The pseudonym "Philo Vaihinger" has been abandoned. All posts have been and are written by me, Joseph Auclair.
Showing posts with label LBJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LBJ. Show all posts

Saturday, December 27, 2014

The PC story is that blacks did it all themselves

The PC story.

The movie ‘Selma’ has a glaring flaw

Black Americans freed themselves from slavery, no thanks to Lincoln or the generations of white abolitionists before him or the hundreds of thousands of Union dead.

And they fought and won the battles of the civil rights era, no thanks to IKE, Nixon, Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon again.

Not to mention the Supremes and a multitude of inferior federal courts from 1954 right up through the 1970s.

The truth.

In fact all the political heavy lifting was done by whites with at most street-theater support from blacks.

But admitting that would destroy the preferred race narrative of the left that pits whites against everybody else and depicts America as a morally revolting society of permanent, all but irresistible, and unrelieved white racism piling hate and violence and disability on everyone else.

Joe Califano isn't playing along.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

Far, far worse than Watergate

Richard Nixon’s long shadow

Deliberately prolonging a war just to win an election?

Pretty shocking stuff.

But what if he disapproved of the deal LBJ was trying to force the Vietnamese into accepting, and as a policy matter thought the US could and should do better?

Still illegal, but that difference in motive makes for a different objection, this one to the "arrogance of power" mentality, to Nixon's worries about the US being seen as a "pitiful, helpless giant," as reasons for war, or for continuing for one second longer than necessary the foolish war RN inherited from LBJ, that LBJ should never have got into (nor should Kennedy before him have committed us so far as he did by sending "advisers").

Which was it?

All the same, if Clinton deserved impeachment and should have resigned for his perjury then Nixon deserved far worse, not for Watergate but for ruining LBJ's chance to get us out of Vietnam in 1968, years before Nixon would finally give up.

Even if his intentions were not, as seems all too likely, so starkly selfish as to suit the black heart of some Shakespearean Machiavel.

Saturday, April 13, 2013

The New Majority for the Democratic Party


Acceptance by the Democratic Party and at least half its liberal activists of its reliance on the New Majority signifies its acceptance of the death of the New Deal coalition and, with it, of the century old progressive agenda.

The New Deal coalition of the industrial and agricultural, urban and rural American proletariat, the urban and rural poor including among the latter the impoverished and marginal small farmers of all regions, supported the biggest dose of socialism American had ever had to swallow in such a large, single gulp, its most notable achievement being a vast and compulsory public pension savings program, Social Security.

And that same coalition, though already beginning to fall apart, enabled the further principal gains of the Great Society including Medicaid and expanded Welfare, Food Stamps, Head Start, and Medicare.

And throughout it all there was an accompanying burgeoning of the regulatory state in the interests of protecting America’s workers, consumers, the general public, and the environment from the unacceptable results in our own homeland of the dictatorship of capitalists through market forces in the name of free competition.

And there were accompanying massive developments at the national and state levels making higher and professional and technical education much more widespread and available to the children of ordinary Americans than ever before.

But the coalition was significantly eroded in the 1960’s when the Democratic Party’s sacrifice of the blood and treasure of ordinary Americans to finance a policy of global containment of communism on behalf of global capitalism came to grief in Vietnam and created lasting antipathies between America’s working class with its Cold Warrior labor leaders on the one side and the rising generation of liberals who would be the party’s future leaders and activists on the other.

That was the same decade in which the last great progressive president, LBJ, knowingly gave up the “Solid South” to the Republicans by vigorous measures against Jim Crow while all over the country Americans witnessed unprecedented outbursts of long-enduring and reciprocal racial hatreds of blacks and whites.

And then in the next decade the Supremes gave us Roe, the Jewel in the Crown of the sexual revolution in the law it had been working at since the late 1950’s, and liberals across America supported them at the cost of another blow to the Democratic coalition that had previously included grass-roots Protestant Christianity from the age of Bryan to and even beyond the end of Prohibition.

