H2O Man's Journal
Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 07:49 PM
Number of posts: 51,437
Number of posts: 51,437
- 2015 (28)
- 2014 (134)
- 2013 (71)
- 2012 (90)
- Older Archives
If one were to accept everything stated on DU:GD as fact, then the biggest problem facing the Democratic Party would be that “the left” -- meaning progressive and liberal registered Democrats, and the Democratic Left -- fail to support the party’s candidates. This includes the left’s having unrealistic standards of “purity” in both the primaries and general election; failing to go to the polls on Election Day; and/or voting “third party” as a form of protest vote. Indeed, when people post something (anything) at this early date -- certainly before any Democratic candidate has announced that they are running -- that raises concerns about one specific potential candidate, they will be attacked for their lack of party loyalty.
“Party loyalty” is a curious thing. If, for example, one is familiar with the history of primary and general elections since, say, 1964 -- approximately one-half of a century -- there are several examples of a lack of party loyalty damaging a Democratic candidate’s chances for victory. Yet most of these were the result of the moderate-to-conservative wing of the Democratic Party. Indeed, the lone example that the moderate-to-conservative wing still attempts to blame on “the left” is the tired, weak argument concerning Ralph Nader in Florida in the 2000 election.
“If only the left hadn’t cast ‘protest votes’ for Nader -- believing that ‘there’s no difference’ between Bush and Gore -- we’d have won the election!” We still see this uninformed appeal to emotion, even on DU:GD discussions. It requires one to ignore the fact that Gore did win the vote in Florida, and the republican party/ US Supreme Court stole the election. This was very well documented in Vincent Bugliosi’s “The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President” (Thunder’s Mouth Press; 2001).
To blame the eventual outcome of that election on “the left” -- some of whom did vote for Nader -- makes as much sense as blaming the elderly Floridians who, confused by the “butterfly ballot,” cast votes for Patrick Buchanan. More, it ignores an important reality -- one documented in Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s “Journals: 1952 - 2000” (Penguin; 2007): a good many of the establishment Democrats voted for George W. Bush. The reason? Some disliked Al Gore for creating distance between himself and Bill Clinton, while others despised his choice for vice president.
Still, Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election. Any and all “blame” goes to the Supreme Court.
Similar dynamics had resulted in President Jimmy Carter’s 1980 loss to Ronald Reagan. Again, Schlesinger’s journals document that a significant segment of the establishment Democrats were opposed to Carter -- even before the middle of his term in the White House. Some, like Arthur, mistakenly thought that a four-year Reagan term would be no big deal (just as 20 years later, they felt Bush would be inconsequential). Add to that the phenomenon of “Reagan democrats” -- who were moderate-to-conservative party members, who believed Reagan represented their values. It would be delusional to believe the left backed Ronald Reagan.
To really understand the betrayal of party loyalty during this era, one has to take 1968 -- a unique year in American history -- into account. The occupant in the White House was President Lyndon Johnson. In late 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy had entered the primaries; in early 1968, Senator Robert Kennedy entered the race, as well. Intelligent people can differ on if one or both of them were disloyal to the Democratic Party, by doing so. However, LBJ would soon announce his plan to retire. RFK came from behind, to pass McCarthy in delegates won in the primaries; VP Hubert Humphrey entered the race, though he did not run in a single primary; RFK was murdered; and then, at the Democratic National Convention, the establishment selected Humphrey as the party’s candidate.
What happened at the Convention was important. In part, because of the police riot outside; part because it was run by Chicago’s Mayor Daley. Now, the mayor was a tough, old-school, machine political genius. Daley was also a stubborn, often cruel political boss. Inside the convention hall, he was a bully. But he was not alone in representing old school politics: the conflict over seating the delegates from Mississippi, which started in ‘64, was still unresolved. Although the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party had the legal and ethical right to be seated, the old, dehydrated, racist delegates were allowed to remain in “official” control of the state party.
These issues led to attempts to create a fair set of rules before the 1972 Democratic Convention. To a large extent, this created tensions between the progressive-liberal wing, and the moderate-conservative wing. (And these played out before, during, and after the convention.) The result was the most acrimonious convention -- inside -- in the party’s history.
George McGovern would come from behind in the primary season, to take a lead. Some of the other candidates, led by Hubert Humphrey, began a coordinated “anyone but McGovern” operation, to try to deny McGovern the nomination. Even when it was clear, at the beginning of the convention, Humphrey and the establishment sought to keep McGovern from winning.
