1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
© Oxford University Press 2016
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Name: Mattingly, Doreen J., 1962–
Title: A feminist in the White House : Midge Costanza, the Carter years, and America’s culture wars / Doreen Mattingly.
Description: Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2015038528 | ISBN 9780190468606 (hardcover : acid-free paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Costanza, Midge, 1932–2010. | Political consultants—United States—Biography. | Carter, Jimmy, 1924—Friends and associates. | Feminists—United States—Biography. | Sex role—Political aspects—United States—History—20th century. | Women—Political activity—United States—History—20th century. | Culture conflict—United States—History—20th century. | United States—Politics and government—1977–1981. | United States—Social conditions—1960–1980. |
BISAC: POLITICAL SCIENCE / Government / Executive Branch. | POLITICAL SCIENCE / Political Process / Leadership. | POLITICAL SCIENCE / Civics & Citizenship. Classification: LCC E840.8.C687 M28 2016 | DDC 305.42092—dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015038528
For Midge, as promised
Preface ix
Acknowledgments xxi
1 i ntro D uction 3
2 Making i t in a Man’s Worl D 17
3 Vice Mayor of r ochester 44
4 s ex, Po W er, an D the c a MPaign to e lect Ji MM y c arter 64
5 Win D o W to the n ation:
Mi D ge c ostanza oP ens uP the White h ouse 89
6 a bortion, c ontro V ersy, an D the l i M its of l oyalty 118
7 i nternational Wo M en’s y ear an D the e qual r ights aM en DM ent 137
8 “ i t i sn’t e nough”: f ighting for f e M inist Policy 162
9 t he Decline an D fall of Mi D ge c ostanza 183
10 i t n e V er r ains in c alifornia 198
Notes 225
Bibliography 269 Index 277
This book began with a deathbed promise. In the spring of 2010, Midge Costanza lay in a San Diego hospital. In one of her last conscious acts she emerged from the sedatives, grabbed her phone, and called me. The number on my cell phone told me the call was from her, even though her breathing tube made speech impossible. I said what I hoped would bring her peace: I promised to turn her unfinished memoir into a book. That you are reading this is evidence that I carried through on the promise, but the call haunts me still. Was there something final she was desperate to say about the book? Was there something she wanted to tell me to include or leave out? Had I avoided visiting the hospital while she could still speak so I would not be asked to promise more?
There was another book that came before this one, an unfinished memoir she had been working on or talking about since she resigned from her job as assistant to President Jimmy Carter in 1978. I was the most recent in a string of writers she had recruited to help wrest a manuscript from her memories and the hundreds of boxes of documents she had collected, many taken from the White House in the righteous indignation of her resignation. I assume that the other collaborators, all of them old enough to have voted in 1976, had been attracted to the project because they remembered her dramatic twenty months as the first female assistant to the president. I was a child of fourteen when Costanza went to Washington, so I was recruited on the strength of her persuasion. What can I say? She was a brilliant politician. Midge Costanza first entered my life in 2004, when it was announced at a San Diego State University Women’s Studies faculty meeting that she wanted to coteach a class. A donor would pay her salary, but since she never went to college herself and had no teaching experience, a tenured professor was
needed to coteach with her. The name Costanza did not ring a bell for me but her resume was interesting. In addition to being the first female assistant to a US president, she had worked for Bobby Kennedy and Shirley MacLaine and received awards from dozens of progressive organizations. My “Sex, Power, and Politics” course seemed like a good fit, so I volunteered. We had a fun semester. We would tell people that I would talk about the theory of politics and she would talk about what really happened, but more often it was the reverse. As I would later discover, it was almost impossible to keep her focused on the details of history; she wanted to talk about why it mattered. A true progressive, she was doggedly focused on the future: the bright, egalitarian, Democratic future. Her goal was to light those kids on fire, to get them involved in politics through the sheer force of her will. That semester George W. Bush was running for re-election against John Kerry, and she managed to get students from our class into every Democratic Party event in Southern California, introducing them (and sometimes me) to the likes of publisher Ariana Huffington, Theresa Heinz Kerry (wife of the candidate), and a slew of Hollywood liberals.
During the years that followed, the phantom of her book was at the heart of our loose friendship. At one point I arranged for a student to record interviews with Costanza, but the hurdles of setting up voice-activated software stalled the project. Another time she invited me to visit the storage space she had rented for her papers. The fact that she had to rent a storage space told me a lot. I just got a glimpse that day, but the dozens of boxes I could see put me off the project for a couple more years. “I have my own work to do,” I told her. “I’ll try to find students but I can’t just donate my time to helping you write your memoirs. If you write something I can edit it, but it’s your book. You need to write it.”
Then one afternoon in 2008, while I was in the back of a lecture hall grading papers and waiting for a colloquium to begin, my vibrating phone announced a call from Costanza. Happy for the distraction, I walked outside and took the call. After the briefest of formalities, she cut to the chase. “Look kid,” she said (yes, she called me that), “I really need your help.” She had fought cancer since we had taught together and it was back. If she was ever going to write her memoirs, it had to be now. She had taken my advice, she told me, and had been working with a friend, Denise Neleson. They were stuck and needed the help of someone who knew how to write a book. I agreed to at least meet and talk about it.