The white South and much of the center of the country went over to the Republicans, newly committed to conservative and fundamentalist religion and morals along with the defense of white people against black and other non-white enmities.

Over all that time, a party whose agenda was, in contrast to the Republicans, one of advancing social democracy and control of the economy for the good of its working class and ordinary people and whose electoral base reflected its agenda has mutated enormously.

New elements have, over the years, been added to the working class agenda of progressivism in successful efforts on behalf of secularism, the sexual revolution, environmentalism, and racial equality and inclusion.

And thanks in part to the conservative takeover of the Republican Party and the rise of the hard, Bircher right to national power the mass politics of electioneering and propaganda of both major parties and all political movements have fallen, in the US, more and more under the control of Big Money out to rein in and even undo Big Government.

While its New Deal constituency has eroded over all that time so has the commitment of the Democratic Party to American social democracy.

The real value to its dependents of Social Security and Medicare has steadily dropped for decades under Republican and Democratic administrations.

The affordability of higher education to the non-rich of America has continuously dropped to the point of now being a national crisis.

The power of unions has diminished in the face of increasingly hostile Republicanism and indifference from Democrats.

Bill Clinton betrayed the Great Society with his “welfare reforms” and Barack Obama has betrayed both FDR and LBJ with his attacks on Social Security and Medicare.

And O did it to finance other, more subtle betrayals, first to finance a national program of compulsory purchase of health insurance from private companies that has still left some forty million Americans without health coverage.

And now to pay for a national program of public works to be carried out as a boondoggle for private and anti-union contractors and not by the new WPA the professional and further lefts have repeatedly called for since the collapse of 2008.

The era of Big Government is over, as Bill Clinton told us, to the everlasting shame of America’s most shameless man.

And the New Deal coalition of those whose interests it served has now been pretty much openly and wholly abandoned.

The new model Democratic Party is quite frankly out to be as friendly to the Big Money and the Big Money interests as it can be and still win elections.

Elections it plans to win by relying not on a working class it has helped to fragment into nearly complete political insignificance and economic helplessness but on long-standing divisions among Americans around issues of race, religion, sexuality, gender, and ethnicity.

And that will allow Democrats to win, once in a while, even as they join with the Republicans across the aisle in bipartisan elite projects of globalization in which liberals and conservatives, but especially the billionaire class, sell us all out for the greater good of the very rich and, allegedly, of the non-rich who are not Americans and are in so many ways more deserving of their solicitude than we.

Friday, April 12, 2013

The view from where?

Justice Ginsburg is right about Roe

The view from PUMA-land.

Somewhere out beyond any known galaxy, anyway, on a planet of Amazons obsessed with their own anatomy, Obama’s attack on the Great Society and the New Deal has not even been noted, it seems.

The botched syntax is her own.

My theory is that Roe dealt a huge blow to the movement for women’s equality because once it was decided, many women had the mistaken idea that the battle was won. 

Instead, Roe became the political football for BOTH political parties.  

It’s the primary criteria for which party voters decide they belong. 

It’s the fear tactic that Democrats use to corral women to vote against their economic interests as much as it is the tactic that Republicans use to rally their constituents to feel power and control over other people’s lives.

. . . . .

Because abortion has been such a cultural hot potato, we tend to see women as a collection of body parts, primarily reproductive body parts. 

We are uteruses and vaginas and breasts and all of our discussion is about who gets to control those body parts. 

I am not a man or a male hiring manager but I have to wonder what crosses men’s minds when they see a female colleague. 

Do they consider her intelligence, determination, ingenuity and hard work or do they secretly thank god that they weren’t born with ovaries that are subject to religious and governmental regulation? 

I am a man.

The answers are Yes and No, respectively.

But she’ll never get it because of the way she sees men, women, and the world.

And she is really out there.

By the way, the Times editorial on Ginsberg’s comment that she links to is fascinating.

I disliked Roe then and I dislike it now for the same reason, late term abortion is just infanticide by another name and I dread and oppose the legalization of infanticide for any but the most compelling grounds for euthanasia.