McGovern won the nomination, but lost in the general election for three reasons: he ran a poor campaign; Nixon’s campaign was hugely successful in using dirty tactics; and parts of the Democratic Party would support and vote for Nixon. In fact. Exit polls showed that 35% of registered Democrats who voted, cast their ballots for Nixon. More, shortly after the election was called for Nixon, Humphrey called to congratulate Nixon. A transcript of the two sharing a giggle about how Humphrey pretended to support McGovern, but really worked against him, is found in Rick Perlstein’s “Nixonland” (Scribner; 2008).
A similar “anybody but ____” coordinated establishment campaign took place in the 1988 Democratic primary season. The contest attracted a large number of candidates (as had the ‘72 race). In time, it became a two-man contest, between Michael Dukakis and Jesse Jackson. The democratic establishment pressured the others to drop out of the race, to help Dukakis’s campaign. It was a “anybody but Jesse” effort.
Jesse wanted to be picked for the VP spot. He had shown the ability to bring large numbers of new people into the party. Dukakis ended up going with Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas instead. Although that choice resulted in a wonderful exchange in the VP debate, it wouldn’t carry the ticket to victory. Dukakis ran a campaign that was less exciting than lima beans; he could neither win back the “Reagan democrats,” or inspire new people to join the party. While we can only speculate on how things might have been different, had Dukakis offered Jesse some position, it seems unlikely he could have done worse.
If we add the moderate-to-conservative Democrats, with the progressive-liberal wing, and attract the support of the Democratic Left, the Democratic Party can continue to beat any republican candidate for the White House. In fact, that combination has the potential to win seats in both houses of Congress, as well as state and local elections. Not everywhere, but in the majority of states. But to do that, we need “party loyalty” -- and not just “party loyalty” as defined by one wing, or the established “leadership.”
“Party loyalty” has to include sharing the rewards. But we very rarely, if ever, have seen this type of power-sharing after election victories in the past 50 years. In fact, the opposite is too often the rule: the true progressive-liberal wing rarely gets any seat at the table. (Just because the media calls a politician a “liberal,” doesn’t mean he/she is. They are speaking of in the limited context of Washington, DC.) The Democratic Left is never seated. While their numbers may appear small, their ideas are huge. And their campaign work ethic -- going door-to-door, etc -- is why they are known as “activists.”
It’s strange to me, as an activist on the left, to see how we continue to be taken for granted, and shown so little party loyalty. Now, I’m a registered Democrat, with serious grass roots credentials. I’ve been a social - political activist for many decades. And while I speak only for myself here, I am aware of others who think very similarly.
Posted by H2O Man | Thu Mar 26, 2015, 08:56 PM (299 replies)
It’s official: Rafael Cruz, the “junior” Senator from Texas, has announced that he is a candidate for the republican nomination for President in 2016.
Almost immediately, his announcement was followed by discussion of if Rafael can actually be president, because he was born in the socialist nation of Canada? Call it speculation upon my part, but I predict that this is not a question that the US Supreme Court will be forced to answer, one way or the other.
Thus, the more important question to be considered is if the Cruz candidacy is a good thing or a bad thing? And that leads to the follow-up questions: Is it good for Democrats? Republicans? Or bad for America? Or is it a combination of good and bad, that allows us an objective measure of the pathology that infects our national political life?
GOP Congressman Peter King just called Cruz a “carnival barker,” a semi-humorous attempt to dismiss “Ted” as being similar to Sarah Palin. This suggests that Cruz will face strong opposition within the republican party’s primaries. Before we even consider the possibility that he could win the republican nomination, we might do well to focus on the dynamics of the republican primaries.
Rafael will not be the republican establishment’s candidate. It seems important that we understand that this is not because Cruz is a “maverick,” who has always sought to inhabit the margins of his party. In fact, just the opposite is true. I find myself thinking of an old LBJ quote about specimens of Cruz’s ilk: “he’s not a pimple on a good man’s ass.” If we adjust this ever so slightly, we can view Cruz as an infected boil on the republican party’s ass-cheeks.
In 1999 - 200, Cruz served as a lawyer on the George W. Bush campaign. He advised the campaign on issues involving social policy. After Bush lost to Gore in the November, 2000 election, Cruz was elevated to a position where he became an advocate for the theft of the presidency, first before the Florida courts, and eventually before the US Supreme Court.
After the USSC opted to make the theft of the election “official,” it appeared that Cruz was set for a career within the comfort zone afforded by the most criminal administration in American history. But, as we know, that didn’t happen. The Bush-Cheney administration decided to have the infected boil removed. In Cruz’s political career since then, too little attention has been paid to why they dumped Rafael.