It did not take long before I had a sense of the project. Neleson had recorded hours of their conversations, which she planned to use to ghostwrite a memoir in Costanza’s voice. My role would be to provide the background and context, much of which lay in Costanza’s stash of documents. So one Friday, along with Jessica Nare, my intrepid graduate assistant, I met Costanza at an office in the San Diego Labor Center where she had rented space to organize her papers. I’m not sure what I expected, but there were close to three hundred boxes in there, and it didn’t take me long to figure out that many of them—and almost all of the ones with material from the White House—were a mess. A few contained the files in pretty much the same order as when they were taken from the White House file cabinets, but others looked like she swept off her desk at the end of the week and put everything in a box. Unpaid parking tickets, drafts of memos, newspaper clippings, someone’s phone number on a napkin; she clearly took the advice to save her papers very literally. To make matters worse, with each attempt at writing her memoir, she had rummaged through the boxes, pulling out key documents and then throwing them—along with new newspaper clippings and more unread mail—into other boxes. After we began working together in earnest, she confided that the papers from her time in the White House were, as she put it, sort of stolen. Although it did not become a crime until after Costanza resigned, it was certainly a violation of policy for a White House staffer to hire some guys to empty the contents of her office into a truck and put them in storage.1 The weekend that Costanza finally decided to resign from the White House she was disappointed and hurt at the way she had been treated and portrayed, and she believed the papers would help her to write a book that would somehow vindicate her. It helped that she and her papers had been moved to the White House basement where activities were less easily detected, and it didn’t hurt that she was a special favorite of the White House guards. For the rest of her life she hauled those boxes around with her, storing them in basements and rented storage spaces, periodically pulling them out for spurts of serious work on her memoirs.
I don’t know if it is evidence of my persistence or of Costanza’s persuasive powers, but I took on the task of sorting and filing those papers. I recruited a half a dozen student interns to help, and with money Costanza raised I paid graduate students to oversee the whole thing. Costanza would come in and join us on Fridays. Her assignment was to go through papers too incomprehensible or personal for us to make sense of them, and to decide what
could be thrown away. For an hour or sometimes even two she would work diligently, until she started telling a story. Then the story would grow, and all the students would stop working to listen, and she would send someone out for pizza. It was what she loved most—telling people about her time in Washington, and using it to tell them something about politics and life. For the students it was an education they could never have otherwise received. Now I wonder if we would have treated that time so casually if we had known how quickly it would end.
Midge Costanza passed away on April 24, 2010. Losing her was disorienting in many ways, not the least of which was a rethinking of the book. Costanza had left all of her papers to the Midge Costanza Institute she had created, and her friends and family generously donated to the institute so that I could keep paying rent on the space where we were organizing her papers. But without her to shape it and give it life, the first-person narrative was impossible. In addition, I had a growing sense that the book needed to tell a story that transcended Costanza’s personal experiences and said something about gender and politics in the 1970s. Her job in the White House, and her unapologetic commitment to feminism, reproductive rights, and LGBT rights placed her at the epicenter of the culture wars that have divided the country ever since. She was also part of a generation of feminist politicians who truly believed they could change the system to better serve women and other marginalized people, embodying a faith and passion that seems less common today. Finally, with so many broken glass ceilings, it is easy to forget the high price that “first woman” paid. Maybe the personal journey of Midge Costanza could be a way to bring this fascinating time in history to life.
A 1984 clipping from the Rochester Times-Union titled “Midge Too Busy to Get Book Done” used to be taped on the wall of the room where we sorted her files. I had put it there as a way of teasing Costanza about never finding time to help me make sense of her papers, but the more I pored over the stacks of notes and chapter drafts she left, the more I came to see the internal barriers she must have struggled with in writing, or letting someone else write, her story. Of course any memoir, any act of self-representation, is fraught with tensions. The most apparent one for Midge Costanza, I think, was the tension between her love for Jimmy Carter and her feeling of having been betrayed by him. The pages she left tend to let him off the hook and cast his senior aides, especially Hamilton Jordan, as the villains. But then there were her handwritten notes that occasionally raised different questions. Had
Jimmy Carter used her? Did he ever mean to keep his campaign promises? In a particularly frank discussion, she told one of her potential collaborators that Carter had said, “ ‘Costanza, your job is to bring me to the people and the people to me.’ That’s what I did, but what he forgot to add is, ‘only the people I approve of and only the issues that are comfortable.’ So I brought them to the White House and I tried to keep his commitment to the partnership with the people. My error was that I believed him.”2
As I spent more time with her papers, I became aware of a second tension. What sort of narrative could an ambitious, nontraditional woman like Midge Costanza use to write about her life? Carolyn G. Heilbrun opens her landmark book Writing a Woman’s Life with the following insights:
There are four ways to write a woman’s life: the woman herself may tell it, in what she chooses to call an autobiography; she may tell it in what she chooses to call fiction; a biographer, man or woman, may tell the woman’s life in what is called a biography; or the woman may write her own life in advance of living it, unconsciously, and without recognizing or naming the process.3
Obviously this book falls into the third category of biography, but Costanza’s notes, drafts, and interviews for her unfinished memoir allow insight into the type of story she endeavored to write about herself, as well as the way she wrote her life by living it. In both cases she was constrained by traditional narratives about what it meant to be female and what mattered in a woman’s life. In many ways her story, as she wrote it and as she lived it, marked her as an “ambiguous woman.” Her ambition and influence violated ideas about women’s proper place, and she lacked the assuring heterosexual trappings of family life and feminine softness, or the protections and graces of the unhyphenated white elite. Many of the twists and turns of her life were lessons in the nature of power, both in challenging hierarchal power relations and in asserting her right to participate in essential discourses and decisions. It was a topic that was so inappropriate for women at the time, Costanza herself admitted she “never computed in power. It was a form of measurement that I didn’t recognize when it was occurring. I didn’t think of myself as powerful, but when I look back, it was power.”4
Politics and power were (and to a lesser extent still are) endeavors that challenge the existing confines of women’s lives. At a time when women’s
stories, as lived and written, were dominated by what Heilbrun calls the feminine “marriage plot,” Midge Costanza endeavored to live the masculine “quest plot.”5 She talked easily about her decision to walk away from the traditional path; her speeches frequently included her early decision to “live her life, not just exist through it.” Yet it was a life path that proved to be more easily captured in a slogan than in a memoir. The limits of traditional narratives also affects the work of biographers, especially those of us writing about women like Costanza who did not make men the centers of their lives. Since the women themselves often lacked a developed framework for the life they were leading, biographers have had to “actually reinvent the lives their subjects led, discovering from what evidence they could find the processes and decisions, the choices and unique pain that lay behind the stories of these women.”6
A second constraint on Costanza’s ability to tell her own story, and my attempt at biography, is her fierce protection of her private life. She is hardly unique in this; most public figures struggle to keep their families and intimate relationships out of public view. But I think for Costanza and other feminist women of her era, the stakes were particularly high. As the public face of a movement that politicized issues like abortion, sexual violence, and family relationships, political feminists like Costanza were already calling into question the distinction between the public and private spheres. Because they were talking about these so-called personal issues, it created an expectation that they would be open about their own life. Unfortunately, female politicians like Costanza learned quickly that the press and their opponents would regularly attack their personal life to deflect attention from the issues they championed. As she worked on her memoirs, she struggled with deciding what, if anything, to say about her family and relationships.
