Jimmy Carter, Gaza and me! (Discussion)

Jimmy Carter, Gaza and me (Discussion)

On May 14 I posted my commentary “Jimmy Carter, Gaza and me!” I suggest you re-read it so as to be able to fully follow the discussion that follows: See here.

Roger Berkley of Woodcliff Lake, NJ responded thereto with this observation:

The American Jewish community has been brainwashed by the AIPAC propaganda machine.  AIPAC always supports the incumbent government of Israel, that's its job. Israel right or wrong. As American Jews, it is our responsibility to step back and take an analytical view of Israel.  I find that J Street and Peace Now are more properly targeted than Likud and its new ultra right wing coalition partners who virtually all oppose any peace treaty with the Palestinians.

In a very different vein, Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia wrote:

I suppose you won't be surprised to learn that I rather liked David Molk's letter, and I wasn't surprised to read your response. It serves as a microcosm of the much longer text you wrote earlier.

And then added the following extensive discourse:

Worth noting, anyone who would who would honor a despicable terrorist in this way has disqualified himself from any further rational consideration.

 Earlier in the day, Carter, 90, visited Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and laid a wreath on the grave of former leader Yasser Arafat. 

 The writer asks: "Has he [Carter] ever asked where the billions of dollars sent in aid to the governments in Gaza have gone?"

 You wrote:

 "Just about a month ago, on April 13, the Jerusalem Post had this headline: "International donors fail to deliver promised aid to Gaza." And besides, the Israeli blockade makes it all but impossible for building materials to be delivered."

Your reply ignores several cogent points, including:

 Israel has intercepted bags of cash provided by Iran entering the Gaza Strip to pay Hamas employees, without which support for Hamas would likely collapse.

 Europe and the EU have supplied the PA with billions of dollars over recent decades. It is entirely the fault of Hamas that whatever is left of this money after the huge amounts siphoned off by corrupt Fatah officials has not been transferred to the Gaza Strip.

 Israel has, in fact, permitted the import of some building materials, but must attempt to prevent them  from being diverted (as they had been in the past) to building tunnels that Hamas used to attack Israel.

 You wrote:

"Why should an oppressed people give recognition to their oppressors? The PLO has recognized Israel's right to exist and what has it gotten in return?"

 The answer: "Because after multiple wars intended to obliterate Israel, the Palestinians have lost. Now it is time to reconcile and build for the future." Their "oppression" could have been ended long ago if not for the cynical manipulation of Palestinians by their own leaders and for their own enrichment. The PLO's "acceptance" of Israel is/was meaningless so long as the PA, which is the titular Palestinian government refuses to acknowledge Israel's status as a Jewish state or, more properly, a state for the Jewish people. To avoid doing so reflects their continuing desire to transform the Jewish state into an Arab Palestinian state, which exposes "acceptance" as a mere tactic for foreign consumption.

 More to the point, so long as suicide bombers infiltrate from the West Bank (thwarted only by the security wall) and rockets fly from Gaza, "acceptance" remains a hollow joke.

 What did "acceptance" get the PLO? Nothing, because there was no real acceptance and  because the only thing they can hope to get is peace, which is the most precious element for people who love life.

 As for Israel's democracy and a vote for Palestinians, Caroline Glick believes that, after Israel annexes the West Bank, all Arabs who wish to become full Israeli citizens should be offered a path to citizenship. She offers compelling evidence that the risk is worth taking for both sides. Unfortunately, this solution has not attracted much interest anywhere so far as I can tell. The alternative is a demilitarized Palestinian "state" with limited scope of action.

 Now, you will ask "Why does Israel (the oppressor) have the right to dictate terms to the Palestinians (as the oppressed)?" The answer is obvious: because Israel is determined to safeguard its people and its national existence based on residence in its own territory and, as noted previously, its "rights" have been paid for in blood through several wars-if not millennia.

 Mere residence in a territory does not automatically create a "right" to political sovereignty. (Ask the Kurds who have lived in place for a thousand years without independent sovereignty.) And, as noted in prior comments, because the population of Jordan is at least 60% Palestinian, it is the de facto Palestinian state, whether anyone wants to recognize it as such, or not.

 As for whether or not Israel is a democracy, let the kettle not call the pot black. Every democracy in the world, including the U.S., is a work in progress. Israel has made admirable progress in a few short decades, even if there is more to be done.