The truth is that even the scoundrels in the Bush-Cheney administration found Cruz to be too obnoxious, self-righteous, and pompous to work with. And when we look at his behaviors in the US Senate, it is all too clear that his spoiled brat persona stands out in defining him. He holds onto his grudge against not only the Democratic Party, but also the republican establishment.
His campaign’s goal is not to gain the support of the majority of republicans in the primary contests -- although no doubt, that is his personal fantasy -- but rather, to damage the establishment’s candidate to an extent that allows the tea party and other marginal sub-species to join in creating a common front, and selecting the 2016 candidate. That means he will seek to harness the discontent of those who support Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee.
While this should provide some serious entertainment during the republican primaries, it is never good to underestimate the forces of fear and hatred in our society. I do not think of Cruz as just a joke, though there is plenty to laugh about in his campaign. It’s sad to think that there are people who would actually vote for this guy.
Posted by H2O Man | Mon Mar 23, 2015, 02:02 PM (32 replies)
Over the years that I’ve been part of the DU community, I have frequently read where someone or another writes, “DU in no way reflects the general public” (or, “….the Democratic Party”). And, granted, that is in many ways accurate. Indeed, if DU was more like the general public, it would not be nearly as attractive a place to discuss social-political issues -- would it?
Something occurred to me today, while I was reading a series of threads on DU:GD, regarding Hillary Clinton and a couple other potential democratic candidates for 2016. Take any given OP/responses -- be they pro- or anti-Clinton -- and one finds that the majority of forum participants, including many people that I recognize as intelligent and insightful -- rapidly move away from intelligent and sincere discussions or debates, into the most shallow of emotional of fringing reefs.
Just as all of the toxins poured into the giant oceans will eventually wash ashore, years of previously filtered anger, bitterness, and hostility are becoming concentrated with the earliest of 2016 democratic primary threads. These specific contaminates are not found at such levels among the general public, or even the Democratic Party as a whole They appear to have higher levels of sleeping-pills, pain-killers, and placebos than the DU community.
What DU:GD reminds me of in recent times is actually Congress. Now, traditionally, members of the House of Representatives -- because of the nature of that institution -- have been known to take more aggressive stances; while the Senate was noted as where heated debates went to cool, and individual members engaged in more comprehensive discussions of even the most pressing issues.
Over the years, I’ve come to see quite a few forum members as fitting into one of those two same general categories. I do not think that there is more value inherent in either of the two -- those who tend to post a shorter, more energetic OP, or those who tend to write longer, less emotional essays. The combination of the talents and intelligence of the community can make DU a fascinating, at times challenging, place to take part of.
In the 1990s, there was a purposeful, goal-directed effort by some members of the House to do severe damage to all of Congress. Newt Gingrich was the poster boy for this campaign. Few things highlight that type of effort more clearly than when Congress “shuts down” the federal government. More, be such an effort be led by a Newt or a Ted Cruz, it is essential that we fully understand that such a “shut down” isn’t merely a tactic that a spoiled brat uses to try to get his own way: rather, it is the purposeful destruction of the federal government’s ability to function in a meaningful way -- and to thus reduce the federal government to “defense,” meaning the military-industrial complex.
Obviously, that goal is distinct from even the most angry, argumentative forum member. But the debate tactics are surprisingly similar. The amount of hostility here prevents discussing issues in a meaningful manner. That old “you’re either with me, or against me” attitude -- that which marked perhaps the single stupidest thing an American president ever utter -- creates an atmosphere where those who think differently become “the opposition” and then “the enemy.”
The two most easily identified feuding groups currently found on DU:GD are, obviously, the “pro-Hillary” and “anti-Hillary” folks. If one searches hard enough, they can find solid, meaningful contributions from each of these groups here. But they tend to be overshadowed by the “louder,” more vocal group members, who confuse insults and attempted “debater-points” for insight and meaningful contributions to a discussion. And neither side has a monopoly on the toxic shit being splattered here daily.
Clearly, DU is not Congress. However, at its best, Congress is supposed to reflect the public square. Indeed, it is in that public square, or commons, or village park, that in a healthy constitutional democracy, good government takes root and flows from. In today’s high-tech culture, an internet forum such as DU actually has the potential power to serve as such a public square. It could be the nucleus for meaningful debate, which could then flow outward, into the larger pool of the Democratic Party, and from there into the ocean of the general public.
Posted by H2O Man | Sun Mar 22, 2015, 07:53 PM (9 replies)
It’s interesting to examine the connections between various Washington scandals from the recent past. In doing so, we can learn how, for example, the republican party’s machine goes about attempts to smear those Democrats that they fear and hate. Few politicians put as much energy into smearing his opponents than Richard Nixon. Indeed, while the modern republican party most often uses a white-washed image of Ronald Reagan as their “poster boy,” the truth is that their party still worships at the alter of Nixon.
