Scene from movie Dazed & confused of students standing, sitting, and laying on and inside an orange convertible car

April 19, 2023

We Should Hang Out More

Movies often serve as perfect time capsules, offering snapshots of what life was like in an earlier time. Take Dazed and Confused. The movie is set in late seventies Texas and focuses on groups of ... Read Now >

News

Cluing Kids In About Cash: An Interview

April 28, 2009 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Talking to children about money can present its own set of problems. What’s the appropriate age to discuss money matters with your kids? And, how can you teach them financial responsibility?

Carol Anne Riddell

Parenting and Education Reporter Carol Anne Riddell shared some of her insights with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks. Read the transcript of the full interview below.

John Sparks
Carol Anne, what do you think is a good age to start talking to children about money?

Carol Anne Riddell
Well, it’s an interesting thing. I think that you can start almost at any age, as early as kids are interested in it. I’ve always been surprised at how much kids know even before we think they do, and I think even very young children can really benefit from some discussion about money. I think I first talked to my son, you know, in a more in-depth way about money when he was five or six years old when he started to covet very specific things. I think the key is to keep the conversation age-appropriate and relevant to the things that kids understand or care about.

John Sparks
So what do you tell a six-year-old about money?

Carol Anne Riddell
I think it’s important for children to understand that money is earned and money is a means to get the things that we need and we want, but we, as adults, also have to really stress that there’s lots of things that money can’t buy like health and happiness and some of the things that kids like the best, like playing outdoors or hanging out with their friends. Those things are completely free.

John Sparks
Well now, you have kids yourself, tell me what you tell them about money.

Carol Anne Riddell
I’ve had many conversations, John. I’ve told them that they are lucky that we have enough money to have things that we need and sometimes the things that we want. I try to on a pretty regular basis to give them some financial decision-making power by letting them choose between things, so maybe is it going to be a coloring book today, or is it going to be a ice cream cone. So, they feel like they’ve had some power in that process. We have a tradition in our family: we regularly take the spare change that they save to their local bank and we use the coin counter, and then when we get the cash from that, I let them spend a portion of it, and then they have to take another portion of it and save it, and another portion of it we give to charity which usually means just walking across the street to the soup kitchen or a church in our neighborhood. But, I feel like it’s giving them a very good sense of the different things that money can be used for, not just to get things in the immediate, but to save for things long-term and to help other people.

John Sparks
I think that’s great. Now you know we’re in an economic recession. Does it add to the stress to talk about money problems with children? I know all of us are experiencing instances where we must tighten our belts.

Carol Anne Riddell
You know, as I was saying before, I really think that our kids usually know so much more than we realize about adult topics. So, if we are stressed out about money, they are almost undoubtedly sense that. They overhear our conversations. They pick up information from the news, and even if we are very careful about moderating what we say in front of kids, other adults may not be, and other children may not be. So, I think we have to start from a baseline that they may very well know more than we think. So, if you understand that, the thing is that kids often imagine something worse than the actual reality. You have to remember that kids may think that if they hear a parent talking about being concerned about getting all the bills paid this month you know they may take that and think that it means they’re not going to have a roof over their head, or they’re not going to be able to have food on the table. They may take it at a different level than actually exists, so it’s important, I think, to make sure they understand in a kid-friendly way what actual reality is. We have to be honest with them, but I think as the parents, we have to also be reassuring so that the kids understand that even if families have to make some different, maybe even difficult choices, they will always be taken care of. Another thing that I’ve really heard a lot over the years is that an important thing when you talk to kids about things like this is to follow their lead because you’ll get a sense of when they have enough information so you don’t want to overload them with details they don’t need or they don’t want.

John Sparks
Now, you’ve done several stories about money and kids. What tips have you picked up on how the parents should deal with their kids about money?

Carol Anne Riddell
You know, one of the things that I’ve heard and I’ve thought about a lot myself as a parent, and I think it’s a pretty good point is that adults should distinguish between giving children the opportunity to earn money and spend money and using money as bribery to get the behavior that we want. Also that process of saving for money, saving money for something a child wants, can be really rewarding. My son wanted this particular video game, so he saved for weeks. Then he brought his little toy safe down to the store, and he bought this game, and he was so proud of himself, and I think that the reward of having the game was great in itself, but the fact that he had purchased it made it much more significant to him. It was also hilarious to watch him like crack open the plastic safe at the store, but you know, I think it’s a very important lesson for kids, and it’s a simple thing, but it’s meaningful. Another really important tool is the allowance. Now in our house, the allowance is tied to chores. My kids have to do certain sort of simple chores in order to earn their allowance. Some people disagree with that and feel like chores should be part of just family responsibility and not tied to an allowance. Families do it different ways. I think that you can do that either way, and it’s something you have to be comfortable with, but the allowance itself is a good way to teach kids about I have X amount of money and I want Y, so here’s how long I have to save for it.

John Sparks
I’m curious, when you were a child, did you get an allowance?

Carol Anne Riddell
You know, I did get an allowance, but it was not such a regular thing. Often I went to my parents when I wanted something, and I would ask for money, and sometimes I got it, and sometimes I didn’t. I do remember being rewarded with money for good report cards. Again, that’s something that some people would say is probably not the best use of money, but I don’t think it had any negative effect on me. I think I always understood that the goal was learning and good grades and not that I would get the $20 at the end of the year, the school year, but that’s really sort of an individual choice. I think the allowance concept in itself is a great one, and then each family has to determine what they’re most comfortable with within their own family.

John Sparks
Are there specific things that parents can teach their children about handling money that could make us better off as a whole, perhaps if we had done certain things we could’ve avoided some of the economic pitfalls that we find ourselves in today?

Carol Anne Riddell
Yeah. You know I think, John, yes, yes, and yes. We really need to teach our children the difference between need and want, and this is a conversation that I have with my kids all the time. This moment in history is really one of those what they call — what teachers like to call “teachable moments.” It’s a chance for us to point out repercussions, again in a kid-friendly way, for aggressive greed and dishonesty. It’s also a chance for us to talk to our kids about how connected all of us are. You know when people lose their jobs, they can’t spend their money at the local grocer, the local shoe store, then the grocer or the shoe owner, have trouble paying their bills. I think it’s a good way to show children the way all – – the way there is an interdependency among all of us.

John Sparks
Carol Anne, you reported extensively on public education. What, if anything, are schools teaching our kids about money?

Carol Anne Riddell
I think that the landscape is really changing on that front because I have been in a lot of schools in the last few years that have been getting very serious about this, schools that are teaching financial literacy classes to even grade school, middle school children. Some schools are working directly with banks and other financial institutions. They’re teaching kids how to budget, how to manage a checking account, how to manage a savings account, and I think that a lot of schools look at that as much more a part of the real important curriculum than they used to because we are in such a difficult financial time and kids are going to need those skills.

John Sparks
One of the things that has landed us in this difficult financial situation we find ourselves is credit and being irresponsible with credit. How do you talk to your kids about credit and about being responsible and budgeting and things like doing without?

Carol Anne Riddell
Well you know, we’ve all heard those stories about college kids who end up in tremendous trouble because of credit debt. I think one way to avoid that is to really teach kids money management early on in small ways and in big ways, and I mean when they’re young. For example, let them help you make a budget for going to the grocery store or for a family vacation. Here’s the list of all the things we’d like to do on our vacation. We can only afford to do three of those things. Let’s sit down and look at what each one costs and pick the ones that we want to do. I think it’s a great way for them to understand that we have to make financial sacrifices. I think it’s also a great idea to get kids savings accounts and then to go over statements with them and, again, let them earn money. Let them save money, and then let them purchase something that they’ve wanted. It’s a great lesson. My son, as I said before, has to take out the garbage and the recycling to earn his weekly allowance. It’s taken him a lot of trips to the garbage room to get some of the video games he wanted, but I think the reward is sweeter because of that.

John Sparks
Should our sons and daughters have responsibilities or share the responsibility in contributing to the family’s overall finances?

Carol Anne Riddell
You know, John, I think that it’s a tricky and it’s sort of a complicated question because we all know that there are families for whom there’s just no other choice and a lot of times that’s just the case. But I would say that ideally a child should not have to do anything other than go to school, be a good student, and learn, and that’s the ideal situation. If a child is sort of forced to actually have to go out and earn money, that can really cut into, you know, their ability to focus on academics. Now I have a different opinion on this when we start talking about older children or adult children because I’ve done a lot of stories about adult children returning and living at home, and I think in that case, if you have a college age student who comes back home, I think it’s important that those students, those young people, contribute to the family because it can alleviate a lot of stress if everyone knows what the expectations are for both the parents and the adult children, and I think that also in that case with an older child helps them adapt to what they will face as an adult living on their own.

John Sparks
Carol Anne, obviously you’ve given all these things a lot of thought. Are there any other thoughts that you might have or would want to add in thinking about children and money?