I responded with passion, if not with anger. I will share that response with you, in my next post. 

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

Jimmy Carter, Gaza and me!

On Sunday, May 3^rd an article appeared in my local newspaper, The Record, entitled "Carter calls life in Gaza 'intolerable'."

I reproduce the article below:

Since the clipping is difficult to read I reproduce the text below:

Carter calls life in Gaza 'intolerable'

 Former US president Jimmy Carter said Saturday that eight months after a bloody war in the Gaza Strip the situation there remains “intolerable”. 

 Carter and his delegation were supposed to visit the isolated territory but earlier this week called it off, citing unspecified security concerns. 

 Speaking to reporters in Jerusalem, Carter said he was still determined to work for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. 

 “What we have seen and heard only strengthens our determination to work for peace,” he said. “The situation in Gaza is intolerable. Eight months after a devastating war, not one destroyed house has been rebuilt and people cannot live with the respect and dignity they deserve.” 

 More than 2,000 Palestinians were killed in the 50-day summer war between Israeli forces and Hamas militants who fired rockets into Israel.  

Earlier in the day, Carter, 90, visited Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and laid a wreath on the grave of former leader Yasser Arafat. 

 Although he brokered the first Israeli-Arab peace treaty during his presidency, Carter outraged many Israelis with his 2006 book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." He's also repeatedly reached out to Gaza's Islamic Hamas leaders, considered terrorists by much of the West. 

 Carter met with a group of Israelis living in towns bordering Gaza and heard about life under the threat of rocket attacks and militant infiltrations from Gaza. 

 He said that he had no interest in meeting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has ignored him in the past. 

 "This time we decided it was a waste of time to ask," Carter said. "As long as he is in charge, there will be no two-state solution and therefore no Palestinian state." 

On May 5^th the inevitable outrage of anything that is critical of Israel appeared in the Record as a Letter to the Editor. I reproduce it below:

Once again the clipping is hard to read and so I transcribe it below:

Carter’s views show ignorance

 Regarding "Carter calls life in Gaza 'Intolerable' (PageA-l6, May 3)":

So, former President Jimmy Carter asserts not one destroyed house has been rebuilt" In Gaza. Has he ever asked where the billions of dollars sent in aid to the governments in Gaza or the West Bank have gone or are going?

 The apologist for terrorists will not visit Gaza, citing "unspecified security concerns." From the terrorists he has championed? When has Carter condemned the suicide bombings of innocent civilians or the sheltering of rocket launchers at hospitals and schools ?

 And when has he denounced Hamas' refusal to accept the state of Israel? Yet he castigates Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying there will be no two-state solution "as long as he is in charge." The Israeli people put him in charge. So Carter would have him removed? Marginalized?

 Carter is an embarrassment to the office of president of the United States. And yet, again, what is more shameful, our foreign policy leaders, including the current president, Secretary of State John Kerry and members of Congress, do not condemn him for aiding and comforting terrorists and eviscerating the hopes and dreams of people for peace in the Middle East.

 David Molk

This letter produced an immediate reaction on my part prompting me to take pen to paper, or rather fingers to keyboard,  and caused this reply to appear in the Record on May 10, 2015.

Once again its transcription follows:

Carter's work has aided Israel security

 Regarding "Carter's views show ignorance" (Your Views, May 5):

 The writer accuses former President Jimmy Carter of showing ignorance, but instead it is the ignorance of the writer that comes through.

 The writer asks: "Has he [Carter] ever asked where the billions of dollars sent in aid to the governments in Gaza have gone?"

 Just about a month ago, on April 13, the Jerusalem Post had this headline: "International donors fail to deliver promised aid to Gaza." And besides, the Israeli blockade makes it all but impossible for building materials to be delivered.

 The writer repeats the propaganda of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee by asking if Carter has denounced Hamas' refusal to accept the state of Israel.

 But acceptance is a two-way street. The writer ought to ask when will Israel agree to recognize a Palestinian state or its right to exist? Why should an oppressed people give recognition to their oppressors? The PLO has recognized Israel's right to exist and what has it gotten in return?

Carter probably has done more for the security of Israel than any other person by brokering peace between Egypt and Israel. In return he gets only hatred, because he rightly criticizes Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.