And I have never sided with the feminist demand that the choice, if there is one, be entirely that of the pregnant woman with the advice of her chosen physician, the latter being the only man, if such happens to be the case, with any say in the matter, at all.

The Times editorial board has quite a different view.

Oh, and I really dislike the ERA.

Talk about an invitation for endless further intrusions of judicial dictatorship.

And that’s the point, of course.

Meanwhile, Digby has apparently noticed the existence of numerous soi-disant liberals like the BooMan willing to stop worrying about cat food, given how close they are to an enormous boost in the Democrats' Hispanic vote.


David Atkins was furious, the other day.


Digby also had this up to show the spending priorities of O’s big money contributors.

You know.

They guys who own the Democratic Party and set the priorities.

Very revealing.


These folks are not the biggest fans of FDR or LBJ, are they?

Obama is intentionally throwing the elderly under the bus. Republicans were telling the truth.


11 dimensional dominoes, my foot.

Karoli quotes insiders letting the cat out of the bag at C&L.

Untangling the Chained CPI Hairball

Obama sees “entitlements” – and it's revealing that inside the White House that’s what they call these earned and paid for working-class benefits – as getting in the way of his projects for infrastructure spending, education, and so on.

And the fight over all this deficit stuff needs to be swept out of the way so he can get his deals on guns and immigration, and maybe something about gays and women, too.

Obama has told people in his orbit that he feels “squeezed” by the rise of entitlement spending and sees it as a threat to getting anything else done, especially his plans for increased education and infrastructure spending.

Feed Granny or send Junior to law school, what do you think this Harvard climber puts first?

And, heck, what about the really important stuff like gun control, citizenship for 11 million illegals who will vote Democrat for decades, gay marriage, and the glass ceiling obstructing the ambitions of privileged white girls who went to Harvard law, just like he did?

More at Salon.


No surprise BooMan and the squishy liberals of his generation and class are fine with this stuff.

He has often made it clear how much he despises the white working class and I have no doubt he thinks the Democrats can do fine against the Republicans yelling about race, religion, and sex even as they betray all working Americans of all races and religions, regardless of sex.

It will be easy, he thinks, to win so long as they keep the crucial support of billionaires who worry a hell of a lot more about female circumcision in Africa than they do about somebody else's granny eating cat food out of a can in the rattier parts of Pottersville.

And many of those same billionaires - and squishy, upper class liberals like BooMan - are pretty sure Americans are overpaid and have it way too soft, anyway, globally speaking, and certainly don't somehow magically deserve to be better off than Indonesians, Malays, or Chinese of the same class.

And we know how important moral desert is to those billionaires and the BooMan liberals, and indeed most liberals raised and living in privilege who certainly don't expect to be eating cat food, themselves, at any time in their lives.

That's the same BooMan who has twice supported the demand of George Will and others of the further right that the 17th Amendment be repealed and popular election of senators be abandoned, returning the power to choose them to state legislatures where plutocrats can exercise better control.

And he might be right about the future of the Democrats as a party for globo-meddling sociolibs who want to increase the Navy's budget for helping South Asians deal with coastal flooding by trimming those pesky entitlements that just so get in the way.

11 million new Hispanic votes might be just enough to make up for the hemorrhage of white working class votes this kind of stunt will cost the Democratic Party.

It just might.

But if not then we can thank Obama not only for doing Paul Ryan's work for him maybe as much as a decade early but for putting Ryan, Rand Paul, or someone just like them in the White House in 2016.

I haven't looked, but I'll just bet the PUMA's are screaming their heads off, all over the web.

Thursday, April 11, 2013

"Real Democrats don't cut social security benefits, period[.]”


Greider on Social Security and the budget battle.

Will Voters Forgive Obama for Cutting Social Security?

Nothing quite like a very succinct summary of the bitter truth.

So who gets tell the folks that their FiCA deductions were a joke—only an accounting fiction?

The financial problems facing Social Security are easily fixed (as Obama himself has said) and are actually 30 years away.