Carol Anne Riddell
You know, I was thinking a little bit about this before we chatted today about what age is great to start an allowance at, and there’s a lot of debate back and forth. I think one of the things I would say is that you have to really listen to your child because some kids can develop a fascination with money very early on, and so it’s important to know your child and what they can handle. Some people say that a good gauge is about a dollar a year, so a five-year-old would get $5 a week, or you know a ten-year-old would get $10 a week. I’ve found that less is more in our case. I usually start on the lower end, and then I move it up about like a dollar a year, and I feel like that’s been pretty effective, but I’ve also noticed real differences between my two children. While my son is very thoughtful about saving his money and wanting to spend his money, my daughter less interested in it, less focused on it, less focused on buying things, and so for her, I haven’t started her an allowance yet because I just don’t think she’s really ready to handle it. So one point I would make to parents is really try to gauge your child’s interest level and their responsibility level before you give them an allowance.

John Sparks
Do you ever have conversations with your kids about envy? For instance, does your son come home and say, “Well, Johnny has this and I want this,” or conversations about greed?

Carol Anne Riddell
Absolutely, a lot of conversations about that, and I think it’s a human reaction. All of us feel envious of something at some point. One of the things I found that’s helpful to get around that is just to acknowledge it, and say, “Well that must be nice that Tommy has X, but let’s talk about the things that you have,” and I don’t necessarily mean materialistic things, but sometimes we’ll go through a list of all the wonderful things in my kid’s life that they should be happy for, they may be material or nonmaterial, and I think in a way it just sort of helps to count your own blessings, and it can bring you back and make you a little more centered. I mean, it works for me as an adult, so I try to make it work for my kids.

John Sparks
Very good. I sure appreciate it Carol Anne. It was great talking with you, and I appreciate your thoughtful answers.

Carol Anne Riddell
All right, thanks so much. It’s been great talking to you.

** The views and opinions expressed in this and other interviews found on this site are expressly those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Marist Poll.

Related Stories:

4/28: Talking to Kids About Money

Kids and Money: Lessons from the Past and Dealing with the Present

| by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Any parent reading the interview with Carol Anne Riddell about talking to kids about money, can’t help picking up some very valuable tips in teaching their children about handling finances.

John Sparks

Carol Anne suggested if we teach our sons and daughters how to handle money responsibly at an early age, they might avoid falling into some of the pitfalls we find ourselves in today — most notably borrowing ourselves out of house and home with no means of repaying our debts.

Talking to Carol Anne brought back memories of my childhood and valuable lessons I learned about money from my parents.

I grew up in Fort Worth, Texas in the 1950’s when a gallon of gasoline cost 19 cents, a bottle of Coca-Cola set you back a nickel and 3 cents would mail a letter. My father’s take-home pay was about $100 a week. We were considered middle class.

Fridays meant payday. Dad would cash his check at the grocery store that evening, and he and mother would sit down at the kitchen table and stack the money in different piles — grocery money, mortgage payment, utilities, etc. I was very aware that this Friday night business about budgets was something very important. I also realized that Dad built our house as a duplex so that the rent he collected could pay the mortgage.

I didn’t get an allowance, but I can’t remember doing without anything important, yet toys were strictly for birthdays and Christmas. I’m not so sure I was aware of things I did not have. Television, a very powerful medium supported by advertisers whose message is designed to create a need for something you can probably do without in the first place, was in its infancy and was just beginning to become a pervasive force.

My first lesson about credit came in the form of an after school treat. My mother set up an account at a small grocery that I passed by on my way home from school. Each day I could get a coke and a nickel candy bar. The grocer would enter it in a small ledger book, and at the end of the week, my parents would pay the 50 cents.

Before the days of gasoline credit cards, we traded at a Sinclair gasoline station down the hill. Dad made an arrangement with the owner to keep an account of his purchases, and on Mondays, Dad would always settle up. We lived within our means.

I opened my first bank account at the age of 6. In those days, the public schools had an arrangement with the Fort Worth National Bank. Tuesday was bank day at every school in the city. Teachers would take time out from lessons. Students would line up at the teacher’s desk with their pennies, nickels, and dimes. The teachers would collect the change, fill out each boy and girl’s savings passbook, complete a deposit slip and receipt, and an armored car would pick up the collections at each school. I’m not sure who came up with the idea and how the Fort Worth National got the business, but it taught us a good habit and the value of saving money. Today no doubt they would question teachers taking up valuable classroom time to do the bank’s administrative work.

Another childhood lesson was about becoming an entrepreneur. The business? Converting used soda pop bottles into baseball cards. You could collect old bottles and get 2 cents a piece for them at Mr. Holland’s Grocery. The money was quickly used to purchase penny wax packs. It’s too bad we didn’t know much about investments. Today that near-mint 1959 Mickey Mantle we bought for a penny will fetch $1,000. Not a bad return in 50 years.

When I was in the 4th grade, I learned about incentives. I was paid $1.25 each Thursday to throw a weekly paper route for a small neighborhood newspaper, but every fourth week I was paid $2.25 — as an encouragement to stay with the job.

By that time, Dad had taken me downtown to the lobby of the old First National Bank where I opened up a passbook savings account to deposit the money I made off the paper route. Dad said I’d need it to go to college. As the years went by, the paper route was replaced by other jobs. I continued to bank most of the money, and the day came when my bank balance reached triple digits!

Then Dad told me, “You’re going to borrow $100.” He had me use the money in my savings account as collateral and deposit the loan in the same savings account where it would draw interest. He told me the interest on the loan would cost a bit more, but it would pay off in the long run because it was the first step toward establishing credit.

Establishing credit was a far cry from today when almost every day we receive unsolicited applications for credit cards encouraging us to borrow to the hilt. Most lenders don’t even care if you even have a job and are able to pay back anything but the minimum monthly payment.

Certainly times have changed, but principles taught by parents who cared and took the time last a lifetime. Teaching a child about money, debt, credit, responsibility, and living within your means is not only an investment in that person, but an investment in the economic future of our country.

Related Stories:

4/28: Talking to Kids About Money

Cluing Kids In About Cash: An Interview

First Ladies’ Footsteps: An Interview

April 16, 2009 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

She’s covered every first lady since Mamie Eisenhower. Now, former White House correspondent and author, Bonnie Angelo, shares her views about Michelle Obama with The Marist Poll’s John Sparks. Read the transcript of the full interview below.

John Sparks
Bonnie, I want to start out by talking about Michelle Obama. How would you rate Michelle and the job she’s doing as first lady?

Bonnie Angelo
I’m trying to think of how you’d say she’s a ten-plus. She hit the ground running. She knew what she wanted to do and instantly without any break in time set about doing it, which was to reach out to many, many more kinds of people, and then we’ve had the opportunity in these recent days to see her absolutely a star on the world stage. Every move she made, the London newspapers just wrote and wrote about. Now they’re on the Continent, and I’m sure there will be the same kind of coverage. But she simply swamped the 20 Nation Summit with her presence and her activities.

John Sparks
Which former first lady does she remind you most of?

Bonnie Angelo
Michelle is cutting a new pattern. She reminds me of a cross-section of people. There is a big slice of Eleanor Roosevelt who was very concerned with shining her light into the darkness of the forgotten people in this country during those depression years. She’s partly Lady Bird Johnson wanting to make things more beautiful. She set about planting a vegetable garden in the White House grounds, on the White House grounds. That’s something that Lady Bird would’ve certainly approved of. She was like Jackie Kennedy in that she has a great sense of fashion and doesn’t mind being ahead of the game on that. So, she’s got a blend of many of the best attributes of several of our first ladies.

John Sparks
We took a recent poll, and we asked the respondents which of the following first ladies that they would like to see Michelle follow in the tradition of and mentioned Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Hillary [Clinton], Jackie Kennedy, Nancy Reagan, and Eleanor Roosevelt. I’m just curious. You covered all of these, well probably with the exception of Eleanor. Would you like to see her follow in the tradition of one of these?

Bonnie Angelo
Well, no, not one of those necessarily because I think that list omits the most crucial person that she might be following, and that’s Lady Bird Johnson. Lady Bird Johnson never set a foot wrong. She never caused any problems in the White House, but she did things. Her beautification program across the country left lasting imprints that this nation still appreciates. So how she could… She must be included on that list, and I would say that certainly Michelle would take a lot of comfort in what she could see that Lady Bird did. On the others, of course, Eleanor Roosevelt would’ve been a great to her historic figure in that she shone her light on economically distressed families, on the woes that America was facing and needed to address. I think Michelle will not do as much of that, but I think she has already shown that, for example, she turned up on a Sunday morning with absolutely minimal, minimal press, maybe one reporter was allowed, working in a soup kitchen for the homeless here in Washington. Now, none of the others have ever done that, and she did it with minimal publicity. So, I think she has a very deep social conscience, and I see a lot of Eleanor Roosevelt in that. I think she also has a sense of style that has beguiled particularly on her trip to Europe. Every time she sets foot out of their quarters, the British press is just falling all over to write about Michelle. She has a sense of style like no other first lady since Jacqueline Kennedy. She wears the clothes that are quite daring and very fashionable, very chic. So, I think she can be compared to a number of the other first ladies, but certainly to the activists on the list.