 The Israeli people chose Benjamin Netanyahu as their prime minister in the recent election. But in a democracy the people are sovereign. but not necessarily wise, and with Palestinians in the occupied territories unable to vote in Israeli elections, it puts into question whether Israel is, in fact, a democracy.

 Emil Scheller 

Fort Lee, May 8

Comments, questions, or corrections are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office. 

America’s Place in the World (Still More Discussion)

In my last post entitled "America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)" I set forth my exchange on this subject with Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ, and then set forth a somewhat lengthy exposition on the subject by Albert Nekimken of Vienna, Virginia.

I decided that I can most effectively juxtapose my views against Nekimken’s by interlineating my comments directly into his. I do so by showing Nekimken’s text in italics and my responses in bold type. Those who may want to re-read Nekimken’s views without distraction can do so by referring to my last post "America’s Place in the World (More Discussion)."

I found myself agreeing the most of your reply to Eric Offner, Did you? It doesn't sound that way! even while remembering that FDR's record was not unblemished: despite all of the admirable decisions that he made, which you summarize, he also refused to admit boatloads of desperate Jewish refugees, such as the ship St. Louis, that was ordered to turn around and return to Europe. 

I don't believe that this is a fair criticism. The immigration laws were clear, and these refugees were not eligible for entry under those laws. I don’t think Roosevelt had the power to ignore those laws. Also disappointing, recent biographical scholarship has revealed the extent to which he shared the general anti-Semitism of people of his class and times. Again I disagree! There is no indication that Roosevelt had anti-Semitic views. To be sure Cordell Hull, The Secretary of State did, but to a large extent Roosevelt was unaware of this, until much later when Morgenthau brought it to his attention Roosevelt was shocked but did not feel there was much he could do about it without shaking up his Administration and he wasn't about to do that.

Your rejection of Eric's list of historical sins of America on the world stage was justified insofar as it has been used as a justification for refusing to take action in Syria today. Nevertheless, it reminds us that nations, including America, make geopolitical and diplomatic decisions based mainly on contemporary perceptions of national interest, not according to high principals of morality. Not every Administration is equally guilty of this. Democrats are much more given to humanitarian considerations, than Republicans.  Clinton acted in Bosnia and Obama in Libya. Carter was always concerned with Human Rights.

More troublesome was your conclusion that the world needs a policeman and the U.S. should accept the mantle of that role because it can.

While I accept and even applaud some of our recent interventions, such as in Bosnia that were a relative success, or in Somalia, which failed, Somalia didn't fail! We didn't act! Overall I think your conclusion is flawed for the following reasons:

The listing below I think is the crux of your argument.

·As Eric's comments suggested, the reputation of the U.S. has been tarnished. The rest of the world is quite suspicious of American motives and tends to fly into a frenzy of conspiracy speculation about them rather than admire us for spending money and taking risks to "do the right thing" wherever that motive takes us. True! , But we can change that perception, if we follow a consistent policy that puts greater emphasis on human rights than national Rights. Can we do that politically, doubtful, but it is worth striving for.

·We also can't undertake the responsibility of being the world's policeman because most of the world rejects our authority in this role, even if a minority welcomes it. This ambivalence results in a high potential that our efforts will continue to have unintended, or counterproductive results. Not so! Neither Bosnia nor Libya had that effect.

·We can't afford to be the world's policeman in terms of either money or manpower. How reminiscent of the mood in 1939. Expensive foreign interventions risk pushing our debt to arguably unsustainable levels while our economy remains weak and the need for domestic spending rises due to demographic changes, globalization, automation and other factors that are shrinking the size of the tax-paying workforce to historic lows. Limited intervention does not have very high costs and non-American lives have just as great value as American ones. Neither Bosnia nor Libya had a major impact on our budget. Iraq is always the bugaboo but that was the wrong war with the wrong commitment.

Also important, we can see from the results of the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions that the detrimental effects on our own military--individual soldiers, preparedness infrastructure and stockpiles--have been considerable and were likely understated. At least one-third of the soldiers returning from those battlefields bring with them serious, lifetime mental and physical disabilities that will require expensive attention for many decades.

But you and those likeminded keep coming back to Iraq and Afghanistan.  Those are not relevant models and references to those are misleading and inapplicable.

·For this reason, new initiatives that put the U.S. in the role of world policeman will inevitably catalyze the trend now underway to replace human soldiers with increasingly automated drones and other robotic equipment. 