When the Congressional Budget Office is required to “score” Obama’s so-called cost-of-living reform, it will be compelled to announce that whacking the old folks contributes not a penny to reducing the federal government’s deficits.

In fact, there is an even bigger lie concealed by the fiscal scolds and ignored by witless media, too.

Again and again, self-righteous critics have portrayed Social Security as the profligate monster borrowing from the Treasury and sucking the life out of federal government.

Guess what?

It's the other way around.

The federal government borrows from Social Security.

The Treasury has been borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund for 30 years, and the debt to Social Security beneficiaries now totals nearly $3 trillion.

The day is approaching when that money will be needed for its original purpose: paying Social Security benefits to the working people who contributed to the fund.

That is the real crisis that makes the financial barons and their media collaborators so anxious to cut Social Security benefits.

They would like to get out of repaying the debt—that is, giving the money back to the people who earned it.

The only way to do this is cut the benefits—over and over again.

Count on it.

If the president and Congress succeed in this malicious scheme, they will come back again and again to cut more and more.

If the politicians join this sordid conspiracy, voters should come after them with pitchforks and torches.

John Nichols is right, too.

And so are all the people he refers to.


"Real Democrats don't cut social security benefits, period[.]”

And so is Alan Grayson.


In a conference call organized by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, co-founders Adam Green and Stephanie Taylor pledged to launch primary challenges against Democrats who vote for a budget bill that includes chained CPI.

"There needs to be accountability in 2014, and we're very serious," said Green. "You cannot call yourself a Democrat and support Social Security cuts."

Progressive member of Congress Alan Grayson, Democrat of Florida, warned that Obama's changes to both Social Security and Medicare benefits in his budget may drag down the whole Democratic Party.

"A Democratic President is proposing cuts to benefits, without receiving anything form the other side . . . that undermine the core Democratic accomplishment of the last 50 years," he said.

In addition to chained CPI, Grayson pointed out, the White House budget contains a two-tier approach to Medicare long favored by Republicans that treats new beneficiaries differently from current beneficiaries, imposing means-testing on incomes above $47,000.

"You may recall I lost my election two years ago because Republicans took a shot at convincing the public that ObamaCare was a cut in Medicare," Grayson said.

Now, he said, the President is handing the Republicans an issue they can use to win elections.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Treason? Well, no.



Of course, your true cold warrior would have insisted it was Johnson who was the traitor, here, selling out the American effort in South Vietnam to hold the line against communism in order to smooth Humphrey’s path to the White House.

And Nixon the patriot and the hero.

But Johnson never much got along with Humphrey, anyway.

And as I heard it his price during most of the campaign for support for Humphrey – a price the Happy Warrior did pay – was that HH had to run as a hawk.

And who in his right mind would think LBJ incapable of a vengeful, poisonous lie?

Or Nixon incapable of such back-channel sabotage?

Just another bit of history we will never really know.

And who killed Kennedy, anyway?

And why?

Monday, March 18, 2013

How Democrats let the Republicans appear the true legatees of Lyndon Johnson



Sure, this is partisan spin.

If Obama is a match the Republicans are a flame-thrower.

But the spin is based on a kernel of truth that these cuts will hurt those people most dependent on Medicare and least able to pay the increased costs.

As health insurance, Medicare basically sucks because politicians have cut significant coverage and raised premiums, copays, and coinsurance almost every year, to the point where anybody who couldn’t just buy his own insurance, anyhow, has to go into an HMO or pray for Medicaid to fill the holes in a state that allows that.

The plan to pay for Obamacare really did cut the paycheck to the Medicare HMOs from the git-go, and that really will mean higher costs to the people who rely on them.

Obama did that as part of the Obamacare deal.

Seniors believed he was shafting them to finance health care for younger, other folks and they were basically right.

And the Republicans killed the Democrats on it in 2010.

Obama is setting them up for 2014.

He’s setting them up, just fine.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Don’t you love these dances on the brink of war?


Want your kids to die fighting in Korea?