As I have been working on this book, a number of people have questioned whether I can be objective in writing about a friend. How, they ask, will I ensure that what I write won’t be biased by my personal feelings? It is a simple question with a complicated answer. I am not overly concerned about my lack of objectivity, since I do not agree with the assumption that neutrality ensures a more truthful narrative, while subjectivity leads to relativism or worse. Feminist philosophers have convincingly argued that even when research on the social world follows the rules of objectivity it is never without some systematic bias due to the implicit rules and practices of research. To look at political history through a purely “objective” perspective
means implicitly accepting the point of view of those in power.7 What would be the shape of an “objective” study of Midge Costanza’s tenure in the White House? In what terms would such a study analyze her actions so taken for granted as to appear objective: Was she effective? Did she influence policies? If not, why not? Can we generalize from her story about what presidential aides should and should not do? These are not unfair questions, but to some extent they all normalize power relations and are therefore limited in what they can tell us.
Feminist philosopher Sandra Harding argues that “if one wants to detect the values and interests that structure scientific institutions, practices, and conceptual schemes, it is useless to frame one’s research questions or to pursue them only within the priorities of these institutions, practices, and conceptual schemes.” She goes on to explain the value in looking at systems from the positions of the people who the system marginalizes, an approach often called “standpoint epistemology.” While every perspective is partial, the standpoint of the disempowered holds special lessons about the nature of power relations. Thus the perspective of a woman who resisted a token role can provide a unique location for understanding how tokenism functions as a form of power. The view of the Carter White House from the perspective of Midge Costanza can reveal a great deal about the administration’s gender politics that cannot be accessed from either a position of objectivity, or from the perspective of Carter and his male aides.
Given these insights, I have not been concerned that my friendship might render my analysis subjective. Instead, I have tried to use my friendship with Midge Costanza as a resource to better understand her position and perspective. Researchers working in indigenous and other disempowered communities have argued that friendship with research subjects contributes to a level of ethics and accountability that helps overcome social hierarchies between researchers and their subjects and helps decolonize research relations.8 In her insightful essay “Friendship as Method,” Tillman-Healy likens friendship to fieldwork in general, in that both involve being in and negotiating relations with others: “In friendship, as in research, we cope with relational dialectics . . . negotiating how private and how candid we will be, how separate and how together, how stable and how in flux.” Tillman-Healy also points out one of the benefits of friendship as method: “The greater understanding and depth of experience we may be unable to reach using traditional methods.”9 One element of friendship is making the effort to see
things from the other person’s perspective. Doing so in this case led me to focus on understanding why Costanza saw things the way she did and how this informed her behavior. In particular, it encouraged me to keep in mind her hard-won values, especially integrity and resistance to sexism, which informed her more controversial choices.
Ideas about standpoint epistemology and the methodology of friendship have guided my interrogation of the stories Costanza told about herself from the podium, in interviews with journalists, and in her attempts at memoir. Instead of reading them as statements of fact, I’ve investigated them as a rhetorical performance rich in clues about her values and intentions. Until she left the White House, she used her own story to empower people to become involved in politics and work for change. Her blue-collar Rochester roots established Costanza as a woman of the people, and her battles with sexism in City Hall communicated her first hand experience with injustice. She also understood that her accomplishments made her an important symbol with the potential to be used against the very women who admired her. Once she left the White House she attempted to use her story, in the form of a memoir or a movie, as a much-needed source of income. She also hoped her story would inspire other people—especially women—to use the political process to advance their rights. But her earlier commitments stopped her. How could she write a book about her often painful and disempowering experiences without undermining a lifetime of using her story to empower others? In a sense she had to outlast people’s memories about how she left the White House, so that her time there could become usable to her once more.