This will happen regardless of anything else. Technology, not policy drives this. 

·Even if this trend shows some success on financial and tactical grounds, it exposes us to very dangerous moral dilemmas. Automated drones are being now prepared for global deployment that will either not require human direction, The will always require human direction though from a remote location. or will prevent it as a measure to counter cyberterrorism. As this trend accelerates, so does the probability of error, collateral deaths and anti-American agitation. Only a Defense Department order prohibiting the use of self-piloted drones has prevented their deployment for now.  I don't understand this. Self piloted drones are in use. However, this prohibition will not last indefinitely and it has no effect on the rest of the world where the cost of conducting ever more deadly terrorist operations continues to fall along with fading moral scruples against launching strikes with inexpensive drones or chemical weapons. But this is not relevant to policing atrocities.

Worse, automated drone warfare risks depriving attacks of any identifiable geographical address. We attacked Afghanistan and Iraq because they were perceived to be harboring terrorists. In the future, we may not be able to identify either the source location or even the identity of the sponsors of terrorist activity. It's difficult to be an effective policeman when you can't locate the criminals. Now you are talking apples and oranges. Dealing with terrorists is something we are doing, and will continue to do. It has its challenges as you point out. But it has nothing to do with intervening when mass slaughter on the scale of the Nazis, or in Bosnia and/or Kosovo or in Rwanda, takes place, and as we saw in Bosnia and Libya, it does not require boots on the ground, or even huge expenditures. You are raising a great many irrelevancies and bugaboos.

·Returning to Syria, there seems to be general agreement that, if it had been possible for the U.S. to use military force to quickly eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, we probably should have done so. However, to attempt to do this without a U.N. mandate, without good intelligence about the location of the weapons (which have already and obviously been dispersed or hidden), there was a high probability that our effort would have failed and only worsened the situation. Chemical weapons have not been the issue until now! It has been the slaughter of peaceful demonstrators. Right then and there we should have told Bashar al-Assad, stop or there will be consequences, followed by drone attacks on airfields and on anti aircraft batteries until his capacity to use those weapons was suppressed. Anti tank weapons, to the secular forces would also have made sense.

·Even Israel next door was ambivalent about the wisdom of a unilateral attack on Syria's chemical stockpiles by the U.S.  Nobody has suggested an attack on the chemical weapons.  Such action would only have pleased Saudi Arabia, which continues to sit on its hands and treasure, refusing to risk either--and Turkey whose president, Erdogan, has deployed only his big mouth and volunteered the U.S. to undertake all the risks and costs.

·Erdogan complains with justice that no country has even stepped up to help the refugees who have fled Syria and are living under desperate situations in neighboring countries. Erdogan is absolutely right! His country is bearing the brunt of caring for Syrian refugees, while we are doing nothing to help them. He is in no position to unilaterally take on Bashar al-Assad. (Apparently, such spending doesn't pump money into the hands of defense contractors or create many jobs in American congressional districts, so it has little appeal.) This last is unworthy of you! As you well know I am not looking for spending more on armaments and the humanitarian actions I am urging, have nothing to do with defense contractors. They will do very well regardless.

The slaughter of innocent civilians, whether Jews in Germany or the Soviet Union, or Slavs, or Africans, cannot be permitted. Better that we can unite on it, but it cannot be tolerated unless you feel that the worlds polices toward the Jews in the Holocaust was right. Russia or for that matter China cannot be allowed to be the dogs in the manger, who continues the defense of the indefensible and the absolute obstacle of humanitarianism.

It seems to me your instincts are pacifist and even suggest isolationism, which after Iraq and Afghanistan has gripped the country, just as it did after the WWI.

Final comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but not distributed.

The Deficit – One Big Hoax (Part VI)

In my last twelve posts I departed from my discussion of the deficit in order to focus on the columnists of the media and the media in general, with special emphasis on the New York Times.

However, it is now time to return to the subject of the deficit, the last part of which was posted on July 30. I suggest that you re-read it and if you can possibly find the time read all its parts. You can find the last post here and that post will give you links to all the others.

At the end of my last post on this subject I said:

Next time: What can and should we do about the deficit and the imminent insolvency of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Where can we and should we cut?