Want us all to face the risks associated, not with Iran going nuclear, but with us whacking Iran to prevent Iran going nuclear or punish them for it?


What is the importance of South Korea to the vital interests of the United States?

About the same as South Vietnam.

Remember South Vietnam?

Good for you.



What is the threat posed to American security or American vital interests by Iran getting the bomb?

There is none.

Should America withdraw its foolish and unnecessary (to us) security guarantees from Israel?

Certainly.

The sad truth is the liberals would end up being anti-war after it’s too late to prevent a really big mistake, just as they were in Vietnam.

What does that tell you?

They don’t say a word to stop it and the liberals in office will support it, but once underway they will noisily oppose the war and use their anti-war stance to try to get votes.

Would they do that if Obama starts the war?

Sure.

Remember LBJ and what the liberals did to him?

And this is Obama’s last term, anyway.

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

A film about what?



Slavery ended in 1865, not 1834.

It ended because a white president decided to fight a war over it and then arm-wrestled a bunch of white politicians in the House to end it in a formal amendment to the US Constitution.

Black soldiers fighting for the Union didn’t end it, however great their contribution to ensuring the North won and the white politicians had a chance to end it.

Occasional slave revolts in the US didn’t end it and some historians think they may actually have entrenched it more deeply in the South.

The same could be said for the rebellion in Haiti.

And the agitation of free blacks like Frederick Douglass didn’t end it, however much it may have helped, alongside the much more widespread white abolitionist agitation, prepare white opinion to accept the end.

Didn’t we have this argument once before?

When Hillary pointed out that Martin Luther King and the many participants in the civil rights struggle didn’t actually change the law, the nation, or its racial institutions.

The Supremes began doing that with Brown and after that numerous courts played a part.

But mostly it was about Truman and Eisenhower and Kennedy and then Lyndon Johnson and the almost exclusively white politicians he got on board for the cause.

The slaves did not free themselves.

Black Americans did not free themselves.

Black Americans did not overthrow Jim Crow and segregation.

And that’s the truth.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Obama unchained?



Going straight to the Declaration, he sounded more like a progressive than he has at any time since the campaign of 2008.

Good stuff, domestically, on the whole, aside from immigration.

Something for all the liberal constituencies, including a commitment to the safety net and to earned benefits that was given billing reassuringly close to the top.

Lesser evil, but only just, in foreign affairs.

This turn did not go unnoticed.


Elsewhere he asserted a need to deal effectively with global warming and a moral imperative to care for the planet for those who will come after us.

But this is the crucial passage in O’s speech committing him and us, unmistakably, to the tradition of presidential liberal global interventionism.

America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation.

We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.

And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice—not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

A mix typical of progressive presidents since TR. And Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, for that matter.

And the American Vice President lately so much publicly venerated, Henry Wallace.

About which writes Robert Dreyfus at The Nation in that strain of global welfarism that is becoming more influential in contemporary liberalism, or seems to be.

That, to me, ought to be the absolute core of a new US foreign policy.

Not finding small and medium-size enemies, whether impoverished nations such as Iran or mini-threats such as the Algeria-Mali Islamists, and by attacking them creating big ones; not by riling up gigantic rivals such as China by “pivoting” toward Asia and the Pacific with our air force and navy.

Instead, by organizing the world’s attention on urgent needs, such as clean drinking water, vaccination, healthcare clinics, sustainable economic growth, and other achievable goals that, according to countless analysts, could be bought and paid for worldwide at just a fraction of what we now spend on what we euphemistically call “defense.”

There was lots of God in the inauguration, by the way.

Not least in the lyrics of America, sung by a pop star in pop star style.

Well, talk of God was always characteristic of Lincoln, too, one of our president's heroes.

Oh, what is it with the cheesy divas at these affairs, anyway?

I like the national anthem better the way they do it at ball parks.

Friday, January 11, 2013

Nixon, the liberal



The man I voted for in 1972, my first election.