Writing about a friend did, however, raise two different problems. First, I struggled with wanting to respect a friend’s wish to keep her private life out of public view. If it were up to her, Midge Costanza would have never publicly discussed the details of her personal relationships. In her notes for the book she wrote, “I have attempted to keep my family life and my personal life separate from my public life. Since neither my family life nor my personal has had an impact on what I did in my public life. I enjoy the privacy of my family life and my personal life, and I wish to keep it that way. The two have no pertinence to the public life. I do not inject my personal life into my public life.”10 Nor did she intend to include it in her memoirs. None of the drafts of the memoirs include any discussion of her personal relationships and their impact on her career. The little information I do have comes from sections of taped interviews with friends, probably sections she believed were off the record.
As a friend, I want to honor her wishes and maintain the silence she preferred, but as a scholar, I feel bound to analyze the complete picture and investigate the relationship between her public and private selves. During the period that this book covers, Costanza had two secret romantic relationships, one with a man, her married boss John Petrossi, and the second with a woman, National Gay Task Force codirector Jean O’Leary. Both shaped her political career profoundly. Writing about these relationships specifically, and her sexual identity more generally, has been a struggle for me. Costanza rarely talked about her relationship with O’Leary in interviews and was not open about her sexuality in public. Had I never met her, the task of outing her may have been easier, and perhaps the analysis would be more critical of her inconsistencies. Instead I have tried to investigate why she was so fiercely private, and why she particularly was hostile to being labeled. Midge Costanza told the press her own opinions, even when they conflicted with Carter’s, because she believed that her speaking honestly was the best way she could serve him. I have reached the same conclusion in writing this book; I can best serve her memory if I tell it as honestly as I am able.
Still, I have followed her wishes by not talking about personal issues that had no obvious impact on her political life. Her strong ties to her parents, siblings, and nieces and nephews, for example, are not discussed in detail here. Nor are the close friendships or pets that gave her life meaning and joy. The omission is not because she did not love her family and friends (and pets) dearly, but because she did. As a result, this book diverges from the normal script for a biography of a woman by focusing on her political, rather than her personal life. I hope those not mentioned here will forgive me.
The second way I fear I may have betrayed her friendship, and disappointed her friends and family who supported this project, has been by not writing the sort of inspirational book she wanted. I cannot count the number of taped conversations where she told collaborators and ghostwriters that the point of the book was to use her story to excite people to get involved in politics. Convincing people to get active and participate in their communities was her greatest passion, and no doubt her most profound legacy. Unfortunately her White House experiences include at least as many failures as successes. This is not to say that her words and actions did not inspire countless number of people, because I know they did. Among her papers are thousands of letters from everyday people thanking her for what she said and did. Her funeral in San Diego was attended by hundreds of dear friends
and collaborators whose lives she had touched and changed, and the political climates in San Diego, Los Angeles, Washington, and Rochester were all enriched by her contributions. Nevertheless, some of the book’s lessons are depressing. Maybe my years in academia have made me too jaded and critical to write an inspirational book, but in my opinion a steady diet of (untrue) stories of triumphant heroines hurts women by distorting reality. These stories obscure the sexism that “female firsts” faced (and still face); they portray female breakthroughs as individual rather than collective accomplishments; and they tell us nothing about the role of privilege due to class, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. In order to fully grasp the barriers women have faced, we need stories of those who did not effortlessly sail over the hurdles, those who were bruised by the sexism they encountered, and those who crafted imperfect responses. If not, we risk downplaying the very real forces that have kept women out of leadership, and the high human costs borne by those who dared to go first.
Yet in spite of her struggles and failures, Midge Costanza succeeded in sticking to her principles. She did not back down from her political positions or modify her public persona, regardless of the price she paid. For Costanza this was the essence of feminism, and much more meaningful than changing herself to advance her own career. It was also what made her so attractive and interesting to millions of Americans who longed to hear the truth from anyone in the White House, and what led to her resignation.
In her political speeches Midge Costanza insisted that every person mattered, and in daily life she treated them that way. Her door-to-door campaigning and personal warmth in Rochester helped her to become a household name, but it was her concern for people that made her so beloved. Despite her busy White House schedule, she made friends with the guards and janitorial workers, taking time to listen to their stories and remember special occasions in their lives. She always remained a force in the lives of her family, especially her brother Tony, his wife Susan, and her nieces and nephews. Her niece Erin remembered, “She taught me so much; how to be strong, how to speak up for myself. Everything, really. And she always gave us everything, really spoiled us.”11 In San Diego she seemed to be best friends with everyone. Inevitably when I have talked publicly about my research for this book, I have been approached by someone wanting to share a story about how Midge Costanza touched her or his life. Her contagious passion—both about political issues and living life to the fullest—spread
everywhere she went. She also raised consciousness, and money, for countless issues. Her death left a hole in the San Diego progressive community that has not been easy to fill.
With the benefit of hindsight, her political stances seem prophetic. Her meeting with the National Gay Task Force initiated a decades-long struggle, often partisan in nature. At this writing, President Obama has reversed the policy preventing gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military and the US Supreme Court decision in Obergfell vs. Hodges has legalized same-sex marriage. While a federal ban on discrimination in employment and housing remains elusive, most of the concerns raised at her 1977 meeting have been addressed. Her strong stand against the ban on federal funding for abortion also proved to be prescient, as it proved to be the first in a long list of policies that have limited women’s access to abortion. And as Costanza warned, the rise of the Religious Right meant setbacks for women, LGBT people, minority groups, and the poor, as well as the Democratic Party as a whole.