John Sparks
Bonnie, you know most first ladies usually take on a project. You referred to Lady Bird and the beautification project. With Laura Bush, it was literacy, Rosalynn Carter mental health, Hillary [Clinton] and healthcare, I suppose. What does it say about a first lady when she chooses a project, and what does it say about what she might be willing to bite off?

Bonnie Angelo
Well, I think it shows her commitment to her new position. The first ladies must realize that they have enormous influence, not power, but influence, and certainly Michelle realized that from the campaign right on. There are those who didn’t do it. Nancy Reagan did minimal. Her concern was Ronald Reagan, making him happy. Her children never even visited the White House. I think after their first month there, I’m not sure that her own children, Patty and Ronald Jr., I’m not sure they were ever even in the White House again. They were totally irrelevant to the life of Nancy and Ronald Reagan. There were others. You mentioned Laura Bush and Barbara Bush. I mean remember Barbara Bush got us in – – got the country interested in literacy and reading. That was her project. She broke ground on that. Laura really was just following in her footsteps on that. I certainly think Laura did a lot in that regard, but there was nothing original about it.

John Sparks
Let’s go back to Michelle for a moment. Do you think that in the short time that she has been in the White House that she has changed or is in the process of changing the role of the first lady?

Bonnie Angelo
Yes, I do. I think compare her to Laura Bush, who’s a very popular, likeable person and chose a very safe topic, activity to be on. Who can be against literacy? I mean really nobody. But, Laura was very much the supporting person to her husband. They did practically nothing in a social way in the White House. In eight years there, they had only eight state – – only six state dinners, which is really quite an incredible lack of understanding. State dinners are not just where you show off your best silverware. It’s where you’re creating a stage for your visitors from foreign countries. I think that they overlooked, didn’t understand that function. So, I’m saying that Michelle is going back beyond them. Hillary, as first lady, got – – maybe stuck her neck out too far at the beginning when she really wanted to manage their healthcare initiative. Now, she’s totally qualified. She’s much, much more qualified now than she was then of course, much, but she got burned by the criticism, because that effort didn’t go well. So, she sort of retreated into being a more conventional person than she really was in her heart. Once again, you go back to Lady Bird whose imprint is still across this whole nation. She did… She woke up the nation to both beautifying itself and preserving its historic places. People forget that aspect of her work. But, nobody’s going to be against those, so she was – – it was safe, but she put energy and organization behind it; therefore, it has lasted all these years. Lady Bird’s work continues to this day. There’s not a thing you could point to from say Nancy Reagan who was a devoted wife to her husband. She adored him as you know, but I can’t think of anything that Nancy Reagan did in the White House that was lasting. There was some little effort about, oh, a couple of projects but they were not – – they didn’t catch on. They were not crucial. Her heart was not in it. So, I think you can go back to Lady Bird. You can then go back to Eleanor Roosevelt. Now, remember that the first lady who followed Eleanor Roosevelt’s tenure, and Eleanor had broken ground to do things beyond any – – and got much criticism, much harsh criticism and even scoffing at her work, which was so important, shining her light on the dark corners of our country. They would laugh about it. Her enemies, and they were multiple, would laugh about it going down to coal mines. She pointed out the terrible conditions that workers in this country must labor under for pitiful wages in many cases, so Eleanor Roosevelt’s got to be a basically White House saint on that. I think that Michelle is reaching out very much to African American projects to bring African Americans into the fold. In London where they are not nearly, nearly as advanced in their racial adjustments as this country is, I was Bureau Chief over there for quite a long time – – for a time. In London, she went to a girls school, an inspirational thing. Those girls are never going to forget that. She also did a number of other personal efforts to make people think particularly on that whole issue of bringing the black British into their – – more definitely into their society. They’re way behind us on that. I think that now she is on continental Europe, we’re going to see how it goes over there. I have no reason to think it will be other than the same outstanding success. This is a woman of great ability. People forget that she was a Princeton graduate. She was a Harvard Law graduate. She was a person who could achieve just almost anything on her own merits. She doesn’t get there from just being the wife of the president, and I think that is extremely important in this day and age when so many women are in the marketplace.

John Sparks
Bonnie, you covered, I think, every first lady in modern times since Mamie Eisenhower.

Bonnie Angelo
I have basically, yes.

John Sparks
Of all of those that you knew and covered, who do you think was the strongest and who was the weakest?

Bonnie Angelo
Bess Truman was the weakest, no question in my mind. She simply rejected any kind of function other than shaking hands at the mandatory tea receptions for ladies of standing. She did… And everything she did she was grumpy about. When you read her books about their tenure, it’s really quite sad that she never saw… now they lived most of their time, which she much, much enjoyed, living across Pennsylvania Avenue in what is now and has been for many years, the president’s guest house. They lived there about three years because, possibly four, because the White House during that time was totally renovated, totally renovated, but she was delighted not to have to live in the White House. She had no sense of the role of the White House or what the White House could do, what it symbolizes for this country, which was very sad. You hate for somebody to gripe about all of their time as first lady when it is really such a – – it can be such an effective role for accomplishing things, so I put her as the most ineffective. I think the others you have to look at them for what they specifically do. Rosalynn Carter certainly did a lot for mental health to make people aware, but it’s not a subject that you can get good photo opportunities out of, which is – – gets you in the newspapers and on television so that her choice of fields of subjects was extremely important, but it didn’t package very well. Lady Bird’s, as we said, is important and lasting and it was packaged wonderfully and never caused… oh people sometimes grumbled about the money or whatever that Lady Bird was spending on her gardens, which was a shabby way to look at it. She was a woman who was interested in the environment of this country, not just planting a rose bush here or there. I think Hillary Clinton did not live up to her capabilities at all, which we saw fully developed in the Senate, but she was not that — she didn’t kind of work out her place in the White House as well as she could have because we saw what she could do as Senator and as what she’s doing as Secretary of State and also what a powerful candidate she was in the presidential campaign. But Michelle Obama is just now – – we haven’t seen her in action for three months and she’s already done so much. Europe is just swooning over her.

John Sparks
What do you think is most important thing a first lady contributes?

Bonnie Angelo
I think a first lady should contribute concern for some big issue facing the whole country, not… I’m not saying political issue. I’m specifically not saying that, but a big issue like the environment, which is what Lady Bird was really all about, saving our environment and our history. Eleanor Roosevelt, you could see what her concern was, bringing the part of our country that was vanished almost into the darkness of poverty. Then, you get into the later times, now both of the Bush first ladies did a lot to emphasize literacy. I think that was admirable. I don’t think it probably connected that much to the nitty-gritty of black schools that are having such problems keeping their students. I don’t think it had any effect on that issue which is – – was – – is much graver than literacy per se.

John Sparks
Let’s talk about the influence that a first lady might have over her husband. Can you tell me of those that you covered who had the most influence over her husband and her husband’s actions?

Bonnie Angelo
I think Hillary Clinton had a great deal of influence because he respected her really first class brain and her sense of… I mean she was top of the class at Yale Law School. She was a person who had academic qualifications and had practiced in law. I think he respected her views on just about any subject that crossed their screen. I certainly know that Lyndon Johnson took a lot of his very thorny problems to Lady Bird, to talk to Lady Bird about, because he so held in high regard her good clear thinking, not publicly but he did that constantly. I don’t know. I didn’t get any sense of that with the Bush first ladies, but they certainly probably did more than perhaps seen publicly. Barbara Bush is such a strong personality that I’m sure that any issue that was current during their tenure, their four-year tenure, that she would’ve weighed in without hesitation to talk about her view, give her views to her husband. I think there’s no question about that. Jackie Kennedy didn’t care really what John Kennedy was doing as president. She had no bent toward the political world, but she put a lasting legacy, her stamp on the White House with her very careful historically correct refurbishings and established it in a formal legal way that people could donate accepted gifts, not just any little knick-knack,to the White House if it passed muster. So, she made people much more aware of the White House as a grand treasure of this country, and her stamp will be left on the White House for all years to come. She also set a very high standard for just elegance, elegance. Now I don’t think she had any real care for the common folk. I don’t think that figured in her mentality at all. She was a society girl who had wonderful taste, but I don’t think that she had any real compassion for the people who were struggling.

John Sparks
Bonnie, a minute ago you talked about Michelle and her credentials. She is a woman in her own right. She also has kids. Do you think that she is changing how people view the balance between work and family?