I had attended many anti-war demonstrations in my college years, before that, and had not changed my mind that the war in Vietnam was a fool’s errand.

But McGovern just seemed too much a flake.

The conservatives still don’t like Nixon, much, though they laud and the liberals damn his early days and the whole Chambers/Hiss affair.

(Hiss, it seems to me, was guilty.)

Except for Pat Buchanan, who worked for him in the White House.

In 1968 you still had to be 21 to vote, and I wasn’t.

But Humphrey was first way too hawkish and then too sudden with a late conversion.

I would likely have voted for Nixon, then, had I been able to.

John Fund writes pollster Doug Schoen

[N]otes that Nixon’s 1974 national-health-care proposal “was a far more liberal concept than Bill Clinton’s or Barack Obama’s.”

Nixon would have required employers to buy health insurance for their employees and subsidized the employers who couldn’t afford it.

He also imposed a minimum tax on the wealthy (the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax, which is only now being permanently indexed to exclude the middle class) and unsuccessfully backed a guaranteed income for all Americans.

And that’s before we even get to how Nixon embraced Communist Beijing, dumped America’s diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, and signed a highly flawed Vietnam War ceasefire that within two years led to South Vietnam’s being overrun by Communists.

Contrary to current mythology, when American labor supported Nixon it did not abandon New Deal liberalism, as the anti-war radicals of the time - not liberals by any stretch of the imagination, themselves, but mostly flaming reds who loathed America and wanted Ho to win - claimed.

Nor did I.

But it did abandon liberals who were happy to defend Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, Stokely Carmichael, and the likes of Hanoi Jane, for whom I had no sympathy, either.

Somebody still owes us an appreciative biography of Nixon.

My biggest regret about him is that he and Kissinger didn't get us totally out of Vietnam in his first term.

But he didn't want the debacle to come on his watch.

Just like Obama stalling around in Afghanistan?

Some exceptionally hostile liberals allege Johnson would have ended the thing in 1968 if Nixon hadn’t sabotaged negotiations.

But only them and nobody else believes it.

Anyway, Fund thinks this is a litany of complaints.

In a single day in 1971, Nixon famously imposed wage and price controls in a naïve attempt to curb inflation, ended the U.S.’s last ties to the gold standard, effectively devalued the dollar, and imposed a 10 percent import surcharge.

The list of agencies he created from scratch includes the EPA, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

He signed the command-and-control Clean Air Act into law and instituted racial quotas as federal policy.

“Incredible but true,” Fortune magazine recalled upon Nixon’s death in 1994. “It was the Nixonites that gave us employment quotas.”

As historian Joan Hoff has noted, “Not until the Nixon administration did ‘affirmative action’ begin to become synonymous with ‘civil rights.’”

Nixon’s most controversial federal-spending proposal was the Family Assistance Program, which would have guaranteed a minimal annual welfare payment for all Americans below a certain income level.

It was blocked by a coalition of conservative Republicans and moderate Democrats in the Senate, but under Nixon spending on Food Stamps increased from $610 million in 1970 to $2.5 billion in 1973.

Today, 47 million Americans, or nearly one in six, depend on the program.

In addition, Nixon created the Supplemental Security Income portion of Social Security, which constitutes a guaranteed annual income for the aged, blind, and disabled[.]

On things like this, possibly excepting affirmative action, Nixon and IKE saw absolutely eye-to-eye.

IKE thought the conservatives were utter crackpots.

Do you think all this means the progressive agenda is actually compatible with a kind of conservatism, now wholly obsolete, that isn't just a front for plutocrat greed or libertarian foolishness?

Maybe.

Bismark stole much of his domestic agenda from the German Social Democrats, a Marxist party from first to last.

It used to be called "stealing the Whigs' clothes."

Or maybe it was just a different kind of liberalism.

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

What nonsense



John Gizzi writes,

Although many wish he had simply resumed the bombing of North Vietnam in 1969 that Lyndon Johnson had stopped in 1968, Nixon did so four years later and brought the U.S. role in the Vietnam War to an honorable ending.