Her niece Erin Costanza once asked me how knowing Midge had affected me. It’s a question I’ve contemplated a lot. The obvious answer is that she changed the trajectory of my scholarship by convincing me to write this book, but of course there is more. Knowing her, and spending so long with her story, has taught me to fight harder for what I believe in, and to do it with pleasure. More than once I’ve walked out of a heated meeting thinking “Midge would be proud of me today.” But her story has also served as a cautionary tale about the dangers of giving too much. Like so many activists, she drained herself emotionally, physically, and financially for others. I admire the spirit, but don’t wish it for myself. Finally, despite all of her struggles in the Carter White House, knowing her and telling her story has made me far more committed to the imperfect process of electoral politics.
Introduct I on 1
Midge Costanza was a feminist, she was an idealist, and she was a politician. For a brief time in the late 1970s, she became a national symbol of the possibilities, and then the failures, of the administration of President James Earl “Jimmy” Carter (1977–1981). Like her hero, President Franklin Roosevelt, she believed that government could—and must—protect the vulnerable and help all people achieve their highest potential. And since government is borne of politics, Costanza believed that the cutthroat world of elections and deal-making was first and foremost about justice and inclusion. Participating in the political process, she believed, was the surest means for marginalized groups to advance their interests. Even as we chuckle at the naïveté of such a position, we fervently wish we could be represented by people more committed to principles than to expediency and self-advancement.
The appetite for principles and ideals was perhaps even more acute in the late 1970s, after the specter of White House corruption revealed by the Watergate scandal. Jimmy Carter’s 1976 campaign for the presidency was immeasurably buoyed by the nation’s longing for the vision his campaign offered of “A government as good as its people.” As a top-level White House aide tasked with bringing the voices of the powerless to the president, Costanza was seen by many as the embodiment of these hopes, and the person who would make Carter’s promises come true. Perhaps even more
important, Midge Costanza believed that Jimmy Carter had brought her to Washington to hold him to those ideals. Costanza often recounted that when he invited her to become the first female assistant to a US president, he said her job was to “keep him straight” and be his “window on America.” For Costanza, this was an invitation to listen to groups more accustomed to protesting outside the White House than sitting in the Roosevelt room, including feminists and lesbian and gay activists. She also believed that it was her place to advocate for policies she believed addressed injustice, a belief that led her to publicly oppose Carter’s negative stance on federal funding for abortion and to lobby for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) after other top aides decided to distance the White House from what seemed to be a losing battle.
Costanza’s idealistic approach to her job was uncommon; those appointed to a president’s inner circle are there to help carry out his agenda, not advance their own issues. Her experiences are a vivid demonstration of why activism among top aides is so rare; other White House aides marginalized her and fed reporters anonymous quotes criticizing her every move. Among the press and public she was a controversial figure, with loyal fans and committed enemies both inside and outside of Washington. Yet even when she had no option left except resignation, Costanza neither apologized for nor doubted her actions. In Costanza’s mind, holding to her principles was the highest form of loyalty, both to her friend Jimmy Carter and to the American voters who had believed his promises. For Midge Costanza, acting on principle was more than a means of achieving celebrity or even negotiating a hostile White House, it was her identity. In an interview shortly after leaving the White House, she explained,
I knew I was going to live my life instead of just exist through it. I’m sure there are a lot of people along the way who haven’t agreed with how I’ve done it. So be it. I have to know who I am. I have to know what I stand for and I don’t care what the mood of the nation is. My positions on the issues, my sensitivity, my commitment, is not based on the mood of the nation; they are based on what I believe is right.1
Costanza’s actions were particularly significant because they made her a lightning rod for the mounting partisan war over social issues. While feminists used her struggles to criticize the White House for not doing more, conservative groups saw her very presence as evidence of Carter’s support for a
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
F . 329. Ablation of the udder in the goat. Li, Line of incision; Lp, prolongation backwards.
This operation appears to cause formidable injuries, the abdominal tunic and the muscles of the flat portion of the thigh being largely exposed, but in reality the wound is less grave than might be supposed, and healing occurs in a comparatively short time, provided none of the diseased tissue is left.
The dressing is renewed at intervals of two or three days, and when cicatrisation proceeds regularly it may be omitted and replaced by antiseptic irrigation.
In the ewe and she-goat the operative technique is identical:
First stage. Elliptical incision, including the teat.
Second stage. Breaking through of the intermammary connective tissue partition and the subcutaneous tissue. Ligature of the anterior mammary vein.
Third stage. Isolation of the mamma from the front backwards. Ligature of the vessels of supply. Extirpation. Fourth stage. Suture and drainage.
INDEX. A. PAGE
Abdominal cavity, diseases of, 478
Ablation of the mammæ, 771
Abomasal indigestion, 182
Abomasum, 114
„ hernia of the, 493
„ obstruction of the, 194
„ strongylosis of, in the ox, 268
Abortion, epizootic, in cows, 553
Acariasis, non-psoroptic forms of, 645
Accessory glands of the genital apparatus, 597
Accidental phlebitis, 396
Acid theory in diseases of bones, 3
Acids, caustic, poisoning by, 217
Acne in the sheep, 606
Acorns, poisoning by, 228
Acquired herniæ, 489
Actinomycosis, 672
Actual cautery, castration with the, 758
Acute cystitis, 511
„ deep-seated glossitis, 131
„ eczema, 599
„ enteritis, 203
„ gastric indigestion in swine, 185
„ gastritis, 188
„ inflammation of the gastric compartments, 186
„ laryngitis, 333
„ mammitis, 573
„ metritis, 550
„ nephritis, 528
„ parotiditis, 134
„ peritonitis, 478
„ pleurisy, 361
„ tuberculosis, 704
„ vaginitis, 544
Æsculaceæ, 246
Agalaxia, 587
Agaricaceæ, 225
Alkalies, caustic, poisoning by, 217
Aloes, poisoning by, 221
Alsinaceæ, 229
Ambrosiaceæ, 256
Amputation of the claw, 730
Anæmia in cattle, 268
„ lambs, 268
„ sheep, 268
Anæsthesia, 726
Annual mercury, poisoning by, 256
Anomalies, physiological, 567
Anus, 116
„ imperforate, 742
Apiaceæ, 247
Apocynaceæ, 251
Apparatus of locomotion, 730
Aragallus spicatus, poisoning by, 237
Arsenic, poisoning by, 218
Arsenical dips, 632
Arteries, examination of, 371
“Arthritis of milch cows”, 99
Articular rheumatism, 89
„ causes, 89
„ complications, 91
Articulations, diseases of, 45
Ascites, 483
Asclepiadaceæ, 252
Aspergilli, pneumo-mycosis due to, 350 B.