Bonnie Angelo
Oh, I think that’s a wonderful issue because she is certainly concerned about it, and it’s plain that she could’ve had all kinds of appointments across the board with her background and with her knowledge of not just politics, but public policy, but she is steering a more cautious course of social issues, shining her light where there’s been not enough light shone. Now she’s not going to let those two little girls go unattended, and the best thing about that is that those two little girls and Michelle are seeing their father/husband more than they’ve ever been with him. When he was in the Senate, they were back in Chicago. He would go for weekends, but mostly he was tied up in politics where the last two years before his election were campaign years. So, they actually are going to have more of a family life in the White House than they have ever been able to have, and I think that is a wonderful set of circumstances. I think they both seem to be very well adjusted little girls, each of them seems — that seems to be. They’re bringing their beloved grandmother to live with them. That’s a good thing to do. It gives stability when as for this present trip to the Summit in London and then on to many different meetings across the Continental Europe, they’re away, but they are at home with their grandmother, and I think they now are… From the very first days, they made those little girls enjoy it. They had their friends in from the first night. They had a scavenger hunt the first — the night of the inauguration. They think about them. Both of them do really well in school. They’re both smart little girls. That doesn’t surprise anybody. I think they are going to be really happy. I believe they’re going to have the best family life they’ve ever known.

John Sparks
Do you think that Michelle will influence fashion to the extent that Jackie did?

Bonnie Angelo
Not to that extent but, yes, she is going to influence it. But Jackie was about fashion, and she was beautiful as a model is beautiful and spent enormous amounts on clothes, much more than was known at the time, and so she set a standard for fashion that we had never had before, and people still remember it. She was so glamorous. I think Michelle is going to have a more down to earth fashion because she has been a career woman, but I think that she’s always going to look very smart, and she obviously enjoys clothes, so I think… I think she’s going to say, “Look, you can be a mother. You can do all kinds of things, and you can still enjoy looking quite wonderful.”

John Sparks
You know I just realized, I did not ask you about Pat Nixon. Tell me about Pat Nixon.

Bonnie Angelo
Oh, you know, that tells you something. That tells you something pertinent that she was so overlooked as First Lady, and she was — had the abilities to do so much more than she was allowed to do. But Nixon’s west wing cadre did not see any real particular value in the president’s wife, you know. They would use her for certain things, but they didn’t let Pat be Pat. Now, I traveled with her on all of her trips that she did solo, and the first ones were for – – they sent her out much too early really to hotspots of poverty programs, and that was very difficult. She ran into jeering crowds. It was not a well thought through trip that her staff threw her out onto really early. I was with her in Peru when she went down again solo, when they had that massive earthquake, and the United States came through with plane loads of goods and clothing, and she was down there on the mountain top with the local people. She also met with the president of Peru who had been very difficult with America in the months before she was – – came, and she smoothed things over to the degree that it was really noticed in diplomatic circles. So, she had more talents than the president’s hard-eyed men were willing to see. When I went to Africa with Pat Nixon, it was again, Pat was on her own. We went to, I guess, three countries in black Africa on the western nations — Ghana, and Ivory Coast, and Liberia. She was a sensation. The streets were lined with people leaping and shouting and playing music, and she just blossomed. It was marvelous to see. It was a tremendously successful trip. I think when she was with him, she was just so cast in the little wife along side, you know. I don’t… When she was on her own, she blossomed into being Pat Ryan again, and I watched that on numerous trips. It was visible, and this strange coldness or stiffness with which he greeted her after some of those really tough trips on the — at a White House south lawn greeting, he was just — it was just very cold. I remember coming back, the earthquake trip into Peru, which she had been a wonderful success worldwide, and she met up with him at the Grand Ole Opry where they were — it was supposed to be her birthday, well he forgot to introduce her, and Roy Acuff stepped in and very smoothly just did it. But, he… But the president was supposed to. I mean, it was just a lack of appreciation for what she could have done, so I feel that that’s why we forgot to mention her in the first instance in this conversation is that she was not free to be Pat.

John Sparks
Well it reminds also of one other person I did not ask you about, and this one was not really elected to the White House and was a very short term, but yet Betty Ford…

Bonnie Angelo
Betty Ford, yes. Betty Ford was a breath of fresh air. She came when the White House had been in its absolute dismal time coming up to the impeachment and the resignation, and the Fords came in, and they were so unaffected and straightforward and untarnished by any of the Nixon shenanigans, and she didn’t have very long to establish herself, but she brought a breath of openness and fresh air to the White House that was… and let me tell you one other thing she did that was really, really crucial. I remember the day so well. She had been making a speech to a great big group of women’s organizations out of one of Washington’s major hotels. From that speech… now she stopped at the door because she and I had arranged that we would have our picture taken together there because I was doing a cover story for Time that week on the hard things that face first ladies. Pat Nixon was in travail, well not just firstly, political-wise. Joan Kennedy had just gone to an alcoholic institution, and all of a sudden from that meeting that she very nicely addressed this large group, she went straight to the National Institutes of Health for a breast cancer operation. She let nobody know. She was her own smiling self. I think the strength of her to do what she was supposed to do without letting on that she was facing a crisis in her life, to me, that was very impressive, and it showed that this person had great strength in her soul.

John Sparks
You know, you mention her name today and she’s been gone for quite awhile, but I equate it with the Betty Ford Center for…

Bonnie Angelo
Exactly. She used…. now she had a tendency to alcoholism. She had that tendency in the White House. They always attributed it to taking — she had shoulder and difficulties that she had to take drugs for. They always attributed it to that, to the painkillers for her bad shoulders. Well, it wasn’t really. It wasn’t, but that was the way it was. So, when they got out of the White House, then, it got worse and when they retired to Colorado at that time, President Ford said to his beloved Betty, “We can’t go on like this. You have got to do something about this, Betty. I will help you. We will do anything, but you have got to do it yourself.” And, when he just talked straight to her, she realized that she… and he said to her, “You’re strong and you’ve done other — everything. This you’ve got to do yourself,” so that’s when she went for treatment in the California establishment facility and was never afflicted with alcoholism again. But what happened from there, she realized she could turn it into a positive thing in her life, and she established the Betty Ford Clinic. She made alcoholism as a social problem something you talk about, something you deal with. She made a lasting imprint on who knows how many people across this country who were able to pull themselves out of an alcoholic habit for — by the inspiration of Betty Ford. So, I think she left a tremendous imprint.

John Sparks
Bonnie, I’m going to have to wrap things up, but I can’t do that without asking you one final question and that is that as you well know, and I do too, newspapers are folding, the television networks are closing bureaus and making deep cuts. What kind of impact will this have on covering the first family which – – and the first lady, which of course was your expertise?

Bonnie Angelo
Well, I covered much more than that. I did that, but I also covered politics and the White House. I covered the first ladies when they were news, which was a good way to do it. I was not with them all the time, but a lot of them really made news, you know.

John Sparks
Sure.

Bonnie Angelo
I think it’s… You know my mind can’t even wrap itself around this problem because it requires a certain kind of coverage for their activities to make a national impact, and these women, almost all of them in the modern times, have done something major, have really left footprints on our society. I don’t exactly… I know you can do it on all kinds of Internet outlets, and there are new ones coming along even as we speak, I just don’t think it’s quite the same as reading about it in your morning newspaper, but maybe that’s because I love my morning newspapers and my news magazines, yes.

John Sparks
So do I. So do I. Bonnie, it’s been a real pleasure talking with you. I really appreciate your time today.

Bonnie Angelo
Well, I love talking with you because this experience — these experiences, these women were great events in my life and in our history, and I’m just always happy to talk a little bit more about how they really were.

John Sparks
Well, thank you so much for your time.

** The views and opinions expressed in this and other interviews found on this site are expressly those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Marist Poll.

Related Story:

4/16: A New Era for First Ladies?

Has the Economic Crisis Bottomed Out?

April 15, 2009 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

How long will the economic crisis last? Associate Editor of Barron’s, Michael Santoli, shared his observations with the Marist Poll’s John Sparks.

Here’s the transcript of their discussion:

John Sparks
Michael, we conducted a national survey, and we asked Americans how long they think the current economic crisis will last. I’m curious about your thoughts on that, as well as how does one define that point?

Michael Santoli
Well, your latter question actually I think is very relevant. If you consider the economic crisis to be the recession, in other words, a period when the economy is shrinking, I think we’re looking at least another several months. Really, the optimistic forecast that the economy might get back into growth mode in the very latter part of 2009, maybe into 2010. If the economic crisis is defined as a period of weak employment when we lose jobs month in and month out, that probably is going to last a little bit longer. Employment is a lagging indicator. It isn’t going to come back until after the sort of statistical measure of economic growth returns. But in terms of the crisis that began last year with the financial institutions at the risk of failure and the sort of banking systems ceasing to function and all that, I actually think we’re through the real acute phase of that crisis. We don’t at the moment have a concern about big institutions falling into chaos the way Lehman Brothers and AIG did, so that real intense period of the crisis might already be past.

