Anybody who wants to learn about Hunter should read the passage below.  It is hard work, but very well composed and written.  Very relevant to today's world too.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/city/Hunter/hunter.htm

Lou,

(Note* It's taken me the better part of 4 and a half hours tom complete this post! Sorry if it is a bit scttered. JUST TOO MANY INTERUPTIONS!)

Hunter didn't so much drop Socialism, but more objected to it after seeing what had become of Socialism gong awry in Communism. There is a big misconception that he became an arch conservative, which isn't exactly true. But I do think he was somewhat of a foe of the New Deal. He felt that this would eventually breed more laxidascial qualities in the working classes which he championed. (imagine that? An actual level headed thinking guy!)

To further get into Hunter, in 1940, he released his book, Revolution: How, Why and When? the book expressly outlined all of the fears that his book. Poverty had outlined, and then went on in detail how the failure of Socialism, which had been a victim of the school of Communism and the Russian Revolution where the masses of poverty, and get this: The Left or Liberal governments had done more harm then good by breeding contempt amongst the working masses. However he warned that either the Left or Right in power, where the disbursement of power was one-sided, would be the worst thing for any government, including our own. He felt that the Russian Revolution was proof of where the working masses would revolt because of it--and ironically proving his book Poverty completely accurate.

While that may sound anti-liberal to you, Hunter while becoming an inactive member of the social party simply because of communist connection, he was not really so much an arch-conservative, as he still valued his true socialistic ways, which differed from the New Deal, which he opposed profusely.

You ask, why does Hunter deserve his own society? Well if you should ever read any of his books, you would see that he is well deserving of any praise. The Links is a fantastic book on Golf Architecture. Poverty is almost prophetic for the time that would preceed it. Hunter valued the labor union movement as a good thing for America. His work at Hull House in Chicago would be further proof of this. Most will never give him the full credit he deserves for his best work of all, The Valley Club of Montecito, which should be in all rights considered a co-design with MacKenzie.

Sir Robert,
I'm a bit scattered here on your claim that Hunter only complete 9 holes  of MPCC. I 'm going to check on that one and I'll get back to you, because in the past, I think I've found stuff claiming that he built the entire course. I'll have to find it and post it here later.

Rich, that is a good article that I have read before.

What are your thoughts on Hunter as an economist, since that is something your going to know a lot more about then me!

Motmy

I think he's more of sociologist and muckraker than an economist.  Even though he was very passionate and studied his topics thoroughly, he was generally wrong about immigration.  Hmmmmmm, passionate, studious and yet wrong..........

Hcir

Hunter was a professor of economics at UC Berkeley until he moved to Pebble Beach after his Berkeley home burned down in a fire.

Josh, I was in the first class at Novato High School, class of '59. Before that the Novato kids went to San Rafael High.  That's good to hear that Meadow Club has a caddy program.  I hope they are better paid than we were!

Tommy,

My question to the originator of this thread was innocent.  I was unaware that Mr. Hunter's contribution to golf had the depth and breadth to warrant the formation of a society.  Being that this site is about golf architecture, I am assuming that the society is being organized around Hunter's contribution to gca.

The bio you provided left an erroneous impression which I thought needed to be corrected.  I've sworn off politics on this site and will just leave it at that.  

Lou,
I wasn't implying that at all, just letting you know that Josh's efforts on this are worthy for the cause.

As far as the politics, well when it comes to Hunter, the gloves come off!

How so?

He was and is to this day, a very interesting character, not born to wealth but fortunate to have been gifted with it. I do think he tried to make his society a better one in which to live in even though it would seem that the failing of socialist issues was probably the biggest disappointment of his life. So much he went the opposite way on it because he saw how it reared it's ugly head in the form of Communism.

I don't think he ever expected Communism to become so powerful, which eventually turned away from the expecetations he had for Socialism.

He counted Jack London and Samuel Gompers as great friends. He dined with Lenin and was appalled at those who suggested he was friendly with Moussolini before it came less then fashionable. He endlessly and tirelessly tried to convince Wendle Wilke that he could beat Roosevelt in the elections of 1938, only if he would listen. Wilke thought he was a fruit cake, albeit a brilliant one. Wilke lost.