Barberry family, 235
Beech family, 228
Beef measles, 79
„ cause, 79
„ symptoms, 81
„ where prevalent, 79
Bell-flower family, 255
Berberidaceæ, 235
Biceps femoris, 70
Bile ducts, cancer of, 282
Bilharziosis in cattle and sheep, 439
Bistournage, 751
Bitter milk, 591
Bladder, diseases of the, 511
„ eversion of the, 519
„ paralysis of the, 519
Bleeding, 727
„ in the pig, 728
„ in sheep, 727
Blood, diseases of the, 406
„ examination of, 372
„ poisoning in sheep and lambs in New Zealand, 415
„ -vessels, diseases of, 396
Blood-wort family, 228
Bloody flux in calves and lambs, 271
Blue milk, 590
Boars, castration of, 759
Bog spavin in the ox, 46
Bone, actinomycosis of, 681
„ tumours, 30
Bones and articulations, tuberculosis of the, 701
Bones, diseases of, 3
„ „ acid theory, 3
„ „ inflammation theory, 4
„ „ theory of insufficiency, 3
Bovine animals, calculi in, 515
„ piroplasmosis, 416
Box family, 246
Brain, tuberculosis of the, 702
Braxy, 435
Bronchi, 333
Bronchitis, 336
„ chronic, 337
„ pseudo-membranous, 339
„ simple acute, 337
„ verminous, in sheep and cattle, 340
Broncho-pneumonia, gangrenous, due to foreign bodies, 351
„ infectious, 354
„ of sucking calves, 356
„ sclero-caseous, of sheep, 358
Bryony, poisoning by, 256
Buckwheat poisoning, 606
Bull, castration of the, 751
Bunch-flower family, 227
Bursal sheath of the flexor tendons, distension of, 49
Butneriaceæ, 235
Butter, milk without, 589
Buxaceæ, 246
Calculi in bovine animals, 515
„ urinary, in sheep, 518
Calculus formation, 514
Calves, depraved appetite in, 160
„ diarrhœic enteritis in, 212
„ dysentery in, 210
„ goitre in, 453
„ intestinal coccidiosis of, 271
„ lumbricosis of, 267
„ mycotic stomatitis in, 124
„ necrosing stomatitis in, 123
Calving, dropping after, 461
Campanulaceæ, 255
Cancer of the bile ducts, 282
„ liver, 282
Cancerous pericarditis, 375
Canker, 40
„ treatment, 41
Capillary system, examination of, 372
Carbolic acid poisoning, 221
„ dips, 633
Cardiac anomalies, 374
Carduaceæ, 256
Carrot family, 247
Caseous lymphadenitis of the sheep, 453
Casting, control of oxen by, 723
Castor oil cake, poisoning by, 257
Castration, 751
„ complications after, 760
„ by clams, 756
„ the covered method, 757
„ „ elastic ligature, 758
„ „ exposed method, 757
„ torsion, 757
„ of boars and young pigs, 759
„ „ the bull and ram, 751
„ „ „ cow, 761
„ „ cryptorchids, 760
„ „ the ram, 759
„ „ „ „ by bistournage, 759
„ „ „ „ „ ligature, 759
„ „ „ „ „ tearing, 759
„ „ „ sow, 765 with the actual cautery, 758
Catarrhal gastritis in swine, 190
„ stomatitis in sheep, 122
„ „ general, in swine, 126
Catheter, passage of the, in the cow, 750
„ „ „ „ ram, 749
Cattle, anæmia in, 268
„ bilharziosis in, 439
„ diarrhœa in, 268
„ hæmorrhagic septicæmia in, 716
„ parasitic gastro-enteritis in, 268
„ pseudo-membranous pharyngitis in, 141
„ verminous bronchitis in, 340
Caustic acids, poisoning by, 217
„ alkalies, poisoning by, 216
Cerebral congestion, 456
„ tumours, 459
Changes in the milk, 587
Chaps, 568
Chemical dyspepsia, 195
Chenopodiaceæ, 229
Chorioptic mange, 636, 640, 642
Chronic bronchitis, 337
„ cystitis, 513
„ diarrhœa, 207
„ eczema, 600
„ enteritis, 207
„ gastritis, 194
„ glossitis, 132
„ indigestion, 194
„ mammitis, 581
„ metritis, 552
„ nephritis, 530
„ parotiditis, 136
„ pericarditis, 389
„ peritonitis, 481
„ pleurisy, 362
„ simple synovitis, forms of, 45
„ tympanites, 194
„ vaginitis, 546
Circulation, organs of the, 370
Circulatory apparatus, 727
Clams, castration by, 756
Claw and third phalanx, disarticulation of the, 731
„ amputation of the, 730
„ surgical dressing for a, 730
Claws, congestion of the, 31
Clément’s bath, 623
Clotted milk, 589
Cœnurosis, 467
Colchicum poisoning, 256
Cold water, colic due to ingestion of, 162
Colic, 116
„ as a result of strangulation, 167
Colic due to invagination, 163
„ in the ox, 162
Common salt, poisoning by, 217
Complications after castration, 760
Condylomata, 38
Congenital herniæ, 487
Congestion, pulmonary, 343
„ of the claws, 31
„ „ kidneys, 527
„ „ liver, 280
„ „ udder, 570
Congestive colic, 162
Conjunctivitis, 662
Contagious disease (takosis) of goats, 412
„ mammitis in milch cows, 580
„ vaginitis, 545
“Contagious foot disease”, 41