John Sparks
Now you mentioned the last few months of 2008. I recall there was a lot of discussion, especially during the last days of the Bush administration, about when is a recession a recession. How would you define it?

Michael Santoli
I would define it… I think the standard definition as opposed to the sort of technical statistical definition is a prolonged period when economic output and employment are in decline, and we’ve had that obviously for some time. A lot of folks want to say, “Well it has to be at least two consecutive quarters of negative gross domestic product numbers.” I don’t know that that one is sort of sufficiently broad or applicable to every situation, so really an extended period when business activity and retail sales and employment are weak or shrinking.

John Sparks
Now we also asked what people consider to be the most important concern for the economy, and we asked them about unemployment, the stock market, mortgage crisis, interest rates, inflation. I’m just curious, of those items, what would you think would be their most important concern?

Michael Santoli
Well, the most concern I think for the average household should be the employment situation because it is going to continue to weaken. It’s obviously… Really it’s a black and white issue for the most part. If you have a job, you’re much more likely to be okay, be able to kind of cover your expenses than not. It sounds trite, but that’s’ really the defining definition of whether you’re in economic distress or not. But more broadly, I actually think that the excess level of debt at the household level, at the corporate level, the government level is really what’s weighing all of us down. So in some sense, it’s the credit crisis which reflects the excess of debt on everyone’s books that is the longer-term concern, and I think it’s the thing that’s going to keep the economy from really speeding up even as it recovers the way we’re familiar with. The recovery is more likely to be kind of muted, and consumers are likely to remain on the defensive.

John Sparks
I want to talk about the stock market for just a moment. Late last week, the market had a pretty good couple of days. Do you think that things will get worse before they get better, or do you think we’re beginning to see a turnaround that will continue?

Michael Santoli
Well the stock market’s only shown the tentative signs that maybe it’s in the process of bottoming. As you mentioned, we had actually four strong weeks from the early March lows in the Dow. We’re up more than 20% in four weeks, which is obviously a tremendous amount percentage-wise. Not many people were able to catch it because it happened too fast, and there’s some tentative indications that maybe that low would be the ultimate low, but that doesn’t mean that we’re up, up, and away with the stock market because typically it kind of backs off, maybe even returns to those levels. The bottoming process is usually prolonged and kind of painful. But with a market down 50% from its peak of 2007, it’s gone an awful long way into sort of building in a lot of the negatives that we all know about, so there is a decent chance that we’ve seen the bottom, but no guarantee.

John Sparks
Now we ask Americans to look at their own personal family finances and tell us if they expected in this next year, 2009, if they expected their personal family financial situation to get better, worse, or remain about the same. Interestingly enough about 50% said about the same, the rest a little bit of an edge for those that said they expected it to get better. I’m just curious. Does that seem to jive with what you think will happen?

Michael Santoli
It’s tough to say, although that’s not — it’s sort of interesting that that’s the breakdown, and I think that 50% that figures it’s going to stay the same, it sort of reflects that a tremendous percentage of people in this country have a very steady job and/or kind of retirement income and a very high percentage of homes in this country are actually paid off. So it’s… even though you hear about the foreclosures and people strapped, it’s not necessarily the majority. It’s just sort of a large minority. I do think it’s plausible that things get better for a fair portion of people out there because home prices have come down so much that I do think that even if they just sort of flatten out after a few months here, it will be kind of considered a positive in people’s minds. The other thing to keep in mind is interest rates are so low that a lot of people are going to be able to improve their financial position by either refinancing a mortgage or just sort of swapping to sort of lower cost debt, and so I do think there’s some indicators for the luckier household that it could get better. The worst part, though, is going to be the housing market remains on the defensive. There are too many homes out there. It’s most people’s chief asset, if they have an actual hard asset, and that’s something that we’ve not finished the reckoning process with regard to home prices.

John Sparks
Now we asked people if they felt like things were going in the right direction right now or were things going in the wrong direction as far as ways to address the economic crisis, and not surprisingly 80% of the Democrats said, “We’re headed in the right direction.” 63% of the Republicans said, “No, we’re headed in the wrong direction,” and that brings me to the next question. A lot, especially when we speak of the stock market, seems to fluctuate so much on emotion. We all recall FDR saying, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” I wanted to ask you: Do you think our current president, do you think he can inspire self-confidence in the American public and in the market, and if not, is there anyone who can pull this off?

Michael Santoli
Well, I think he can in a sense that he can kind of deliver the proper messages, which is that this mix of we’re in serious trouble, but we see our way out of it. It’s definitely plausible that he can get that across, and if he can’t, probably it’d be hard for anybody to do that. But I do think that what we have to get beyond is this period of kind of improvised responses, and it’s by necessity that the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve are basically kind of building new tools to try to attack this issue. I do think a big part of what a president has to do is not so much come up with the detailed solution, so to speak, but to kind of send the message and gestures that we’re on the case, things will return, just because the cycle always turns, and kind of to be there when it does improve with sort of a longer-term strategy that’s not just crisis management. So it’s possible. I understand why there’s frustration out there, and I do think that we’re in this period obviously of kind of recrimination and sort of who’s to blame for this mess. A lot of that sentiment out there is understandable, but I think it’s a phase that we have to really get through.

John Sparks
Michael, finally the world has shrunk. We certainly live in a global economy; and more than ever, there’s an interdependence on the economy of the United States with the markets in Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world. So just how much do these foreign markets affect our economy, and are there some things that affect us adversely that are beyond our control?

Michael Santoli
Well there’s no doubt. I mean the one huge area of interplay between us and the rest of the world is many parts of the rest of the world lend us tremendous amount of money, meaning our governments and they subsidize our consumption. Trillions of dollars of our government debt are owned by the Japanese, Chinese, Middle Eastern states. It’s not necessarily a great position to be in. For the time being, it’s in everybody’s interest to make sure they keep buying this up because they need to sell to us so… But it’s a tremendous risk down the road that that dynamic will break down, and that would mean higher interest rates and all kinds of bad things for us, like a dollar that goes down in value. But in terms of other areas that are sort of a net positive, what we found during this crisis was that I think the United States consumption is, it was reminded to everybody in the rest of the world who export to us just how important our domestic economy is to sop up their goods, and I do think that that means that they will continue to do what’s necessary that we can continue to buy their stuff, which also helps keep inflation down here. That’s a kind of a… That’s kind of the positive part of the dynamic. For the time being, we’ve gotten a big tax break in the form of lower oil prices. They’ve been climbing back up a little bit. They probably will accelerate if the world starts to recover relatively quickly before the United States does, and there’s some signs by the way that China and the emerging markets are already recovering. That could be a risk, too, because obviously geopolitics can also add tens of dollars to a barrel of oil, and we have to sort of be careful of that. I think the biggest risk, plausible risk near-term, is that all these countries try to get a position of exporting their way out of this downturn, and that they start putting up trade barriers and all that and kind of spook the market. That really did deepen the depression. The G-20 recently at the meeting kind of vowed that they wouldn’t do that, but that remains a risk in my mind.

John Sparks
Michael, I thank you for your time. Is there anything that you’d like to add that you think might be pertinent for some of our readers that we haven’t talked about?

Michael Santoli
I think we pretty much hit all of it. I do think we should sort of keep in mind that a lot of sort of fuel has been thrown at this economy in the way of the stimulus and low interest rates, almost free interest rates to banks, and that eventually will kick in. We just have not seen that point at which it’s really hit the economy yet, so we have to be alert for the likelihood that we will in fact start pulling out of this thing before too long.

John Sparks
Michael, I really appreciate your time. Thank you for spending the time with us.

Michael Santoli
Thanks very much. Appreciate it.

** The views and opinions expressed in this and other interviews found on this site are expressly those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Marist Poll.

Obama’s Biggest Hurdle

| by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

It’s not really a Catch-22 for President Obama when it comes to the economy. Although this new president may relish some political cover from the 76% of Americans who believe he inherited our current economic malaise, responsibility for stabilizing the shaky buck will ultimately end up on his desk…perhaps, sooner than later.

Lee Miringoff

75% of Americans know someone who has lost their job in the last six months, nearly twice the number of Americans thinks the economy is getting worse than think it’s improving, and 78% report they think the nation’s economic troubles will persist at least until next year. People’s patience on money matters is likely to be short-lived.

Although 61% of the national electorate think President Obama is fulfilling campaign promises which clearly included a complex agenda of domestic and international initiatives, 49% already think he is doing too much too soon. “Change” may be the key word for this Administration, but it’s the economy that is people’s priority #1.