And in the end, the guy was a student of Golf Architecture.

Just how more erroneous could that get?!?!

Lou,

Perhaps it is debatable weather or not Hunter’s contributions to golf are worthy of what I am aspiring to create but nevertheless I feel obligated to share what I have found with others because I know there are at least a few people who have a genuine interest in Hunter, and not just his career as a golf architect.  I think the posts on this thread with regards to his political career are worthy evidence of this.  To the surprise of some people Hunter isn’t best known for his contributions to golf but rather his books he wrote on Sociology, namely Poverty (1904), and his involvement with politics, particularly the socialist party (although as a few people pointed out he became conservative in the later part of his life, which I know is the reason Sean Tully is such a Hunter enthusiast as well).  Something interesting that I don’t believe anyone previously pointed out:  He stated in some of his correspondence letters that the main reason he left the Socialist Party in 1914 and became conservative was because most people in the party opposed the war claiming it was only for financial gain for corporations with military contracts.  He felt that accusation was too radical (I won’t draw any parallels to today’s political environment, this thread has already caused far to much unnecessary political debate on this website)

The reason I chose to announce it on this website was simply as a way to get in touch with other Hunter enthusiasts.  Most people probably don’t find Hunter to be as intriguing as I do, which is fine, I don’t expect that.  And to answer your question Lou, the reason I felt inspired to create a society in his honor is mainly because I am fascinated with the way in which he conducted his life and his careers, as I am both an aspiring golf architect and politician.  I believe he was a very honorable person, admired by many everywhere.  After his death in Montecito at his estate on Hot Springs Road the local Santa Barbara newspaper printed an article about his life entitled “Robert Hunter’s contributions to world hunger many.”   In the article there is no mention of his golf architecture career or his involvement with the Valley Club (MacKenzie’s design associate, Greens Committee Chairman from 1930-1934 and member until he resigned in 1937 due to “unfortunate real-estate investments” which prevented him from affording his monthly dues, plus I believe he was bitter towards the club for a few reasons that I won’t mention).


Rich-

I assume you were implying that you went to Stanford.  I hope you had the privilege of playing the Stanford course while you were a student there, that’s a great golf course.

Josh

You assume rightly, and yes I played the Stanford course many times, particularly in my Senior year when I arranged my "academic" schedule to allow for as little class time as possible.  As I've said here many times before, I bemoan the changes that have taken place, starting with the new RTJ 8th green in the mid 60's.  It is a course that used to be great, but not any more.

Good luck on the Hunter project.  I've bookmarked your site and will check back in periodically.  He is one of the few truly visionary thinkers in the GCA universe.  That he might have been wrong from time to time (such as being confused as to whether he was an Economist or a Sociologist....), is a small price to pay for access to his thoughts.

Rich,

I am aware of some of the changes that have been made at Stanford but do you truly believe it is no longer worth playing?  I still believe it is a good course although, as you imply, it was once a GREAT course.  It would be interesting to see if the University ever decides to tackle a restoration project.  That would be very exciting and something that seems feasible, as I’m sure the school is not suffering from a lack of funds.  Maybe Tiger Woods would make a donation, or perhaps they might wait until Tiger begins his architecture career (its only a matter of time) and hire him to restore it!  That seems to be trend amongst these golf pros turned architects with the colleges they attended.  

This is an wonderful thread about a most interesting and diverse man. Could Hunter be called a "renaissance" man? Was he a member of a group from the 1920s in architecture that included the likes of Max Behr who wrote and philosophized about various subjects, including golf architecture, who were preceived to buck the system or the establishment in various ways back then?

Thanks for so much excellent in-depth background material on the man from Eric, TommyN, Rich et al.

There have been threads on here in the past about Hunter---if not specifically about him at least with some good information on him.

As I recall, there was some criticism of him on here in one vein, which was he seemed to be what some of us in more modern times call a "limosine liberal".