Contraction of the sphincter, 567
Control of pigs, 725
„ sheep and goats, 725
„ oxen, 720
„ „ by casting, 723
„ general, of oxen, 722
Contusions of the sole, 31
Convallariaceæ, 228
Copper poisoning, 221
Coryza, gangrenous, 320
„ simple, 319
Cotton cake, poisoning by, 257
Covered method, castration by the, 757
Cow, castration of the, 761
„ „ „ complications in, 764
„ passage of the catheter in the, 750
Cows, epizootic abortion in, 553
Cowper’s glands, 597
Cow-pox, 665
„ and human variola, 669
Cracks, 568
Creolin bath, 324
Croupal vaginitis, 545
Crowfoot family, 230
Crushing a foreign body in the œsophagus, 735
Cryptorchids, castration of, 760
Cysticerci, infection with, 73
Cysticercosis, 290
„ peritoneal, 485
Cysticercus disease of the pig, 73
Cystic parasites of animals, table of, 73
Cystitis, acute, 511
„ chronic, 513
Cysts of the udder, 585
D.
Defæcation: examination of fæcal material, 118
Demodecic mange, 643
Depraved appetite, 158
„ „ in calves and lambs, 160
„ „ „ the ox, 158
Diaphragmatic herniæ, 496
Diarrhœa, chronic, 207
„ in cattle, 268
„ „ lambs, 268
„ „ sheep, 268
Diarrhœic enteritis in calves, 212
Digestive apparatus, 734
„ „ diseases of, 106
„ „ fistulæ of, 500
„ „ parasites of, 263
„ „ semiology of, 106
Digestive tract, tuberculosis of the, 699
Dilatation of the œsophagus, 149
„ „ orifice of the teat, 770
Disarticulation of the claw and third phalanx, 731
„ „ two first phalanges, 732
Diseases of the bladder, 511
„ „ blood, 406
„ „ kidneys, 527
„ „ liver, 279
„ „ lymphatic system, 444
„ „ mouth, 106
„ „ œsophagus, 109
„ „ pharynx, 108
„ „ salivary glands, 108
„ „ stomach, 110, 169
„ „ rumen, 110
„ „ peritoneum and abdominal cavity, 478
„ „ urinary apparatus, 502
„ produced by distillery and sugar factory pulp, 259
„ transmissible to man through the medium of milk, 593
Distillery and sugar factory pulp, diseases produced by, 259
Distomatosis, 293
Disturbance in the milk secretion, 587
Dogbane family, 251
Dropping after calving, 461
Dysentery in calves, 210
„ „ and lambs, 271
Dyspepsia, 194
„ motor, 195
„ secretory or chemical, 195 E.
Echinococcosis of the liver, 283
„ suppurative, 288
Ectopia of the heart, 374
Eczema, 599
„ acute, 599
„ chronic, 600
„ due to feeding with potato pulp, 603
„ sebaceous or seborrhœic, 601
Elastic ligature, castration by the, 758
Emphysema, pulmonary, 359
„ subcutaneous, 659
Encephalitis, 458
Endocarditis, 394
Enteritis, 203
„ acute, 203
„ chronic, 207
„ diarrhœic, in calves, 212
„ hæmorrhagic, 206
Epizootic abortion in cows, 553
Equisetaceæ, 225
Ergot family, 223
Ergot of rye, poisoning by, 223
Ergotism, 223
Ericaeæ, 249
Euphorbiaceæ, 244
Eventration, 499
Eversion of the bladder, 519
Exostoses, 27
Exposed method, castration by the, 757
External ischio-tibial muscle, rupture of the, 70
Exudative pericarditis due to foreign bodies, 376
Eyes, diseases of the, 661
Facial sinuses of sheep, œstrus larvæ in the, 330
„ „ trephining the, 745
Fæcal material, examination of, 118
Fagaceæ, 228
Fagopyrism, 606
False sturdy, 330
Fasciola hepatica, 294
Felon, 41
Female genital organs, examination of, with the speculum, 760
Femoro-tibial articulation, luxation of the, 61
„ „ symptoms, 62
„ „ treatment, 63
Femur, luxation of, 56
„ „ „ symptoms, 57
„ „ „ treatment, 58
Fennel, poisoning by, 249
Ferments, lactic, 588
Fern family, 225
Fetlock joint, distension of the synovial capsule of the, 48
„ strain of, 54
Figwort family, 255
Fistula, parotid, 136
Fistulæ, milk, 569
„ of the digestive apparatus, 500
Flax family, 244
Flexor metatarsi, rupture of the, 72
„ tendons, distension of the bursal sheath of, 49
Food, poisoning due to, 215
Foot, diseases of the, 31
„ rot, 43
„ „ symptoms, 43
„ „ treatment, 44
„ scab, 636
Foreign bodies causing diseases of the eyes, 661
„ „ exudative pericarditis due to, 376
„ „ gangrenous broncho-pneumonia due to, 351
„ „ gastric disturbance due to, 198
„ „ migration of, from the reticulum, pneumonia due to, 348
Foreign bodies, pneumonia due to, 347
Foreign body in the œsophagus, crushing a, 735
„ „ „ „ submucous dissection of, 736
Fractures, 20
France, bovine piroplasmosis in, 424
Frontal sinus, trephining the, 745
„ „ purulent collections in, 327 G.