If President Obama does nothing else but fix the economy — clearly, no easy matter — his presidency will be judged a success. Anything else he accomplishes, as long as the economy lags, will cast a cloud over his fresh presidency.

Now, there has been a glimmer of good news recently about the performance of the economy which is reflected in the poll numbers. 49% of Americans think the nation is headed in the right direction and more people think their personal finances are likely to get better in the coming year as opposed to worsen.

So, President Obama is wise to act forcefully and fast on the economy…investing in the short run whatever political capital he has accumulated along the campaign trail. “Honeymoon” is already the least used word by Washington wordsmiths.

Related Stories:

Future of the Economy

Michael Santoli

April 14, 2009 | by Marist Poll

Michael Santoli is an Associate Editor for Barron’s, The Dow Jones Business and Financial Weekly. He writes the “Streetwise” column, offering a forward-looking take on the financial markets, illuminating market trends and identifying investment opportunities.

Mike Santoli

Mr. Santoli, who joined Barron’s in 1997, is a regular on-air contributor to several cable and broadcast networks. He is a 1992 graduate of Wesleyan University.

4/8: Slow Down You Move Too Fast

April 8, 2009 | by Marist Poll

By Dr. Lee M. Miringoff

No, this isn’t about the 24/7 cable driven news cycle that is dominating political coverage. I’ll save that for another day. Instead, this rant focuses on the GOP and how it might weather tough electoral times.

Despite a relatively clear cut electoral outcome in November, D.C. is already waist deep in partisanship. Beltway Democrats and Republicans are travelling down a well-worn path. Now, I know the party bickering never really subsided. But, I believe it’s in the Republican self-interest and national interest, as well, for GOP leaders to rise above the fray and give Obama his electoral due. He was elected to deliver change with a side order of nonpartisanship thrown in. It seems the GOP would be well-advised to avoid rooting for failure Limbaugh-style, refrain from unanimously opposing stimulus packages, and halt any speculation over the mid-term elections let alone who is likely to be their presidential candidate for 2012… Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Jindal… you name ‘em… does the electorate care, right now?

Reality check. According to the latest Marist Poll, President Obama has a 56% approval rating nationwide. Good numbers but not stellar. The Republican base is as turned off to this new president as are their party leaders. Only 25% of Republican voters approve of his job performance. But, a huge number of Democrats and a majority of Independents like him. As for Capitol Hill, Congressional Democrats are not exactly blazing any new popularity trails. Only 35% of voters nationwide approve of their job performance. Yet, even Republican voters divide over how Congressional Republicans are performing. So, shouldn’t Republicans be reaching out to independents and cross-over Democrats rather than fueling the flames of a shrinking and unhappy base?

Right now, an overwhelming majority of voters, 76%, think President Obama is confronting problems he inherited from President Bush. In this context, just who does GOP criticism of President Obama remind voters of any way?

Now, in the old days, this new president would be still enjoying his honeymoon. Of course, things have changed, but, not everything. President Obama is still likely to be judged on the economy. If he succeeds, the GOP is toast. If he comes up short, then future Republican electoral chances will be enhanced. So, Republicans: Quit the carping. Provide thoughtful policy alternatives. Be patient. And, above all, slow down, you’re moving too fast… or else, you just may end up making his moment last.

Lee Miringoff discusses Obama’s latest poll numbers:

Baseball, Steroids, Players, and Pollsters

April 6, 2009 | by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Baseball has been rocked in recent years by the steroid scandal. Most recently it’s been revelations about Alex Rodriguez. Roger Clemens and his trainer continue to duke it out in court over whether Clemens was injected with the juice.

John Sparks

Since the worlds of baseball players and pollsters both revolve around statistics, it seems quite appropriate that the Marist Poll should find out what fans think about players who do steroids. Should they be eligible for the Hall of Fame? What should become of the records they set? What does the American public consider more important — a ballplayer’s talent or his character?

Confession is good for the soul, so before you read any further, and in the interest of full disclosure, you should know that the pollsters and pundits from Marist are far from objective when it comes to baseball.

Marist Institute for Public Opinion Director Lee Miringoff is a huge fan of the New York Yankees. As a youngster, he played second base in the Poughkeepsie Little League with teammate Rudy Crew (former New York City Schools Chancellor). Lee’s father-in-law is Ray Robinson, a renowned baseball writer who is interviewed elsewhere on this web site.

Marist Poll Director Barbara Carvalho, another huge Yankees fan, has never forgiven Mariano Rivera for blowing the 2001 World Series against the Arizona Diamondbacks.

The poll’s Director of Interactive Media Systems Mary Azzoli lives and dies with the Mets, and yours truly named his dog after his favorite ballplayer Yogi Berra.

Ray Robinson believes there have always been good and bad characters who have excelled on the diamond, but he doesn’t think anyone will judge a player on his character if he’s a .150 hitter. “He may be a nice guy, but he doesn’t belong in the majors.” And remember what Leo Durocher said: “Nice guys finish last.” Isn’t that what it’s all about — not finishing last, but winning it all? To do that, every ballplayer since Abner Doubleday has been seeking that competitive edge over his opponents and teammates.

Bernard Malamud wrote a novel dealing with ethical issues and baseball. The central character in The Natural was Roy Hobbs who more than anything else wanted the people to say when he walked down the street: “There goes Roy Hobbs, the best player there ever was in the game.” In the book, Hobbs succumbed to temptation and accepted $35,000 to throw a playoff game. In 1984 Robert Redford played Hobbs on the big screen, but instead of taking the money, he told the bad guys what they could do with it. I always liked Hollywood’s version, but I’m not so naïve as to believe that our heroes on the field always take the high road.

Robinson’s knowledge of the game spans the better part of a century. He saw Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig play. He will tell you Ruth enjoyed his alcohol and that Hack Wilson, who belted 56 home runs for the 1930 Chicago Cubs (a National League record that held until 1998 when Mark McGwire hit 70 and Sammy Sosa knocked out 66), was a “falling down drunk.” Interesting that many believe both McGwire and Sosa used performance enhancing drugs that year.

Ruth and Hack Wilson are enshrined in Cooperstown. So where does that leave McGwire and Sosa? Current sentiment and conventional wisdom seem to indicate they can forget it.

An irony is that sports writers elect players to the Hall of Fame. Writers in Ruth and Wilson’s days never wrote about their off the field behavior. In those days they looked the other way and protected them. It’s a far cry from today’s press.

But, there never really has been objectivity and consistency when it comes to deciding who is elected to the Hall of Fame. If so, then how can Bill Mazeroski, a lifetime .260 hitter who hit the first walk-off homer to win a World Series, get elected, and Roger Maris, who broke Ruth’s season home run record with 61 in 1961, is not?

On top of that, an asterisk was ordered placed besides Maris’ record by Commissioner Ford Frick who was a former sportswriter and crony of Ruth’s. After all those years, Frick was still looking after his pal.

Robinson does see some merit in Frick’s decision. He says that baseball records should be classified into eras — for instance the dead ball era, and the steroid era.

Fine, but how do you decide precisely when one era ends and another begins? One of my favorite trivia questions is to name the leading home run hitter of the 1950’s, 1960’s, 1970’s and 1980’s. The trick, of course, is you must relegate players to a specific 10-year period. Duke Snider, Harmon Killebrew, Willie Stargell, and Mike Schmidt beat out the likes of Mickey Mantle and Hank Aaron when you look at it that way.

Bucks and Baseball: An Interview

| by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

Sports Author Ray Robinson discusses the economics of baseball and offers a unique perspective on the history of the game. Here’s a transcript of Robinson’s interview with The Marist Poll’s John Sparks.

John Sparks
Ray, attendance may have increased for professional baseball last season, but our recent survey indicates that most fans do not think that the cost of a ticket is a good value for their money. Why do you think that is?

Ray Robinson
I think it is because they’re charging inordinate prices, and the word that I get in talking to some people in and around baseball and other fans is that the price is, certainly here in New York at Yankee Stadium and the new Met field, are just way out of line; and combined with the prices they’re charging for food at these two new baseball palaces, I think you’ve got to be a millionaire to go to these games, and I’m not too sure that there are many millionaires left.

Listen to Part 1 of the interview:

John Sparks
You told me the story of your doorman and his practice of going to the game. Could you tell me again how many times he goes and what it cost him to take his family?

Ray Robinson
Well, this is a fellow who’s in his 50’s who has two young children in their teens, two boys, who are big baseball fans. They’re Latinos. They’re all Puerto Ricans and very knowledgeable baseball fans. They love the game. They follow the game. They probably know more about it than most baseball writers, and they used to go as a family two or three times a year as an exhibition and almost like something of a summer vacation; and now this fellow told me only the other day, he thinks he’ll be lucky to go once a year with the two boys and his wife, and he says it’ll cost anywhere between $300 and $400. You have to remember when you take youngsters to a ball game, they want everything in sight. So, therefore, you can’t scrimp. You buy everything from the program to the hotdogs to the beer to the soft drinks to other food delicacies, and it costs an inordinate amount of money, and he said that he’s going to decrease his voyages to the ballpark, in his case the Met Park, from three a year to one. Now that may be a fairly typical example, I think, in the New York area.