I will address this here, but before I do so let me return to the subject of this series, namely The Deficit – One Big Hoax. I called it a hoax, not because I don’t think that it is a serious problem, I believe that it is, but because the Republican Party is using it as a hoax to justify its primary aim, which is to destroy all that we have built over the last half century and even before. To not only repeal the Presidents greatest achievement in passing Health Insurance Reform, but to repeal Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even to destroy the agencies that safeguard our health and our well being, including the minimum wage and occupational safety, and I kid thee not, if they can get away with it, our system of free public education.

Their lack of concern with the deficit can easily be seen in that not one of their proposed “reforms” decreases the deficit. The Ryan plan, which has passed the House with almost unanimous Republican support (four Republicans voted against it and no Democrats voted for it) would, according to Representative Paul Ryan himself, add $6 trillion to the national debt over ten years as reported by the Economist, hardly a left wing source, and as far as I can find nowhere else in the media.

The same goes for all the proposals for “tax reform” touted by the Republican Presidential candidates. Whether we are talking about the famous (or infamous) 9/9/9 plan or the newly touted flat tax plan of Rick Perry, each one would increase the deficit that they are so ostensibly worried about that they threatened to put the country into default. Yet the media, not even the so-called liberal media, has bothered to point this out. E. J. Dionne Jr. writing in the Washington Post said:

What struck me about Rick Perry’s unveiling of his flat tax proposal is how little attention most of the coverage paid to the massive increase in the deficit it would cause – or the enormous cuts it would require… But the will-o’-the-wisp quality of the Washington conversation is underscored by the fact that when anyone proposed new and temporary spending to boost job growth a couple of months ago the avatars of the conventional wisdom kept asking, “But what about the deficit?” But when Perry proposes his big tax cuts, such questions are nowhere to be heard – except in the 10th paragraph of some news stories. (And that includes Dionne’s own Washington Post’s news reports.)

It is in that sense that it is a hoax, but one that our media fails to call attention to.

But as I have said, while the deficit in the short run, is of secondary importance, while job creation and our infrastructure are of immediate concern, and the two are related, we cannot afford to have only a short-term outlook. The long-term economic future of this country depends on our having the infrastructure to compete. As just one example that has not been discussed, but that is of vital importance is the enlargement of our ports, particularly the port of New Orleans. The Panama Canal is being enlarged to accommodate the larger vessels of the future, but the Port of New Orleans, and our other ports, do not have the capacity to accommodate such vessels. The sooner we address such problems, the better for the future of our economy, and the deficit, which ultimately will be controlled by a robust economy.

But at the same time there is enormous wasteful spending by our government. To the extent that we address such spending, we will reduce our deficit and free up money to do the things that need to be done.

We keep being told that the elephant in the room is entitlement spending and this is true, but in my view this should be addressed, not as a budget issue, but as a sustainability issue.

According to the Social Security Administration (I urge the reader to read this report in full.):

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative modifications if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided. The long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected have adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also afford elected officials with a greater opportunity to minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and those who are already substantially dependent on program benefits.

Both Social Security and Medicare, the two largest federal programs, face substantial cost growth in the upcoming decades due to factors that include population aging as well as the growth in expenditures per beneficiary. Through the mid-2030s, due to the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment, population aging is the largest single factor contributing to cost growth in the two programs. Thereafter, the continued rapid growth in health care cost per beneficiary becomes the larger factor.

I intend to discuss this vital issue at length at a future time but allow me to here at least begin a discussion of wasteful spending and I will not attempt to address this in the order of importance, but rather as issues come to my mind. Following this model I address first the so-called Drug War.

I can think of no area where we have done more damage to our economy and to our society than in this area.

The incredible thing is that it should have been obvious from our experience with prohibition. While I am sure that differences between them can be found, the results in the two cases are so parallel that it is an inescapable comparison.

In addition, there is an incredible agreement across the political spectrum on its wrong-headedness. The people who have spoken out against it include: Milton Friedman, the supply side economist, Walter Cronkite, the beloved journalist, George Shultz, Secretary of State in the Reagan Administration, Walter F. Buckley, Jr. founder of the Right Wing National Review, and Jimmy Carter the 39th President of the United States. For the exact quotes from these people, see below. To enlarge for legibility click on it.

Once again, in order to limit the post to a reasonable length, I will defer further discussion to the next post.

Comments on this and other posts are invited and should be sent to es628@columbia.edu.

Why This Is So! (continued II)

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.

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.