Gangrenous broncho-pneumonia due to foreign bodies, 351
„ coryza, 320
„ mammitis in goats, 584
„ „ of milch ewes, 583
Gaseous indigestion, 170
Gastric compartments, acute inflammation of, 186
„ „ tumours of the, 202
„ disturbance due to foreign bodies, 198
„ indigestion, acute, in swine, 185
Gastritis, 186, 188–194
Gastro-intestinal strongylosis in sheep, 263
Gastrotomy, 739
“Gathered Nail”, 37
General diseases, 4
Genital apparatus, 542
„ „ accessory glands of the, 597
„ malformations, 560
„ organs, male, 594
„ „ tuberculosis of the, 700
Genito-urinary organs, 747
„ regions, 502
Gid, 467
Glands, mammary, diseases of, 565
Glans penis and sheath, polypi of, 506
Glossitis, 130
„ acute, deep-seated, 131
„ chronic, 132
„ nodular sclerosing, 133
„ superficial, 130
Goat, demodecic mange in the, 644
„ mange in the, 641
„ ringworm in the, 653
Goats, control of, 725
„ gangrenous mammitis in, 584
Goitre in calves, 453
„ lambs, 453
Goosefoot family, 229
Grass family, 226
„ tick, life history of, 432
Grease, 41
Hæmaturia, 520
Hæmodoraceæ, 228
Hæmorrhagic enteritis, 206
„ „ in calves and lambs, 271
„ septicæmia in cattle, 716
Hæmorrhagic septicæmia, infective diseases confused with, 718
Haunch, hygroma of, 67
Heart, ectopia of the, 374
Heat stroke, 442
Heath family, 249
Hellebore, poisoning by, 234
Helminthiasis, intestinal, in ruminants, 275
Hemlock, poisoning by, 248
Hepatitis, nodular necrosing, 280
Hernia, inguinal, in young pigs, 741
„ of the abomasum, 493
„ „ intestine, 494
„ „ rumen, 490
„ perineal, of young pigs, 487
Herniæ, 487, 741
„ acquired, 489
„ congenital, 487
„ diaphragmatic, 496
„ treatment of, 495
Hock, hygroma of the point of the, 68
„ joint, distension of the synovial capsule of the, 46
„ „ strain of, 55
„ region, distension of the tendon sheaths in, 46
Hoose, 340
Horn core, trephining the, 745
Horns, anatomy of, 21
„ detachment of, 23
„ fissuring of, 24
„ fractures of, 21, 25
„ splints for, 26
„ treatment of, 25
Horse-chestnut family, 246
Horsetail family, 225
Human variola and cow-pox, 669
Husk, 340
Hydro-nephrosis, 531
Hydro-pneumo-thorax, 366
Hygroma of the haunch, 67
„ „ knee, 65
„ „ point of the hock, 68
„ „ point of the sternum, 69
„ „ stifle, 67
„ „ trochanter of the femur, 67
Hygromas, 64
Hypericaceæ, 246
Hypocreceæ, 223
Hypodermosis in the ox, 646
Impaction of the omasum, 179
„ „ rumen, 175
Imperforate anus, 742
„ condition of the teat, 567
„ vagina, 560
Impetigo in the pig, 605
Indigestion, 170
„ abomasal, 182
„ acute gastric, in swine, 185
„ as a result of over-eating, 175
„ chronic, 194
Infectious broncho-pneumonia, 354
Infectious diseases, 665
„ pyelo-nephritis, 533
„ pseudo-rheumatism in adults, 99
„ „ „ symptoms, 100
„ „ „ treatment, 103
„ rheumatism in young animals, 94
„ „ „ causes, 94
„ „ „ symptoms, 95
Infective diseases, confused with hæmorrhagic septicæmia, 718
Inflammation of the sheath, 506
„ „ submaxillary salivary gland, 137
Inflammatory diseases, 570
Inguinal hernia in young pigs, 741
Insolation, 460
Interdigital space, inflammation of the, 38
Internal infectious phlebitis, 398
Interstitial mammitis, 574
Intestinal helminthiasis in ruminants, 275
„ tuberculosis, 699
Intestine, 116
„ hernia of the, 494
Invagination, colic due to, 163
Inversion and prolapsus of the rectum, 743
Iodine poisoning, 22
Iodism, 222
Iodoform poisoning, 222
Ischial urethrotomy, 747
Ischio-tibial muscle, external, rupture of the, 70
Issues, 728
Joints, luxation of, 56
Keratitis, 662
Kidney worm of swine, 539
Kidneys, congestion of the, 527
„ diseases of the, 527
Knee, distension of tendon sheaths in the region of, 49
„ hygroma of, 65
„ joint, distension of the synovial capsule of the, 47
„ strain of, 53
Lactic ferments, 588
Lambs, anæmia in, 268
„ blood poisoning in, in New Zealand, 415
„ depraved appetite in, 160
„ diarrhœa in, 268
„ goitre in, 453
J.
L.
