It is time now to go to work. We have much to do. What is vital and dynamic about our country has lain too long beneath the chilling by-product of a harsh era. An era when conflicts abroad created divisions at home. An era when politicians put moral words in their speeches, but not moral deeds in their actions. We have it within ourselves the ability to rise up this land, our nation, ourselves, to the sun-washed glory we have known. We can renew the luster of this great constellation of towns and cities, of rural and urban communities, and become again a gleaming beacon for the world to admire.”
“We will be as a storm upon the prairie that sweeps away the Arctic chains, and restores robustness to the great heartland. We will let the thunder roll from coast to coast, from North to South, as a clarion call for renewal. We are better than what we have been! We can be as great as we once were!”
“Now is the hour to begin. I will do all I can to help you, this State, this region, this nation! I will seek the nomination for President, and I ask for the help of a few good citizens in this endeavor!”
“And so we begin again! God bless you and your family
! God bless the United States of America!”
Stratton secured a runaway victory, receiving 70% of the popular vote. The one surprise of the day was the 20% won by the little-known, second-term Governor of Ohio, Bertford (Bert) Maurus. He carried out a populist-style whirlwind campaign that bypassed the large cities to concentrate on the region’s hinterland. It was here, Governor Maurus said, the strength of the nation resided. He called these people America’s Indispensable Majority (A.I.M.), and he used “AIM” as the theme of his speeches.
“This country was not established by tycoons who bought land tracts and turned them into corporate parks and condo villages. America was built by workers, out there every day, doing it one plank of wood, one brick, one electric cable, one pipeline at a time. We use to have a grand concept for this nation. It helped us AIM higher, to AIM for the stars, to AIM for a society stretching from one great ocean to another. The countries at our borders are crumbling. If we don’t take the right steps their weaknesses could cause us trouble. We must AIM to complete our Manifest Destiny, and establish the virtues and rewards of American Civilization for those now slipping backwards. We can AIM higher! Destiny will ensure our AIM!”
Governor Maurus’ remarks alluded to the social turmoil brewing in Canada and Mexico. The Province of Quebec was scheduled to hold another plebiscite on independence two weeks after the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. The last such referendum, on October 30, 1995, was defeated by a margin of 1.2%; there were now indications that the result could go just as narrowly for the separatists. Some observers in Ottawa had long believed this campaign was really directed at securing a stronger voice for La Belle Province within the Canadian Confederation. “Independence” would be a bargaining chip in a new round of consultations with the other Provinces. Since 1995 something had changed in the rest of Canada. A pioneer-cowboy spirit existed in the minds and souls of many of those living west of Ontario; and, over the past several years that spirit had become a bit more cantankerous. The feeling was “If Quebec wants to go, let them go!” Westerners had come to the conclusion that nothing would satisfy the French-speakers, not even resettling them in France. In a small but influential circle Quebec’s idea of separation gave rise to a similar concept for the West. Nationalism for Canadians had always been a rather nebulous concept. They were forced into a nation-state status in 1864 because of the growing concerns regarding the chaos to their south, which had been enflamed by the seizure of the Washington government by the Radical Unionists during the States War.
The Westerners were willing to say publicly what they considered obvious—what is Canada anyway, eh? The Atlantic Provinces are an economic basket case. The Inuit had taken control of the Northern Territory. So where does that leave the West? Paying the bill for all the others? No way, no more!
Committees of political and business leaders began meeting in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in early 2007 to vaguely probe their options. As the year progressed these Provincial committees established a regional working-group to co-ordinate their investigations. No one spoke openly on this development, other than to express concern regarding the uncertainty of the future. The mountain was privately considering coming to Mohammed. After a conference in late April 2008 a telephone call was placed to the Governor’s office in Columbus, Ohio. An offer was made pertaining to a trade mission. It was agreed that Governor Maurus’ top aide, Alex Poller, would travel to Vancouver the following week.
Alex Poller was a decorated hero of the Persian Gulf conflict, where he served as a Colonel in the U.S. Army Rangers. Poller’s career was placed in jeopardy when he insisted upon repeating his criticisms of the Prescott Administration’s policy of restraint in dealing with a vanquished Iran. On more than one occasion, in private discussions, Poller had come close to accusing then President Prescott of idiocy for failing to fully dismember Iran. A superior officer advised Poller that in his own best interest he should pursue his career goals elsewhere. Certain political elements at home were only too happy to latch onto a genuine looks-great-in-a-uniform hero as a means of attracting the media spotlight.