Let’s take the issue of the Pentagon Papers, which were made public by Daniel Ellsberg. He had attempted to interest various media sources in the classified documents for some time, before The New York Times was willing to publish them in 1971. Some of Nixon’s top aides were outraged by this leak. But, at first, the President viewed them as a way to smear both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
However, when Nixon realized they documented US involvement going back to Truman, and went into the illegal invasions of Cambodia and Laos, Nixon fumed. This resulted in the administration’s attempt to trump Amendment 1, and prevent their publication. On June 30, 1971, the US Supreme Court made its historic 6-3 ruling on the government’s attempt at prior restraint.
It doesn’t take an Einstein to recognize that the energy the Nixon administration was investing in this wouldn’t be destroyed by the Supreme Court’s decision: it simply changed form. The most obvious example of this was charging Ellsberg with stealing the documents. The eventual outcome of his trial -- which could have been an easy conviction for Nixon’s Justice Department -- would be determined by Nixon’s channeling that energy into a new form.
Nixon’s infamous Oval Office isolation had begun well before the issues of Watergate appeared on the horizen. Indeed, that isolation lead to the various criminal enterprises that are today referred to as “Watergate.” In his own mind, Nixon was convinced, for example, that the murder of Diem could only have happened with President Kennedy’s consent -- for in his experience as vice president, he knew that President Eisenhower had okayed similar events in several other countries.
That the Pentagon Papers did not include any documentation of JFK’s okaying the murders of Diem and his brother were “proof” -- at least in Nixon’s paranoid mind -- that such papers had been removed from the official record. Where could Nixon find these records? He was convinced that they were housed in the Brooking Institute. Those in the Nixon administration who were already preparing for the 1972 re-election campaign were convinced that the Brooking Institute was the nucleus of the Kennedy family’s “shadow government.” Hence, White House tapes from June 30, 1971 (among others) include Nixon ordering H.R. Haldeman to oversee a burglary that would bring the Institute’s Vietnam files to the President’s desk.
During that period, other aides to Nixon would suggest a search for secret files on the Cuban Missile Crisis, that might damage Kennedy’s reputation. Next, they suggested focusing on the Bay of Pigs -- a suggestion that Nixon was extremely uncomfortable with. He deflected this by suggesting they find evidence that FDR knew in advance that the attack on Pearl Harbor was about to happen.
All of this created great tension within the isolated President’s mind. He became obsessed with the thought that his “enemies” in the Democratic Party just might have documents about the Bay of Pigs, which they would release just before the November 1972 election. Those documents would bring to light VP Nixon’s unholy role in planning the Bay of Pigs, including his ties to the CIA and mafia. He was aware that Cuban leader Fidel Castro had a package of documents delivered to several democratic leaders in Washington.
Nixon was obsessed with knowing what was in them. Where might they be stored? In the Brookings Institute? In the office of the chairman of the Democratic Party? He simply had to see these documents -- it was clearly a matter of national security.
Thus began the obscene growth of criminal behavior by the Nixon administration, under the direction of Richard Nixon. It would be, up until the Reagan administration, the most corrupt presidency in our nation’s history. The Ellsberg trial was derailed by Watergate. The Attorney General ended up a convicted felon, serving time. Only Richard Nixon would escape legal consequences for the wide-ranging series of crimes that he directed from the Oval Office.
Recently, on DU:GD, I engaged in a conversation with a person who claimed that there was “proof” that President Kennedy had ordered the murder of Diem in 1963. Gracious! Of course, E. Howard Hunt had infamously forged a document -- for President Nixon -- that they hoped would convince the media that JFK was responsible. In this day and age when, if a lie is repeated enough times, it can be mistaken for accepted fact, I suppose that a member of this forum might have been fooled by republican lies. I wouldn’t want to wrongly accuse anyone of purposely spreading such filth.
I think of how the Wall Street Journal had 36 editorials that focused on the suicide of Vince Foster. Of how that “respected” journal did its best to create doubt about the tragic death of this man, simply to create the type of doubt that would make Richard Nixon proud. I picture Nixon, with a big grin, looking down from hell at the WSJ’s editors, saying, “Now, that’s how it’s done!”
History is a fascinating subject. Sometimes, it provides lessons on how things are done, that are worth our keeping in mind as 2016 approaches.