John Sparks
Ray, I’m curious, you followed the game all your life, and we will talk about that in a moment, but I’m just curious how many games you went to last year.

Ray Robinson
Well don’t forget, I’m not the typical example because I’m now what they call a grise eminence, both at the stadium and at Shea – – and the Shea Field, which is now Citi Field. And I’m lucky enough to be invited to go either by people who work for those two teams or by friends of mine who have tickets. So I can go, you know, I shouldn’t rattle my mouth off. I don’t pay to go anymore. I guess if you reach the age of close to 90, they let you get in for free. But any rate, I think last year I saw about 15 games.

John Sparks
Now you alluded to the fact that we have brand new ballparks for both the Yankees and the Mets.

Ray Robinson
Yes.

John Sparks
The cost of those tickets has never been higher. Do you think that these seats and luxury boxes will be filled this season, and who’s going to buy them?

Ray Robinson
As I say, I’m not a mathematician, nor do I work for the front offices of those two clubs. But the word I get from so-called inside people is that the sales are not going well, and so the most expensive seats are not selling, and all you have to do is look at the fact that the Mets and Yankees are advertising in the daily newspapers here to try to get rid of the high priced tickets. That seems to indicate they’re not getting rid of all these seats.

John Sparks
Now you mentioned your age, you’ve been…

Ray Robinson
I’ll be 89.

John Sparks
You’ve been privileged to see a lot of good baseball in your time.

Ray Robinson
My first Major League games, I attended Yankee Stadium in 1928 when I saw some of the great players, Murderer’s Row — Gehrig, Ruth, Herb Pennock, Waite Hoyt, all those great teams. I was a little too young to the see 1927 team which was supposed to be the greatest team of all time, but I saw the residual members of that team in 1928, and I’ve been going to games both at Yankee Stadium, the Polo Grounds, Ebbets Field all of my life, and you know, I love the game. I still do despite all the difficulties of one kind of another they’ve had. And gosh, you know I – – even though I take exception to some of the cultural behavior of some of these players, I still love the game and I still follow it…

John Sparks
Ray…

Ray Robinson
…and I write about it of course.

John Sparks
Certainly. Ray, let’s talk about those days when you did watch Ruth and Gehrig. What did a ticket cost you back then, and tell me a little bit about the fans that were there at the ballpark? It was the depression era as I recall.

Ray Robinson
Well, during the depression period, maybe this is a little bit aside from what your question is about, but you know 1930, which was one of the first years of the Great Depression, was actually a fairly good year for baseball, which is ironic in a sense. However, as the batting averages of ballplayers kept rising, the attendance kept plummeting. I mean, you had some wonderful hitters in those years including the great Ruth and Gehrig, but you had fellows like Chick Hafey, you had fellows like Al Simmons and Jimmie Foxx and Mickey Cochrane and Chuck Klein. Their averages were enormous, but it really didn’t have an impact on the attendance. Attendance went to the dogs after 1930, and you went to a ballpark, in my case the Giants’ Polo Grounds, and the Yankees at Yankee Stadium, and the Brooklyn Dodgers at Ebbets Field, you always have very modest attendances in those years. It made for an entirely different ambience at a ballpark, and I have to tell you, some of my old friends like myself who are curmudgeonly characters, I guess like myself, love the ambiance of the ballparks in those years. They like the idea the ballparks weren’t full and that you could hear the bat hit the ball. You could hear the conversations between players because of the parks being empty and not full of noise and the distractions of the scoreboard telling you to yell, all those things. It was a totally different environment, much more quiet and subdued, and to me that was part of the pleasure of going to a game. It was an escape…

John Sparks
Now the tickets…

Ray Robinson
It was an escape from the noise and the hurly burly of the city.

John Sparks
Now the tickets didn’t cost so much back then either. What did you pay for a ticket?

Ray Robinson
Oh my. If I sat in the bleachers, it was 50 cents. And I invariably sat in the bleachers. And if I were perhaps lucky enough to get a reserved seat, it was $1.50/2.50., and I… Since I… The only time I ever sat in a box, I had a neighbor, a friend of mine who kind of liked kids like myself. Let’s say I was 10 or 11-12 years old, I had a neighbor who was friendly with John McGraw, the old manager of the New York Giants, and this neighbor had a box seat, and since my dad wasn’t interested in baseball and never took me to a game since he didn’t like Major League Baseball much, I used to go with this guy, and we’d sit in the box seat. Maybe it cost 2.50- 3 bucks, around there.

John Sparks
I believe back then besides youngsters like yourself, it was primarily men who went to the ballpark. You rarely saw women.

Ray Robinson
Yeah. All you have to do for proof of that, if you wanted scientific pictorial proof, take a look at the pictures that have been published over the years of people at early games. For instance, the opening game of the Yankee Stadium in 1923, you have these panoramic shots of the crowd, you don’t see any women, and the men were all dressed in straw hats, boaters I think they called them, and derbies, and they came with ties on. Some of them, believe it or not, actually wore vests, and it was almost an all male audience. I think in one picture I recall of the opening of the Yankee Stadium in ’23, the only woman I think I saw in the picture was the wife of the governor who attended the game, Governor Al Smith, the only woman in the whole picture.

John Sparks
So things are different today. We see women; we see ethnic groups, Latinos. Is this a conscientious effort on the part of the owners to try to attract a more divergent crowd?

Ray Robinson
Well, I think they have to if they’re going to keep the game alive. Don’t forget, I’m now talking of the New York area. I’m not speaking about other cities. In the New York area, you have a tremendous number of wonderful Latino players on both teams, and of course, it makes good business sense and horse sense to try to attract Latinos to the games. And they will go, and they have gone. But it seems to me that some of these prices are going to preclude some of them from going. I mean, I hope I’m not sounding like a Cassandra, but I think both the Yankee front office and the Met front office are aware of these coming problems. When they built these new ballparks, or when they started to build them, they didn’t have the economy in disarray as it is now. So therefore, they couldn’t know about these difficulties in attracting various groups to these stadiums. But my feeling is they’re going to have trouble with some of these groups that are not high income groups. So it makes sense that while they try to attract a lot of Latinos, for instance, to the two ballparks, they’re going to have trouble, and these are fervent knowledgeable fans.

John Sparks
Ray, you mentioned the economic disarray we’re in, and with more folks losing their jobs these days, do you feel there’s even more resentment for the astronomical salaries that some of today’s players are getting?

Ray Robinson
The answer to that would have to be yes. On the other hand, it’s very peculiar to me. I think in a strange way, the salaries made by some of these men, or all of them, most of them, which make many of them millionaires, including .200 hitters by the way, I think that’s one of the… It’s strange to me. I don’t quite comprehend it. I don’t find any particular great antagonism to the money these guys make, which may sound peculiar; but in a strange way, it becomes another appealing thing. I find a lot of these low-income people, and even myself occasionally, and my friends, who are not particularly low-income people, discussing these salaries as if it’s part of the appeal and charm of the game. It’s a new talking point. Weird, but it’s the case, I think. It’s not always resentment either. It’s not like the resentment over the AIG people or Bernie Madoff or that sort of thing. It’s almost an attractive element of the game. Frankly, a psychiatrist would have to explain it to me.

John Sparks
Ray, during the Great Depression, baseball provided many folks an escape from one’s troubles. Will it be the same today in this coming season with the economic woes…

Ray Robinson
…Well up to a point, yeah, but we’ve discussed the negatives, so it’s just a question of whether you want to escape enough to empty your bank roll, you know, which is, in a sense, is what we’re talking about here. And sure, it’s a great escape. I noticed already, for instance, if you want some, let’s say, some kind of economic proof that one of the industries doing enormously well right now are motion pictures. Well it’s a relatively cheap pastime, the same as it was during the Great Depression. I used to go to a movie then for 10 cents and spend five hours in the movie theater, a double bill, a comedy short, Movietone news, coming attractions, you could spend the whole day for 10…15 cents at a neighborhood theater. The prices aren’t that low now, but it’s still within reach. I mean, senior citizens of New York, movie theaters now pay about 8 or 8 and a half bucks, which is not cheap compared to the Great Depression, but it’s cheap relatively speaking. So, that’s why I assume many people are now going in for motion pictures as they may conceivably go into baseball, but baseball isn’t making it easy on them with these prices.

John Sparks
Another thing that I seemed to notice is that Major League Baseball has lost its appeal to our youth. Have we lost a whole generation of fans, and how and why has this happened?