South Vietnam remained free and “Vietnamization”—the training of South Vietnamese troops to defend their country without foreign assistance—was working.

Only after Nixon was driven from office and the Democratic-controlled Congress cut off aid to the embattled country did the Communist North finally triumph.

The “domino theory” that Nixon and others warned of became the domino fact, as Cambodia and much of Southeast Asia fell to Communism and became a giant gulag in the 1970s.

Vietnamization was a fig leaf to hide our failure and abandonment of the lost cause that was the South.

Had it not been a failure the South would not have promptly fallen when the Democrats did in fact end foreign (our) assistance.

Cambodia went under as an unanticipated consequence of Nixon's resumption of the bombing - though that does not mean it was his fault, as liberals had it.

And South Vietnam itself fell, of course.

But that was all.

And so what?

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

God forbid we should have majority rule in the senate


Neither side has so much confidence in democracy they want to deny the minority in the body the right and the power to veto anything that displeases them enough to take the trouble.

And anything at all displeases the Republicans enough to take the trouble.

“The Republican leader thinks things are going well here. He’s in a distinct minority because things aren’t going well around here,” Reid said. “Lyndon Johnson: one cloture. Reid: 386. That says it all.”

And maybe Reid gets it, really.

Maybe his reform is less than half-assed because he knows there are too many anti-majoritarians in his own party for him to be able to abolish the filibuster even by attempting a rule change with 51 votes.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Against interventionism


Politicians in both major parties who take the trouble – the enormous trouble – to run for president aspire to be “the most powerful man in the world,” to control the might of the unique hyper-puissance of our time, to command the greatest military power in the world.

Apart from Ron Paul and perhaps also Denis Kucinich, not one has run for the presidency in living memory with the intention of withdrawing the US from its global military commitments and painful, useless role as “the indispensable nation.”

Not even George McGovern or his supporters would have dared go so far.

And this is true though it is notorious that Americans overwhelmingly reject globo-meddling in favor of what is variously called “non-interventionism,” “isolationism,” or for some odd reason “neo-isolationism.”

Wilson lied shamelessly in 1916, campaigning for peace as he planned for war in 1917, driving the anti-interventionist naval secretary Bryan out of office.

FDR lied shamelessly from 1933 to 1941, promising American boys would never fight another European war while violating neutrality at every turn, eventually exploiting a pre-emptive Japanese attack in the Pacific as an excuse for the war he wanted in Europe.

LBJ lied shamelessly in the campaign of 1964, promising American boys would not die in a war Asian boys ought to fight as he planned ever-deeper intervention in Vietnam, eventually fabricating a provocation in the Gulf of Tonkin.

While Gore defended Bill Clinton’s gratuitous intervention in the Balkans, Bush the Younger campaigned in 2000 against unnecessary wars and for a “humbler” American foreign policy, betraying America utterly in Afghanistan and even more so in Iraq after 9/11 provided the completely fake casus belli the Halliburton neocons in his administration had wanted all along.

In 2004 and 2008 the candidates of both major parties promised more war, though the Democrats promised less more war.

In every case, American blood and American treasure were wasted in causes having no sufficient relation to the common good of the American people but plenty of value to ambitious politicians, greed-drive military contractors, jingoist bar-fly patriots, and foreign-born advisers abundantly willing to see Americans slaughtered for the good of the foreign peoples and nations they really cared about.

Alone among the settler nations of the New World, America has done exactly what so many of its founding generation of leaders told it not to do.

They knew full well that our distance from Europe provided a future of safety from danger no nation in Europe would ever enjoy.

But instead of taking advantage of this to choose a history of peace and pursuit of the common good America's elites have taken advantage of this almost from the beginning as an opportunity for empire-building and, eventually, ceaseless political and military meddling on a global scale.

Their arrogance and ambition, and the fatuous moralism found in that part of their propaganda that did not rely on imaginary “vital American interests” and entirely fictitious “existential threats,” have been the same, all along.

Much to the cost of the ordinary people of our country.