Lost Capitol Hill: The Mirrors of Washington

When I was working on my book on the scandals of Capitol Hill, my publisher requested that I not write up any modern stories. I agreed for two reasons: For one, a scandal takes time to age into a proper story, whether because this ensures that ruffled feathers have been smoothed, or that the final chapters play out, or that all those involved have been died. Furthermore, neither I was at all interested in being at the wrong end of a libel suit. In writing the book, I was fully aware that I was far from the first to mine this particular seam. Others before me had exposed the bad behavior of those in Congress, or otherwise pointed out their character flaws. What I did not realize was that this work went back almost 100 years.

Most books written in the early days of the United States tended toward the hagiographic. The men (it was almost always men) who were written up were always the “kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful” people who ever lived – or words to that effect. Critical views of politicians was confined to the election season, and in newspapers – where the newspapers supporting one candidate over another would praise their man to the skies, while denigrating the opponent, while spending absolutely no time actually trying to divine what was good and what was bad about each individual. In the summer of 1921, a book was published the decidedly broke the mold. It was announced in an advertisement published by Putnam in the New York Tribune of July 25 that Mirrors of Washington was the book that “official Washington awaits with well warranted apprehension”

In just under 300 pages, fourteen different politicians of all stripes who either were currently or in the recent past, in the highest levels of the executive and legislative branches of government came in for abuse. Included were also cartoons of each man by Oscar Cesare, a noted left-wing cartoonist, and while politicians from both sides were given the treatment, the overwhelming majority were Republicans. Even more galling to those who were thus attacked was that the author was simply listed as “Anonymous” making it quite out of the question to reply in kind.

Three of the cartoons as reprinted in the New York Tribune (Library of Congress)

Most were Presidents or presidential advisers or cabinet-members. Five, however, were on Capitol Hill. And they were not pleased – with good reason. The author’s remarks were scathing, to put it mildly.

Of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge he wrote that he “has a genius for misunderstanding public sentiment.” Elihu Root, for his part, “is always someone else’s mouthpiece and publicly he is chiefly remembered as Mr. Roosevelt’s mouthpiece.” Hiram Warren Johnson, on the other hand, “has no political philosophy. He has no real convictions. He does not think or reason deeply.”

And finally, both Senators from Pennsylvania came in for their lumps. While Boies Penrose “actually thinks that most men are dependent for their daily bread upon the success of a very small group of financiers, magnates, or whatever you care to call the great leaders of the world of business,” William Edgar Borah “has failed so often to carry out his threats of rebellions that they no longer inspire the fear they once did.”

Next week: The critics react.