Ray Robinson
Oh, I don’t think so. I think what you’ve… you know, they say a lot of kids now much prefer playing soccer, and they don’t play baseball. Well, that may be true. I mean if you read the same figures and statistics and research that I do, we’re dipping in now to Chinese players, to Korean players, to gosh knows Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, Puerto Ricans, et cetera., a wonderful source of talent that may or may not be because the talent isn’t in America anymore. I mean, yes, you have a lot of fine college baseball players, but how many of them are going in for baseball as opposed to professional football, which many good athletes play, as you know many play both of these games, and some athletes also play professional basketball, too. So, yes indeed, I mean some of the – – probably some of the pool of players is thinning out. I hate to think that, but I think it probably is.

** The views and opinions expressed in this and other interviews found on this site are expressly those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Marist Poll.

Baseball’s Steroid Scandal: An Interview

| by Marist Poll

By John Sparks

In the second part of Ray Robinson’s interview with The Marist Poll’s John Sparks, Sports Author Ray Robinson addresses the current steroid scandal and the views fans have of the players off the field.

John Sparks
The steroid scandals have dominated the headlines. Do you think players like Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and Alex Rodriguez even, and others who have been implicated, do you think these folks will be elected…

Ray Robinson
Well you use the word implicated. You mean they’ve allegedly been implicated.

John Sparks
Right. Do you think these folks, because of these allegations, should be elected to the Hall of Fame?

Ray Robinson
I think that that’s a mixed bag. I have the feeling that the — to tell you the truth, that Barry Bonds, who was a great player even before supposedly getting mixed up in steroids, probably would’ve merited being in the Hall of Fame even before he started hitting home runs like bushels of apples. I think it seems to me that recently Mark McGwire, who was always liked by the press, is making noises now that indicate that maybe he’s coming out of his bunker and he would like to be considered for the Hall of Fame. In the long run, I don’t know. My guess is as good as any other people who are equally poorly informed. I would imagine maybe some of these guys might get in. I don’t know. It’s a tough call. It’s a tough call.

John Sparks
Another tough call is whether their record should stand. Surely you have an opinion about that.

Ray Robinson
Oh, of course, and I think most people who follow the game do. I think that ultimately the record book should actually be broken down by era, and in that way you can judge a player by the era he was in. In other words, the Dead Ball Era, the Higher Average Era in the 1930s perhaps, then believe it or not, call it the Steroid Era, and put the statistics in the book in that era, and people can form their own conclusions. I mean this is not an original idea with me. I’ve heard it from very – – people with a good deal of expertise about baseball that the record book should be divided into eras, and that’s not a bad idea. Then you can make that judgment based on the era.

John Sparks
Let’s talk about the steroid era. Who do you think bears a responsibility for the use of the steroids? Is it the players, the union, the managers, the commissioner?

Ray Robinson
Well placing blame, it’s like trying to place the blame for what’s going on in this country with the economy. I mean you know people who really… I mean most people don’t even understand what’s going on, but when you try to place the blame… I see some idiots who are even blaming Barack Obama for the current economy, that sort of thing. But come back to your baseball question, I don’t know. I think if this stuff is available, it’s quite clear that players would take it because it was available, so who can you blame for that other than the athletes who are taking it? I mean nobody was holding a gun to their head. I think they took it because they didn’t want to be left behind. Isn’t that a feeling of a lot of people? They didn’t want to be placed in an – – in a bad – – I’m sorry, in a bad competitive position with other players. They saw one other guy hitting a lot of home runs, they didn’t want left behind. Same way with some pitchers who presume they were on steroids. So the business of the blame, I think there’s enough blame to go around; but you know, I’m not wise enough to say who — who should be blamed the most.

John Sparks
I think there have always been problems off the field or even in other eras with stimulants. Duke Snider told me one time, “They pop greenies in the clubhouse over…”

Ray Robinson
Of course they did, and they were distributed… they were distributed in the clubhouse. I know Major League players who’ve told me that, very reputable players. No, they were distributed. But my feeling, or at least my recollection is, at the time, I don’t believe these things were legal or were they?

John Sparks
I don’t recall.

Ray Robinson
You’re talking mainly about amphetamines.

John Sparks
Right. Did players of those earlier days of the game, did they teach kids mostly good things or bad things do you think?

Ray Robinson
Well, you’re talking about what era?

John Sparks
Well, let’s take the era of Ruth and Gehrig.

Ray Robinson
Well, don’t forget there was a lot of misbehavior by players in those years, heavy drinking, perhaps even more so than now. I mean Babe Ruth was a tremendously heavy drinking guy. But you know, the press in those years didn’t report these things. We know in retrospect about the heavy drinking among a lot of players. For instance, I was once engaged in doing a magazine article about 40-50 years ago taking the worst team a manager would ever want to manage, actually picking one, and it was based on 10 alcoholics, which I knew about after the fact. In other words, when a lot of… for instance, you remember a player named Hack Wilson who played for the Chicago Cubs?

John Sparks
Sure.

Ray Robinson
Well Hack Wilson was a falling down drunk, you know, but most people who followed the game in those years were not aware of that because the press didn’t publish these facts, and one of the reasons was a lot of them – – the sportswriters and baseball writers — were very close to the players. They traveled with them on buses. They traveled with them on trains. They played cards with them. They played pool with them, et cetera, and some of them even roomed with players. Therefore, they didn’t tell tales out of school. Today you pick up a newspaper, and you know about the private life of ballplayers you don’t even want to know about. That’s the difference.

John Sparks
And because it’s different today, and I don’t know whether you would put the onus on the writers, the broadcasters, or the players, but do you think that the players and what we read about them and what we know about them today teach kids mostly good or bad things?

Ray Robinson
That’s an individual case thing. I’m sure there are many players today who are very valuable worthwhile human beings and a lot of them make a lot of money, whether it’s under pressure or not I don’t know… do good things, give money to various charities that might be a favorite. I noticed the other day Carlos Beltrán gave a lot of money to some big Latino charity in his home country, and there are others like that who are very, very generous, whether it’s a personal impetus or whether it’s the public relations thing, I don’t know. But many of these men that you don’t read too much about because gossip columns aren’t going to tell you that so and so is very generous, that’s not what they like people to hear. You know I’d say that many players, they do very worthwhile things. I mean it’s a bum rap to think that they’re… all have been — all of these guys are in it just for a lot of money. I think some of them do spread some of the money around in answer to the question. And don’t forget, in the old days when Babe Ruth made the most money in baseball: 80, 90, 100-thousand bucks–today some of these players make that in one trip to the plate.

John Sparks
Ray, finally, what’s more important to you, a ballplayer’s talent or his character?

Ray Robinson
Well, if a player has talent and character, that’s a perfect combination. That’s a perfect combination. I mean I don’t think many people are going to be willing to judge a player on his character if he’s a .150 hitter. They might say, “Nice guy. Doesn’t belong in the Majors,” you know. I mean, I’d like to feel that a guy who plays in the Major Leagues today is a decent citizen, a decent human being. Not all of them are, but that’s the same way with any profession, is it not? All politicians are not decent human begins, so I mean, why judge players on another level? I mean, they can’t all be generous with charities. They can’t all be intellectuals. They can’t all be well informed, et cetera, et cetera. They can’t all be decent guys, but I… as far as I’m concerned, I would love to feel that if there’s a player I like and like his talent, I’d like to feel privately within myself that he’s a good person, that’s he a man of character, but I wouldn’t always bet on it.

John Sparks
I hear you. Ray, I’ve got plenty of material. Is there anything else that you’d like to add on any of these areas that we’ve been talking with?

Ray Robinson
Well, I — a personal observation about the depression era, and this is sort of funny in a way, you know one of the things when the attendance was plummeting and the baseball economy was a disaster in the Great Depression, owners of many clubs actually considered having balls hit in the stands given back to the ball club. They actually considered doing that. And today, as you may be aware, you go to a lot of games, players actually sometime — actually take balls and throw them into the stands to give them to the fans. That’s one indication of a change of times. Just another little observation, by the way, about the depression, the Great Depression: you know, going back to that time period I was just a little kid, and I remember, and this is just – – this is aside from baseball perhaps, is that veterans of World War I principally out of work, out of luck, out of money, would stand on street corners in the city selling apples for a nickel. A nickel! And I actually saw some of these poor characters spit on the apples to shine them to make them more appealing for sales. I actually saw that! That’s the Great Depression. I hope we’re not headed for something like that.

John Sparks
I hope not either. I really appreciate your time this afternoon. I will be back in touch, and it’s always a pleasure talking with you.

Ray Robinson
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

** The views and opinions expressed in this and other interviews found on this site are expressly those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Marist Poll.

Additional Resources About Hack Wilson

Fouled Away: The Baseball Tragedy of Hack Wilson by Clifton Blue Parker

Baseball Hall of Fame

Baseballlibrary.com