Posted by H2O Man | Thu Mar 19, 2015, 10:28 AM (6 replies)
A week or so ago, I read an essay on the internet about the 1968 presidential election. The author’s purpose, I believe, was to convince people that it was necessary to vote for Hillary Clinton in the November, 2016 presidential election. However, her essay included a lot of information that was inaccurate, at very best. Thus, the conclusion she was advocating was equally flawed.
While that piece struck me as insignificant, the 1968 contest between VP Hubert Humphrey, the democratic candidate, and Richard Nixon, is a topic worthy of our consideration. Though I was alive at that time, and definitely very interested in the election, for the sake of this essay, I’ll rely upon two primary sources of information:
Lewis Chester, Godfrey, Hodgson, and Bruce Page; “An American Melodrama: The Presidential Election of 1968”; Viking Press; 1969; and
Over the years that I’ve been a member of the Democratic Underground community, I’ve taken part in numerous discussions about 1968, which I recognize as one of the most important years in American history. I have shelves of books, with either chapters about 1968, or entirely on that topic; books about various political and social participants in the year’s events; and more.
Both the republican and democratic primaries -- especially the Democratic National Convention -- and the general election that fall, were extremely important. And not just in the context of that strange, sometimes beautiful, and frequently tragic year, but in American history.
A brief review: In late 1967, Senator Eugene McCarthy announced that he would challenge the sitting president, Lyndon Johnson, in the 1968 primaries. Early ‘68 was marked by the Tet Offensive. Then, in the New Hampshire primary, McCarthy did unexpectedly well: although LBJ got a larger number of votes, McCarthy won more NH delegates. Soon, Senator Robert Kennedy joined the race.
On March 31, LBJ announced that he wasn’t going to run for re-election. On April 4, Martin Luther King, Jr., was murdered. On April 27, VP Humphrey announced his candidacy. He would opt to run in zero of the democratic primary state-wide races. Instead, he was focused on winning the support of enough delegates in behind-the-scenes meetings, to capture the nomination. RFK was murdered in early June, after winning the California primary.
I suppose that there are a number of ways of seeing the democratic primary contest. For many liberal and progressive party members, the McCarthy and Kennedy campaigns were intense examples of the power of participatory democracy in action. The Humphrey campaign was clearly more of “machine” politics, business-as-usual, or even decisions made in smoke-filled rooms. One thing is sure: Humphrey came out of Chicago as the nominee of a fractured party.
The earlier essay that I made mention of took the increasingly common, yet shallow, stance that Hubert had two conflicting images: a noble US Senator, who fought for Civil Rights, versus a vice president who loyally supported LBJ, including the administration’s unpopular policies in Vietnam. The grass roots Democrats, according to this myth, blamed Humphrey for that loyalty, even though Hubert secretly opposed the insane President Johnson.
The truth is that you can learn a heck of a lot, just from how much such a simplistic view of Humphrey’s campaign leaves out. Let’s take just a quick look, shall we?
Was Hubert Humphrey a noble advocate for Civil Rights? Absolutely. In 1948, he contributed to the Democratic Party’s Platform, on the ethical stance for Americans on racial issues. It is important to remember that there was a division within the party: the liberal-progressive wing believed the federal government needed to take firm stances to advance Civil Rights, while the moderate-conservative party members advocated “states’ rights.” Humphrey was consistent in his advocacy for Civil Rights up through his years as vice president.
Indeed, after the two political conventions, VP Humphrey entered the race against Richard Nixon with a large lead in the polls. The “Happy Warrior’s” campaign would see that lead shrink rapidly, and “the Politics of Joy” fall significantly lower than Nixon’s campaign for “law and order” and a “secret plan” to end the war. How did this happen? More importantly, why did it happen?
We can safely eliminate the candidates’ choices for VP as a significant factor. Nixon picked the relatively unknown (in national politics) Spiro Agnew, who was a pro-Civil Rights governor, and who had led the Nelson Rockefeller semi-campaign for the ‘68 republican nomination. Humphrey picked Edmund Muskie, a highly-respected US Senator. Since we can’t blame Muskie, let’s look at two periods in Humphrey’s career: his service in the Senate, then as VP.
As a Senator, Humphrey was in many ways representative of the best in liberal Democrats of his era. Largely forgotten today is that Hubert was largely responsible for Truman winning the upset over Dewey: Humphrey’s campaigning in northern states earned Truman the votes of enough pro-Civil Rights republicans to turn the election. Humphrey was also an advocate for the poor.
But there was a flip-side. Humphrey was strongly “anti-communist,” something that caused him to strongly support every war the US was involved in after WW2, until his death. In every instance, he viewed the wars as part of the USA versus the Soviet Union. He lacked the insight needed to identify the role that nationalism and anti-colonialism was playing around the globe.
