You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #8: "our actual history" [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-02-13 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. "our actual history"
Well, what we know of it, anyway. The victor gets to write the history.

(Just as a total aside, I wonder how much the Greeks--or whatever Alexander the Great was--really gave us, as opposed to, say, the Egyptians. Anyway....)

You did mention about how Roosevelt's New Deal (and Truman's Fair Deal) may have been born out of a fear of a second US revolution. (IMO, the very same fear resulted in rapidly acceding to demands for the Bill of Rights.)

That brought me up short, but was consistent with so many other things that I already knew, like Joe Kennedy's comment that he would gladly have given up half of everything he owned if he knew that he would be able to enjoy the other half in peace. Also, a statement from a PBS whitewash of Hoover, to the effect that, the campaigns of Hoover and Roosevelt sounded as though the two had switched positions, FDR having run on more of an austerity platform than Hoover.

What would have caused Roosevelt to run one way, govern another, then pull back back sharply before full recovery? One version is that he gave in to Republican deficit hawks. But, why would he have done that? Did the New Deal decrease his poll numbers? (Were they even doing polls every five minutes then?)

Anyway, I have yet to find anything inconsistent with your theory. (Just think what the Cold War cost the nation.)

The POWERS THAT BE found it necessary to demonstrate the superiority of the capitalist system over communism. This was mostly demonstrated through a high living standard and pretty sound judicial system (for people of European extraction).

And, above all, freedom v. tyranny. The U.S. was a free country, while the Russians were being oppressed by the likes of Stalin and Kruschev. Apples and oranges. It was a convenient conflation of an economic system with a form of government.

The conversation was about capitalism vs. cruel and oppressive dictatorship, not about capitalism, as an economic system, vs. socialism as an economic system. Now, it well may be that you cannot achieve or sustain communism in a republican nation. You may need a ruthles dictatorship to achieve and sustain it, but we never needed to get that far analytically. We had mom and apple pie, truth, justice and the American way. They had propaganda, gulags, purges and the KGB. End of discussion.

"Today, we are ending welfare as we know it," Clinton said at a White House ceremony, where he was flanked by three former welfare recipients. "But I hope this day will be remembered not for what it ended, but for what it began."

Clinton's endorsement of the bill, which requires recipients to work and limits benefits to five years, fulfills a 1992 campaign promise that came to symbolize his image as a centrist Democrat. But yesterday, as the bill passed its final hurdle, there seemed to be less an atmosphere of celebration than a cloud of controversy hanging over the Rose Garden.

Gone were the Marine Band and Democratic congressional leaders who had attended bill-signing ceremonies earlier this week for bills increasing the minimum wage and making health insurance more accessible. Republicans, who had prodded Clinton for months to sign a welfare bill, refused to give him credit. And the divisions among Democrats over the legislation were readily apparent.

Even as Clinton signed the measure, women's groups and advocates for the poor protested along Pennsylvania Avenue, vowing to carry their dispute to the Democratic convention in Chicago next week.

Dismantling of the Soviet Union was not the only thing that emboldened the plutocrats and the plutocrat wannabes. We did. We picked Clinton as the Democratic nominee and we voted for him as President. IMO, had the composition of Congress remained the same and Bush been President, Glass Steagall would never have gotten Democratic votes.

Now, Democrats have been convinced that so-called "centrism" is the way to go. So, I don't know how much party labels matter. And then, there is the No Labels movement, begun by Bushies and Clintonites.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC