In my last analysis of why this is so I concluded with the comment, “To me, Carter’s greatest fault was that he was a conservative in many ways and started the trend to deregulate, making it fashionable; thereby laying the groundwork for the Republican massive assault on regulations in the years to come.” But Carter had other faults, which had not so much to do with his effectiveness as President, but rather with the image he projected.
Carter image of the Presidency was the opposite of what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called the Imperial Presidency or as Camelot during the Kennedy administration. Carter saw himself as a man of the people. His style was to emphasize modesty rather than grandiosity. He walked to his inauguration. He wore cardigan sweaters. He never understood that deep down the American people want their President to have the trappings of Monarchy. They feel that to the extent that the image of the President is diminished the image of the country is diminished.
At the same time Carter inherited from the Nixon/Ford administration the malaise not only of Watergate but the stagflation that was gripping the country. Carter did not have the imagination to rouse the country, to present imaginative programs ala the New Deal or the Fair Deal or even of the tax cuts championed by Jack Kennedy. Instead he spoke of the need to come to grips with diminishing expectations, something the public was not about to accept.
Above all Carter wanted his legacy to be the spread of human rights throughout the world, at a time when the Cold War often required us to take allies where we could find them, and where history handed him irrevocable commitments. The Shah of Iran who had been placed on his throne by the Eisenhower administration in an overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadeg, had no support in his country and had been ruling it as a viscous tyrant (while trying to modernize it, to be sure) was now dying of cancer and appealed to Carter for asylum and medical treatment in the United States. Carter found himself unable to turn his back on him both for humanitarian reasons and because of the U.S. commitment which had been made to him as an ally. Carter correctly feared that an abandonment of this man in the hour of his need would send the wrong signal to our allies. He therefore gave him asylum in the U.S. as his regime was in the process of being over thrown by the Ayatollah. But this only fueled the enmity of the Iranians toward the U.S. and soon the Embassy was overrun and hostages taken. There was nothing Carter could do other than what he did do, but the failure of the military to carry out a rescue plan was turned into Carter’s failure.
Nevertheless, as the election against Reagan approached Carter held a large lead in the polls because Reagan was perceived as an extremist who the public was wary. Reagan’s sunny personality and his slogan, “Its morning in America” reassured a wary public. As Election Day approached the polls narrowed and it became apparent that the hostages held the key to who would win the election. Carter hoped and Reagan feared a release of the hostages before the election, which meant that the next President would in effect be chosen by the Ayatollah in Iran. Either, that radical government felt that the election of Reagan would serve its interests, or as has been rumored (though never proven) Reagan cut a deal with Teheran that if they would keep the hostages till after the election he would supply them with arms, (which in fact he did in what came to be known as the Iran/Contra scandal.
Next time, how Reagan takes the Republican Party and the country to the right and makes this respectable, as Democrats have no answer and as the Union movement crumbles.
Friday, December 31, 2004
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Why This Is So! (continued)
In my last two commentaries I first explained, why I believe that things are worse than they seem and then set forth my views as to why is so.
Now I wish to continue my comments on why this so. All these problems were still manageable and in the election of 1968 Johnson won a landslide victory over the Republican nominee Barry Goldwater. This was a cataclysmic event not so much because of the overwhelming victory by Johnson but because it marked the transformation of the Republican party from an East Coast dominated conservative party to a radical Libertarian party which in its avowed radicalism tended to frighten voters and by comparison made Johnson into the peace candidate. But events and decisions by Johnson and other Democrats worked against Democratic strengths. First by the time the election of 1972 rolled around the Vietnam War had become increasingly unpopular. As a result Johnson, after his humiliation by Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary, withdrew and Hubert Humphrey had the nomination within his grasp. There is every indication that Humphrey would have run as a peace candidate, but Johnson feeling that this would amount to a repudiation of his stewardship threatened to withdraw his support of Humphrey, which would have doomed his candidacy. As a result, Humphrey ended up antagonizing the peace movement, which resulted in huge peace demonstrations in Chicago. Chicago’s Democratic Mayor, Richard Daley, was not going to stand for the demonstrations and called out the riot police who were extremely hostile to the demonstrators, resulting in what many considered a police riot. The images in the media conveyed demonstrators, many of whom were rioting, as well as the brutality of the police against peaceful demonstrators, thoroughly damaging the Democrats in general, and Humphrey in particular. I voted for Humphrey, but at the time wrote an open letter to Humphrey, which was neither published nor responded to.
The result was that Humphrey lost to Nixon (who had claimed that he had a secret plan to end the war) but who prolonged the war and caused untold casualties to American troops as well as Vietnam and Cambodian civilians. (Anyone who saw the movie “The Killing Fields” is well acquainted with the horrors that resulted. But despite this and even though Watergate was already brewing, Nixon won the next election beating McGovern the committed peace candidate by a landslide and Nixon, instead of being remembered as the man who prolonged the war and finally lost it, is remembered by many as the man who ended it.
Watergate ended Nixon’s career, but not the Southern strategy, and allowed him to pick his own successor, the Nixon loyalist Gerald Ford. Carter beat Ford, but not because Democrats were in the ascendancy or because Carter was a strong candidate, but because the smell of Watergate was still too strong in the nostrils of the electorate.
Carter is often dismissed as a failure because, it is asserted, he was too focused on details but there is little to support this other then the press’s penchant for caricaturing public figures, just as they caricatured Ford as not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
To me, Carter’s greatest fault was that he was a conservative in many ways and started the trend to deregulate making it fashionable; thereby laying the groundwork for the Republican massive assault on regulations in the years to come.
Now I wish to continue my comments on why this so. All these problems were still manageable and in the election of 1968 Johnson won a landslide victory over the Republican nominee Barry Goldwater. This was a cataclysmic event not so much because of the overwhelming victory by Johnson but because it marked the transformation of the Republican party from an East Coast dominated conservative party to a radical Libertarian party which in its avowed radicalism tended to frighten voters and by comparison made Johnson into the peace candidate. But events and decisions by Johnson and other Democrats worked against Democratic strengths. First by the time the election of 1972 rolled around the Vietnam War had become increasingly unpopular. As a result Johnson, after his humiliation by Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary, withdrew and Hubert Humphrey had the nomination within his grasp. There is every indication that Humphrey would have run as a peace candidate, but Johnson feeling that this would amount to a repudiation of his stewardship threatened to withdraw his support of Humphrey, which would have doomed his candidacy. As a result, Humphrey ended up antagonizing the peace movement, which resulted in huge peace demonstrations in Chicago. Chicago’s Democratic Mayor, Richard Daley, was not going to stand for the demonstrations and called out the riot police who were extremely hostile to the demonstrators, resulting in what many considered a police riot. The images in the media conveyed demonstrators, many of whom were rioting, as well as the brutality of the police against peaceful demonstrators, thoroughly damaging the Democrats in general, and Humphrey in particular. I voted for Humphrey, but at the time wrote an open letter to Humphrey, which was neither published nor responded to.
The result was that Humphrey lost to Nixon (who had claimed that he had a secret plan to end the war) but who prolonged the war and caused untold casualties to American troops as well as Vietnam and Cambodian civilians. (Anyone who saw the movie “The Killing Fields” is well acquainted with the horrors that resulted. But despite this and even though Watergate was already brewing, Nixon won the next election beating McGovern the committed peace candidate by a landslide and Nixon, instead of being remembered as the man who prolonged the war and finally lost it, is remembered by many as the man who ended it.
Watergate ended Nixon’s career, but not the Southern strategy, and allowed him to pick his own successor, the Nixon loyalist Gerald Ford. Carter beat Ford, but not because Democrats were in the ascendancy or because Carter was a strong candidate, but because the smell of Watergate was still too strong in the nostrils of the electorate.
Carter is often dismissed as a failure because, it is asserted, he was too focused on details but there is little to support this other then the press’s penchant for caricaturing public figures, just as they caricatured Ford as not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
To me, Carter’s greatest fault was that he was a conservative in many ways and started the trend to deregulate making it fashionable; thereby laying the groundwork for the Republican massive assault on regulations in the years to come.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Why This Is So!
In my last column, entitled, “Things are worse than they seem,” I set forth my rather pessimistic views as to the state of the Democratic Party, (not Democrat Party) (more on this in a later essay) and the state of the progressive movement in general. I did not mention in that article two other disturbing factors which bear mention, namely that the percentage of the Latino and over 65 vote for Kerry, both declined from the percentages of the previous four years. I concluded my article with the promise that in my next analysis I will discuss why I think this is so and in a third installment I will discuss what I believe must be done to reverse the trend.
So here is why I think this is so! I believe that the seeds for demise of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement, which has its roots in the administration of Theodore Roosevelt early in the twentieth century, were sown during the Administration of Lyndon Johnson and in the Civil Rights movement. Until then the Democratic Party held its dominance based on a coalition of what used to be the Confederacy whose representatives, for the most part, were segregationists and anti-union factions, and the industrial states centered on the East and West coasts and around the Great Lakes. Franklin Roosevelt, held this coalition together by never touching what he saw as the third rail of politics, namely the plight of African-American’s in the South.
Truman endangered this coalition to some extent, when he desegregated the military, but the South, which associated the Republican Party, with Lincoln and emancipation, could not bring itself to even consider any association with this old enemy. Johnson, who but for Vietnam, might have gone down in history as the greatest of twentieth century Presidents, totally shattered this image by pushing through a recalcitrant Congress the greatest change in racial relations since the Emancipation Proclamation. What Johnson did may in fact have done more to free the Black man than Lincoln because Lincoln legacy left the Black man in something equivalent to slavery, known as “share cropping.”
While the South was not immediately lost to the Democrats (voting habits die hard) the South gradually fell away from the Democratic party and when Nixon took advantage of this with his “Southern strategy” the die was cast, particularly when it became apparent that the party of Lincoln was now embracing the most rabid of the segregationists and welcoming them into its bosom. Strum Thurmond, who ran for President on the Dixiecrat ticket was only the most egregious of these. Not only was the South lost, but since then not a single Democratic candidate for president ever received a majority of the White, or more accurately, the Caucasian vote.
Johnson did more than this. He enacted the programs of the Great Society, which with their great appeal to the poor and most of the middle class had the potential to overcome the loss of the segregationist vote. Johnson led a revolution, which in its scope dwarfed the achievements of the New Deal. Under his leadership, Congress enacted Medicare, Medicaid, Public Housing, and Aid to Dependent Children, to mention only the most important of his “War on Poverty.” Unfortunately, The Vietnam war not only tarnished his and the Democratic parties legacy but forced an underfunding of many of his programs, thus making many of them ineffective.
So here is why I think this is so! I believe that the seeds for demise of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement, which has its roots in the administration of Theodore Roosevelt early in the twentieth century, were sown during the Administration of Lyndon Johnson and in the Civil Rights movement. Until then the Democratic Party held its dominance based on a coalition of what used to be the Confederacy whose representatives, for the most part, were segregationists and anti-union factions, and the industrial states centered on the East and West coasts and around the Great Lakes. Franklin Roosevelt, held this coalition together by never touching what he saw as the third rail of politics, namely the plight of African-American’s in the South.
Truman endangered this coalition to some extent, when he desegregated the military, but the South, which associated the Republican Party, with Lincoln and emancipation, could not bring itself to even consider any association with this old enemy. Johnson, who but for Vietnam, might have gone down in history as the greatest of twentieth century Presidents, totally shattered this image by pushing through a recalcitrant Congress the greatest change in racial relations since the Emancipation Proclamation. What Johnson did may in fact have done more to free the Black man than Lincoln because Lincoln legacy left the Black man in something equivalent to slavery, known as “share cropping.”
While the South was not immediately lost to the Democrats (voting habits die hard) the South gradually fell away from the Democratic party and when Nixon took advantage of this with his “Southern strategy” the die was cast, particularly when it became apparent that the party of Lincoln was now embracing the most rabid of the segregationists and welcoming them into its bosom. Strum Thurmond, who ran for President on the Dixiecrat ticket was only the most egregious of these. Not only was the South lost, but since then not a single Democratic candidate for president ever received a majority of the White, or more accurately, the Caucasian vote.
Johnson did more than this. He enacted the programs of the Great Society, which with their great appeal to the poor and most of the middle class had the potential to overcome the loss of the segregationist vote. Johnson led a revolution, which in its scope dwarfed the achievements of the New Deal. Under his leadership, Congress enacted Medicare, Medicaid, Public Housing, and Aid to Dependent Children, to mention only the most important of his “War on Poverty.” Unfortunately, The Vietnam war not only tarnished his and the Democratic parties legacy but forced an underfunding of many of his programs, thus making many of them ineffective.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Things Are Worse Than They Seem
The election is behind us and once again the Democratic Party lost.
I don’t know how many of those on my circulation list are Republicans but to those who are I offer my congratulations, though I think that in time you too may realize that you have made a grave error.
Be that as it may, I here address those who felt passionately that Bush was the head of an Administration that represented the worse approach to almost every aspect of policy that one can conceive of whether foreign or domestic. It was a bitter pill to swallow and many came away angry and hostile. As for me I felt no anger, only sadness.
My sadness is enhanced because I believe the situation is even more dire than at first appears. Many take comfort in the fact that the election was close; that a relatively few votes going the other way in Ohio could have swung the election the other way; that in the election four years before Gore actually won the popular vote and but for some flukes in Florida might have won the Presidency. Unfortunately this ignores some very unpleasant facts.
In 1977, more than half of the public (51%) identified themselves as Democrats, compared with barely one-in-five who called themselves Republicans (21%). The parties drew nearly even by the end of the 1980s and have remained almost even since then. (Source The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press)
Since 1969 to the present time and including the period to the end of the next Bush term in in 2008, Democrats will have held the Presidency for a total of 12 years while Republicans will have held that office for a total of 26 years.
Since 1969 Democrats held both houses of Congress until 1980. Following that period no party held the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, except for the first two years of the Clinton Presidency. Since then Republicans have held both Houses of Congress except for a short period of time when the Senate was tied following the defection of Senator Jeffords and in this election they increased their majorities in both Houses of Congress.
It is highly likely that at the end of the Bush term Republicans or more accurately right wing activists will control the Judiciary.
Even if Gore or Kerry had won election they would not have been successful in pushing through a progressive program because a Republican Congress with the help of right wing Democrats, such as Zell Miller or even such as Senator Breaux of Louisiana, would have blocked them at every turn. Kerry’s election would have put a brake on the radical policies of the Bush Administration but it could not have reversed them.
To put it another way the tide of history is against us. In my next analysis I will discuss why I think this is so and in a third installment I will discuss what I believe must be done to reverse the trend.
At this point I would like to urge you to read an article published in the prestigious British Journal the Economist before the election entitled, "Last chance for the Democrats?" and with the sub-title:
"The presidential election says a lot about the unequal state of America's two parties" which can be found here.
I don’t know how many of those on my circulation list are Republicans but to those who are I offer my congratulations, though I think that in time you too may realize that you have made a grave error.
Be that as it may, I here address those who felt passionately that Bush was the head of an Administration that represented the worse approach to almost every aspect of policy that one can conceive of whether foreign or domestic. It was a bitter pill to swallow and many came away angry and hostile. As for me I felt no anger, only sadness.
My sadness is enhanced because I believe the situation is even more dire than at first appears. Many take comfort in the fact that the election was close; that a relatively few votes going the other way in Ohio could have swung the election the other way; that in the election four years before Gore actually won the popular vote and but for some flukes in Florida might have won the Presidency. Unfortunately this ignores some very unpleasant facts.
In 1977, more than half of the public (51%) identified themselves as Democrats, compared with barely one-in-five who called themselves Republicans (21%). The parties drew nearly even by the end of the 1980s and have remained almost even since then. (Source The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press)
Since 1969 to the present time and including the period to the end of the next Bush term in in 2008, Democrats will have held the Presidency for a total of 12 years while Republicans will have held that office for a total of 26 years.
Since 1969 Democrats held both houses of Congress until 1980. Following that period no party held the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, except for the first two years of the Clinton Presidency. Since then Republicans have held both Houses of Congress except for a short period of time when the Senate was tied following the defection of Senator Jeffords and in this election they increased their majorities in both Houses of Congress.
It is highly likely that at the end of the Bush term Republicans or more accurately right wing activists will control the Judiciary.
Even if Gore or Kerry had won election they would not have been successful in pushing through a progressive program because a Republican Congress with the help of right wing Democrats, such as Zell Miller or even such as Senator Breaux of Louisiana, would have blocked them at every turn. Kerry’s election would have put a brake on the radical policies of the Bush Administration but it could not have reversed them.
To put it another way the tide of history is against us. In my next analysis I will discuss why I think this is so and in a third installment I will discuss what I believe must be done to reverse the trend.
At this point I would like to urge you to read an article published in the prestigious British Journal the Economist before the election entitled, "Last chance for the Democrats?" and with the sub-title:
"The presidential election says a lot about the unequal state of America's two parties" which can be found here.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Unisex Toilets
Last week, my wife and I went to the Noguchi sculpture exhibit in New York with some friends. When I went to the toilet I found that they only had unisex toilets. Now, I had encountered unisex toilets before but somehow, this time, it struck me how insidious and dangerous this practice was.
Just think about it. The distinction between women and men is being denigrated in not giving each of them recognition for the distinctiveness of their sex. After all men and women are different. As it has often been said "Viva la difference". When men go to a public toilet they use urinals. In unisex toilets there are no urinals. Men have always been accustomed to having entrance to rooms for such intimate proceedings without having to wait in line for long periods of time, while women have had to wait an inexorable length. While women have often argued that this is unfair, it has often been said, "Life is not fair" and men will find that with unisex toilets, still another of their God-given privileges has been taken away, and all by a bunch of "do gooder liberals.”
Some might say what is the harm in this. But this misses the point. When we change social customs the long-range consequences cannot be foreseen.
Right now these unisex toilets only allow a man or a women to inhabit them one at a time, but it is a short step to having toilets where men and women cohabit and mingle in such intimate endeavors, and then modesty evaporates and men become like beasts, and fornicate and commit adultery, and it is the end of the family as we know it. Beware my friends, Sodom and Gomorra is not far away.
Let us look for a moment at other developments and the slippery slope they have put us on. It wasn't so long ago that the sale of condoms was prohibited. It was recognized that their sale would allow sex for pleasure instead of procreation and while the bible doesn't specifically say that sex for pleasure is a sin it does say, "People the earth.” It seems we have, in fact, done that far beyond any dreams that the early Jews or early Christians may have envisioned, but they failed to tell us when we ought to stop so, I guess, like Golem, we must endlessly obey these commands. But those who know God's intent have told us that God's intent was for pleasure without procreation to be a sin. And if that wasn't enough things didn't stop there. Next, we got the pill and soon everyone was fornicating and adulterating and worse of all they started she-sheing and he-heing, which the Bible tells us is a sin. But God had had enough. And he punished us by sending the worse plague upon us since the Black death in the form Aids. And he even punished us by sending terrorists against us, or so the Reverend Pat Robertson told us. Yes, we are told by a man who speaks directly to God and our President, that the terrorists are not evil, but are the vengeance that God has sent against us for our sins, and that we must make war against sinners and liberals and Democrats, and when they are eliminated this scourge will go from among our midst.
And how did our "activist" US Supreme Court meet this challenge? They struck down the Texas sodomy laws and said that a sovereign state could not punish people for committing unspeakable sins between consensual adults in the privacy of their bedrooms, as though it makes a difference where sins are committed. And the slippery slope continued. And now another judge has said that people of the same sex have the same rights as people of the opposite sex, and they may even marry. Well, you may not see the connection between unisex bathrooms and these unspeakable developments, but don't you see if we don't draw lines we get on slippery slopes and then where are we. People start wanting more and more rights and they don't understand that the right to sin is not a right.
It wasn't so long ago that we didn't have women in the military and a lot of the men said that they didn't belong. But the women proved that they were just as good as the men when it came their military tasks. And after a while a lot of the men found that it was nice to have women out there with them. After all here was an opportunity for sex. But often the women didn't want sex with some of their male counterparts or with their superiors, so they were intimidated or forced. And the women complained. They didn't understand that that was part of their military function. And so when they complained, the officer corps investigated the complainants and ended their careers. They didn't do too much investigating of the rapists because we all know that, "boys will be boys" and where is the esprit de corps of the women.
Ah, slippery slopes. Who can forget that before the '60s their was no race mixing. They didn't have the same toilets for African-Americans and whites and they felt if they allowed race mixing there, or anywhere, African-Americans would soon be asking for all sorts of other things, like the right to vote, and they warned that the next thing you know there would be miscegenation. They were right. If you look around today you see a lot of couples of mixed races and African-Americans are allowed to vote (at least in most cases when they are not barred by phony felony lists like in Florida or by other imaginative means), but by and large they are allowed to vote.
So be forewarned! Don't shrug your shoulders when you see unisex toilets. You never know what it could lead to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