His anti-communism included some rather undemocratic beliefs and actions domestically, as well. He sponsored the 1950 McCarran Act, to make “camps” in which to hold “subversives.” Humphrey favored outlawing communist beliefs: in 1954, he proposed a bill to make membership in the Communist Party a felony. How these things were viewed in the 1950s would change drastically in the 1960s, as the pro-Civil Rights and anti-war movements would be accused of being communists.
During his term as vice president, Humphrey saw his relationships with the democratic Senators he used to work with severely damaged. This was not because college students would flock to the Eugene McCarthy campaign in early 1968. No, it had already happened. Why? When LBJ served as JFK’s vice president, he was compared to “a bull castrated late in life.” When Humphrey was VP, people saw him as willingly castrating himself, to please LBJ.
The lack of meaningful support from his former Senate friends translated into a lack of campaign donations for Humphrey-Muskie. By mid-September, the campaign was broke, and was having great difficulty in getting loans. This was not because Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin had decided to run a pig for president. The responsibility lay solely with Hubert Humphrey.
Thus, on September 30, in a taped interview, Humphrey would finally dare to risk saying he would not continue the war effort exactly as LBJ would. That evening, he called Johnson to give him a warning. Although the president did not tell Hubert, he was already fully aware of exactly what Humphrey had told the NBC reporter. Johnson had spoken with Nixon several hours earlier that day, and an NBC contact had informed Nixon about the interview. Nixon, of course, called LBJ to “warn” him of Hubert’s betrayal, and to assure LBJ that he -- Nixon -- would stay true to the course in Vietnam.
Starting on October 1, Humphrey began to close the gap in the polls. In the final week of the campaign, he came very close to making the election a toss-up. So close, in fact, that Nixon proposed that if neither man won enough electoral votes, they should agree that the winner of the popular vote be recognized as president. Humphrey responded by saying he was in favor of going by the law, and having the decision rendered by the House of Representatives.
Had the campaign gone on for one more day, it might have been a virtual tie. Two more days, had things continued as they were going, and Humphrey would have won.
There are valuable lessons to be learned from studying 1968. They do not include any conclusions that one might reach by twisting or ignoring the facts of what actually happened. In the end, the responsibility for Humphrey’s loss was entirely his own. As the democratic candidate for president, it was up to him to convince the voters that he deserved their support.
Posted by H2O Man | Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:32 AM (27 replies)
I think that one of the more important issues that faces voters in the upcoming 2016 elections is the relationship between the United States and Iran. It is obviously an on-going issue, and one we should be concerned with from now until Election Day. More, it is one of the things that demonstrates that House and Senate contests are extremely important, so much so that we can’t afford to only think in terms of the White House.
The now infamous letter from the 47 jackasses has been -- and will continue to be -- discussed here on DU:GD. These discussions suggest that it is indeed possible for most all of us to agree on some issues. And that is surely a good thing.
I’m old enough to remember “Iranian hostage crisis” in the years 1979 through 1981. The business with the shah, and later, the Iran-Contra scandal. My library has quite a few books on the Iran-Contra scandal, with several books focusing on that topic exclusively, and more with it being one of numerous issues examined.
Although the groups of crimes known as the Iran-Contra scandal are as important as the wide range of crimes known collectively as “Watergate,” it really has not received the scrutiny it deserves. The reasons it is devalued, in my opinion, are wide-ranging: Nixon was an unattractive easily portrayed as a “crook,” while at least for many, Reagan had a Teflon-image. More, Watergate could be packaged as a simple, limited crime (though it was not), while Iran-Contra was extremely complex. More, both the Iranian and Central American issues would involve allies of the US (or, of the republican party). And, on top of that, the Iran-Contra scandal documented the strange and unhealthy dynamics that can come into play when the religious belief system of elected and non-elected officials influences foreign policy.
I have made an attempt to learn more about Iran, in order to more fully understand why a segment of government officials -- primarily, but not exclusively, the necroconservates -- are obsessed with that nation. I find history, politics, and sociology fascinating. I am admittedly not a fan of government based upon religion, and particularly a fundamental religious strain. Yet, I try to keep an open mind.
Perhaps the single most important book on this in my library is Ken Pollack’s “The Prsian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America” (Random House; 2005). It has helped me, for example, to understand the CIA’s coup that inserted the shah into power, and how that influenced events surrounding the later hostage crisis. (Safe to say that most Iranians were other than grateful for the CIA’s selecting a dictator for them.)