This faction with all its noise about a new approach to international policies, and what the military should be permitted to do, and how Congress could be a millstone for true patriots seeking to implement strategies which every knowledgeable American was certain to realize made unqualified sense, was actually a throwback to an earlier political generation. They saw foreign policy directives as the means of keeping foreigners away from America. Aid programs should be designed primarily to assist other nations in purchasing American-made weapons so that their own military could stand up to whatever regional bully confronted them. Economic policy would be designed to expand American exports to all nations regardless of any “messy” internal affairs review. These America-First true believers rationalized that a leading contributing factor to the demise of The People’s Republics of Eurasia was its dependence on, perhaps addiction to, Western financing and cultural items. It was their firmly held conviction that the rope from which the West was to swing actually lassoed the East. “Just let us in the door,” their business supporters clamored, “and we’ll get them hooked. Then we’ll buy and sell ’em like commodities.”
This odd coalition of free marketers and neo-isolationists wanted to construct a bulwark of immigration and economic restrictions to tightly control access to America; they wanted a defense capability three to four times greater than any possible combination of adversaries. The world should accept American directives to improve their receptiveness to American exports, but on no account should nations expect anything beyond a minimal toehold within U.S. markets.
Alex Poller brought to this movement a front man for a dream held by many of its members—crafting the United States of North America. If Europe can strive to accomplish a workable union, if Soviet China is emerging as the dominant entity in Asia (with Nippon and Australia as consenting cohorts), then why shouldn’t America expand to its natural and rightful extent? This concept for a drive towards a renewal of manifest destiny had germinated from various writings of disaffected, agitated nationalists who believed the Federal Government stood in the way of America’s success. This group felt that Washington bureaucrats were too timid to propel the U.S. to its rightful place as not merely the pre-eminent world power, but the dominating global colossus. They sought a public voice who would be capable of eclipsing their media-generated image of a gun-totting fringe element. A ray of hope had dawned for them in the emergence of Alex Poller. This decorated veteran had sought a nomination for a House of Representatives seat in the 2000 election. However, the district he targeted was the home of a ten-year incumbent who said she would not disappear because some lobbyist group’s shining knight arrived on the scene. Poller had to fight in a primary and he did it the only way he knew how—ambush and take no prisoners. Contributions flowed into Poller’s campaign fund from a host of political action committees allied to the movement. Poller was well-armed and set for battle. In the military he rose through the ranks chiefly on his battlefield activities. Poller was always the first to volunteer for whatever action was at hand. Prior to the Persian Gulf War, Poller had seen action during the liberation of Cuba (1961), in the Philippines War (1972–84) and in the Central American conflicts (1983–90). He knew how to react in operations conceived and designed by others. Planning was not Poller’s forte, yet he insisted on total control of the primary campaign. It was rough-edged and off-stride from the start and went downhill from there. Poller’s reaction was to become more strident. In the single debate between the two candidates Alex Poller responded to the opening question (“Why should the voters consider selecting you?”) by launching into a tirade against the very institution he sought to join. He denounced Congress as a cesspool of ineptness, corruption and as a nest of sycophants to foreign interests. At the depths of his diatribe Poller declared “the so-called leadership of Congress is not worthy of my respect. I would feel obligated to lie to th
em if it would advance a cause I championed.”
What followed was not an intentional minute of silence; it simply took Poller’s opponent, the moderator and the au-dience that long to recover from Poller’s outburst. The moderator attempted to give him a chance to clarify his remarks, but Poller essentially ordered him to move on. With only a week left before the voting took place, Alex Poller did not have time to recover. For that matter, he did not see that he had any need to alter his remarks. His goal was not to revise the status quo but to upend it. He finished a very distant second. The incumbent was re-nominated with 85% of the vote. Defeat only convinced Poller of the need to adjust his tactics not his objectives.
Poller’s fire and brimstone polemics drew the attention of a politician whose shallowness could make him acceptable to a public attuned to style rather than substance. Bert Maurus dreamed of being an up and coming power within the party; but, he not was passionately consumed by any issue. He could discern the general anxiety in the electorate and respond with plausible platitudes. Well and good, temporarily, for the Legion Hall dinner circuit, but political dynamics required something actually dynamic. Maurus admired Alex Poller’s ability to stir, engage and occasionally nearly incite a crowd by the vehemence of his oratory. Nevertheless, Maurus was keenly aware of Poller’s shortcomings. He could get the parade marching but left on his own the procession could have a lemmings-like outcome. Following his re-election as Governor in 2004, Maurus contacted Poller and offered him an advisory role on his staff. Poller gratefully accepted the post especially since the alternative was a future financed solely by his Army pension. The Governor’s intention was to have Poller tarry on the fringes of his Administration to be available at the Governor’s beckoning when a fiery tidbit was required. Alex Poller had an alternative agenda in mind; in less than three years he was Chief of Staff to a Presidential candidate.