Hunter seemed to write and philosophize against the wealthy industrial class of the Age of the Industrial Revolution and the abominable social and living conditions it may've created and spawned while Hunter at the same time seemed to lead a personal life amongst some of those very people. As I recall, one of the criticisms of Hunter on here was he was also married to a very rich woman.

If Hunter did turn away from his earliier philosophies which he wrote so much about on poverty, socialism etc and went the other way (which I do not know that he actually did) he would join a list of a few interesting men and woman who did the same in their careers or in their families' careers. This would include Abbie Hoffman who apparently ended up on Wall Street or some such unlikely career or the leader of the Black Panthers who eventually became virtually a political conservative disavowing all his earlier philosophies and protestations. The same may even be said for two generations of the Kennedy family.

People like that sort of interest me, if, for not the least reason being, their complexities.

More in the area of golf and golf course architecture if we want to analyze a man who exhibited some real diverse complexities in both his outlook on golf, golf administration, and probably architecture too, we need to also look at the diverse and complex life and attitudes of C.B. Macdonald.

But I will admit that Robert Hunter, on the face of it, seemed to be one of the more diverse people who ever passed through the world of golf course architecture and made some significant contributions to it

Another may be Bob Crosby's new favorite study---eg Joshua Crane.

"Tom, I'm not sure what impression you have of the Kennedy family down in Philly... They're no angels that's to be sure, but I hardly think you could say they have turned away from liberal causes."

Anthony:

I said two generations of Kennedys and I probably should've defined what I mean by that. Joe Kennedy could very likely not be considered a liberal on most issues, and on some he could be considered highly conservative.

Frankly, John Kennedy himself as a young US Congressman from Massachussets was also at first pretty heavily involved with Nixon et al in the beginnings of the "Communists witch-hunt" shennanigans in the early 1950s. Obviously Kennedy being the highly intuitive politician he was sensed that such a policy or the continued support of it was not going to lead down the road to political expediency.

Kennedy (John) and frankly the entire Kennedy machine has to be considered the first modern master of political campaigning in his (their) highly attuned sense of how to deal with political baggage effectively and to their ultimate benefit. Such things as how they effectively dealt with Kennedy's on-going medical problems, womanizing, and the almost complete expunging of the fact that he was a Caltholic who had actually been previously married is more than enough testimony to that.

The Kennedys and their machine were the most effective (effectively charming) campaigners I'm aware of in modern American political history. The only one who ever came close to topping him (did top him actually) was a man who studied his style and modus operandi---even as a young boy and young man----eg Bill Clinton! And I'd have to say I have never seen a campaigner more effective in this particular way than Bill Clinton, and that includes even John Kennedy.

Neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet are in any way what I would call a "limosine liberal".  

Josh Pettit,

Thanks for your honest reply.  Not that it matters a twit, I have no problem with you launching your society on this site.  As can be readily seen on this thread, the mandate to stay clear from political issues applies only to one side.

Being a curious sort, perhaps you can explain to me how Mr. Hunter, who with his wife had an estimated worth of $12 Million around the time of their marriage (well over $200mm  in today's dollars), could no longer afford the dues at Valley Club in 1937.  Those real estate investments must have been real boners.  Hopefully, his Econ students at Berkeley weren't paying too much attention.  Or maybe Mr. Hunter and his wife set the example on philanthropy that Gates and Buffett followed.

I did a search of our local library's catalogue and found nothing by Hunter.  Are his books on social issues not that well regarded, or is my city remiss for not making important literature available to its citizens?

Like Rich, I too will look in from time to time to learn more about this fascinating man.  Best of luck in your endeavor.  

Lou

I managed to get a copy of "why we fail as christians," and "revolution."I picked them up on ebay. The copy I have of WWFC is an advance copy sent to John Haynes Holmes from the publisher, pretty cool find on my part.

I did not live through the 1950's, but with the "Red scare" and Hunters references to Stalin, Lenin, and Tolstoy in his books, I can't imagine them staying on the shelfs. I am still looking for a copy of Poverty preferably a first edition. I have yet to read them, I have too many books started already.

Tully