Richard Ben-Veniste’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes: Exposing the Truth from Watergate to 9/11” (Thomas Dunne Books; 2009) shows some of the connections between Watergate and Iran-Contra. However, I do not think it fully exposes them; nor does it document just how the failure of the system to thoroughly prosecute those involved, would create the fertile ground for the criminality of the Bush-Cheney administration.
John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt’s “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Freign Policy” ( Farrar, Straus, and Giroux; 2007), examines the curious relationship between Iran, Israel, and the US. This is important, both in the strange events from Iran-Contra (with the US shipping arms to Iran, with Israel’s assistance), to events as recent as the republicans having a foreign leader lobby with the House to abort President Obama’s efforts to avoid a war against Iran.
And James Mann’s “Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet” (Penguin; 2004) examines some of the necroconservatives, who have played central roles in the US’s relentless military actions in the Middle East.
There are literally dozens of others on my book shelves, that provide additional important information on the often tense relationship between the US and Iran. I’ve even got one by a right-wing, fundamental Christian ex-military man, who is obsessed with what he clearly views as a religious duty to destroy the “evil” enemy of the “Christian” United States. And he is hardly alone in his diseased belief system that defines political reality through a biblical looking-glass.
I’m curious: first, are there other books and resources that you would recommend as valuable reads for understanding this conflict? Second, do you think that there are (republican) people in positions of political power, who are intent upon starting a war with Iran? And, third, do you believe this is an important issue facing our country today? Thank you.
Posted by H2O Man | Fri Mar 13, 2015, 05:45 PM (66 replies)
Yesterday, I read a wonderful OP by one of my long-time DU friends, regarding the issue of the racist fraternity business. One person’s responses appeared to be attempts to distract from the issue the OP focused on. My friend did an amazing job of keeping the focus where it was intended to be.
I recommended the OP, and noted my admiration for my friend’s “perfect” responses. My buddy responded by saying thanks, and that a number of old friends now reject her/him (I know the correct one there, but that’s not important) because s/he supports Hillary Clinton. It’s funny how something a person says on the internet can take up space in your mind for a couple of days.
In my opinion, Ted Kennedy was one of the greatest US Senators in our nation’s history. But I didn’t think he would be a great President. Obviously, I would have voted for him over Reagan or Bush the Elder. Still, I’m glad he remained in the Senate.
I tend to have a similar opinion of Hillary Clinton. If she had remained a Senator from NYS, I would have supported her -- as I did -- for as long as she wanted that position. That she became President Obama’s Secretary of State was, however, a good thing; it was necessary after the bitterness of the 2008 democratic primary. It wasn’t limited to tension between Clinton and Obama: there were hostilities between the two campaigns, and between people at the grass roots level -- including here at DU.
A prime example of that hostility can be found in various books detailing the primary campaign, when Bill Clinton attempted to gain Ted Kennedy’s endorsement for his wife. The working relationship between two democratic giants was fractured. Despite Bill Clinton’s beliefs, as we saw, America was willing and ready to elect Senator Obama to the presidency.
On the internet site “Face Book,” I’ve read some paranoid rantings that President Obama is sure to suspend the Constitution, cancel future elections, and declare himself dictator. Barring this rather remote possibility, I expect that Hillary Clinton will enter the primaries for the 2016 election. If so, there is a good chance that she’ll win.
One of the people that I’m friends with on FB is a young lady who my youngest daughter met last year, at a state-wide high school leadership conference. This young lady is an outstanding example of her generation’s feminist movement. It’s people like her that assure me that our country has the ability to provide real leadership now and in the future. At least four times a week, I read updates on various conferences she attends, links to outstanding articles she identifies as important, and other information from her.
In recent days, for example, she has been in the audience that heard Ms. Clinton speak. She expressed some very insightful opinions on the e-mail issue, and the republican agenda. It makes no difference to me if I agree or disagree with each and every opinion that she expresses -- I am encouraged by the way that she provides a solid foundation for those opinions.
We aren’t in a country where a black person cannot be elected president. Yet, there are still those who despise President Obama because he is black. We aren’t in a country where a woman cannot be elected president. Yet, there are surely those who are opposed to Hillary Clinton, because she is female. Racism and sexism are diseases that remain entrenched in a portion of our society. By no coincidence, both seem to be republican party “values.” But as we see with the fraternity issue, the greater society is rejecting such hatred.
I think that the biggest differences found here on DU are rooted in whether people think that our society is capable of achieving social justice by having a democratic majority in Washington fine tune the political machine, or if they believe that social justice requires major structural change. That includes the differences of opinion regarding if meaningful change has the best chances of taking place gradually, or if meaningful change can happen more rapidly.
Not everyone is going to think the same, of course. Nor is everyone on DU going to be friends. But it is a shame if friendships crumble, simply because of differences of opinion.
Posted by H2O Man | Wed Mar 11, 2015, 01:11 PM (6 replies)
“I think this is a great American country, great country, and if we can’t find more than two or three to run for high office, that’s silly, because there are great governors, great people who are eligible to run.for high office. And I think that the Kennedys, Clintons, and Bushes, there are just more families than that.”
-- Barbara Bush, the Swine of Babylon
There is a possibility that the November, 2016 presidential election could feature both a Clinton and a Bush as the major party candidates. That raises the questions: would this represent a modern form of dynasty? And if so, is that a healthy feature of a democracy?
A working definition of “dynasty” is when a small number of families controls the political and economic life of a country. From history, we know that China and Europe had dynasties that lasted for centuries. None of these resembled democracies. None were known to include what is known as a “middle class.” There were the ruling elites, merchants, and a majority of people, who were serfs and peasants.
By no coincidence, there was a apparently popular television series, from January 1981 to May of 1989, called “Dynasty.” While I’ve never watched it, I know it was a trashy night-time soap opera, that appealed primarily to those seeking mindless entertainment. That the series would run pretty much in the period of the Reagan-Bush administration might shed light upon this need.
In more recent times, both HBO and Showtime have featured series on various dynasties -- some purely fictional, some with a bit of history mixed in. These series tend to include numerous scenes with quivering flesh and bloody gore, enough to keep viewers loyal to the shows. And they always include serfs, slaves, and peasants, who frequently have complicated love-hate relationships with the beautiful people in elite positions.
I believe that the Reagan-Bush years representing a move away from the USA being a constitutional democracy, and towards becoming a high-tech feudal state. Now, that’s just me. Just my opinion. I’m curious about your opinion:
Does a potential Clinton vs. Bush suggest to you a hint of “dynasty”? Does that concern you? Is it an issue that could ever influence how you vote, either in a primary or general election?
Posted by H2O Man | Sun Mar 8, 2015, 01:58 PM (73 replies)
There are quite a few OP/threads on DU:GD concerning Hillary Clinton in recent days. The vast majority of them -- in my opinion -- have an obnoxious-to-toxic flavor (in whole or in large part). So I thought that I’d try posting something that provides forum members with an opportunity to discuss Ms. Clinton’s expected campaign for the presidency in 2016 in a meaningful way.
I live in rural, upstate New York. Thus, if Ms. Clinton runs, my vote will carry no weight in either a primary of general election contest. For sake of this discussion, I should add: I long preferred Hillary to Bill Clinton; I voted for her twice, in NYS elections for the US Senate; I met her twice in that period; and I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary. More, I have not decided who I would vote for, if she does enter the 2016 primaries. I haven’t gotten that far yet.
I believe that there are three major areas to consider with Ms. Clinton or any other candidate for office: social policy; economic policy; and foreign policy. In my opinion, Hillary’s strength in terms of appealing to grass roots Democrats is in social policy. Frequently, the media labels this “women and children’s issues.” However, it goes beyond that. Social policy includes things that impact families -- including men -- such as health care.
At the same time, there are areas of social policy where the grass roots should disagree with Ms. Clinton. This includes areas where economic policy overlaps with social policy: she is an advocate for the “fracking” industry, which has very negative effects upon the environment (and the environment impacts many family’s health).
I’ll end this with a brief story. In late 1999, the movie “The Hurricane” was released. The film is about the legal struggle of my late friend, Dr. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter. Although I never saw it mentioned in the media, I remember that President Clinton and Hillary had Rubin visit them at the White House for a private screening of the film. Not a huge thing, I know, but it made an impression on me.
Posted by H2O Man | Thu Mar 5, 2015, 01:49 PM (112 replies)
Hillary Clinton is scheduled to speak tonight, at the 30th anniversary gala for Emily’s List. Her speech would have gotten media attention, even if the current e-mail issue hadn’t been put on the table. Since it has, there is a probability that she will address it. This should be interesting.
At this point, there are three groups among the Democratic Party: those who strongly support her possible run in 2016; those who strongly oppose such a run; and the undecided, and those who are not firmly decided one way or the other about Hillary Clinton.
No matter what -- if anything -- Ms. Clinton says tonight, groups 1 and 2 will remain firm in their opinion. They will view her statements as grounds to reinforce their beliefs about her character.
What is more important, in my opinion, is how group 3 views the news about the e-mail issue, including her response to it.
Politics are a curious thing.
Posted by H2O Man | Tue Mar 3, 2015, 12:26 PM (20 replies)