I remember when Harold, the school's maintenance man, came into the dining room as we kids were eating breakfast, and announced to my father: "We won!" The president re-elected was Truman, and the year was 1948.
Money didn't play such an outsized role in 1948 as it did in 2012, but the most important thing: "money," as the song goes, "doesn't buy you love." That was proven pretty decisively in 2012; money didn't buy love for Romney.
Tuesday night I stayed up until NBC declared Obama's victory--I didn't hear about Karl Rove's objections until the next afternoon. Obama really did win and it wasn't as close as Truman over Dewey.
Obama didn't campaign against a "do-nothing" Congress, but he could have; perhaps he should have. Considering Republican obstruction in Congress, it's extraordinary that Obama won on his accomplishments and his character--despite my evangelical friend's deeply held belief that Barack is the Antichrist.
What justifies Obama the Antichrist label? Maybe that he won? Or maybe that he's black, but doesn't act like a 'Yassuh, no Suh' N….., but as a powerful, articulate, well-educated man, who happens to be black.
Some now say Obama is a brilliant politician; I agree. But Obama's win, and that of the Democratic candidates who won a majority of Senate seats, despite the $100's of millions deployed against them, won because, in a democracy, numbers of voters ultimately prevail against raw cash. And Americans, like any people not cowed by authoritarianism, reacted to attempts to suppress them with impressive, stoic determination to push back and prevail. They may have voted in greater numbers than in the previous election when Republicans didn't so actively try to suppress the vote.
That's the strongest message and mandate in this election. Issues like global warming, collective bargaining rights and even inequality were often ignored by both sides--a defeat for democracy--but such a surge of money into the campaign (the money raised by billionaires and spent by "super-pacs"), encouraged Republicans to be more open and more aggressive about their extremist policies.
That was a good thing, because of the reaction: Americans reacted to the concerted effort to buy their votes through indirection, and they didn't like it. They turned out in droves in response to the attempts at voter suppression, and apparently ignored, or discounted, the negative ads flying nationwide. They may also have voted more decisively for Obama because of his real action in the face of Hurricane Sandy.
The day after the election, we still had a slowly diminishing empire, an artificially created "fiscal cliff," and need for a real stimulus to bolster jobs growth. And we still had Republican control of the House. But, for the moment, we've dodged the ultimate takeover of the selfish class, our equivalent of Roman Senators in the Fifth Century.
That's something to be thankful for.
Showing posts with label Truman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Truman. Show all posts
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
906 in Truman's 'Do Nothing Congress', 176 in 2012
Those numbers are for laws passed by the respective Congresses: 1948 and 2012. Truman, who had been given little chance to win the 1948 election, because of the stalemate in Washington, made a nation-wide whistle-stop campaign (trains worked in those days, before the Interstate Highway system), successfully running against the "Do Nothing Congress."
That gives you an idea of how dysfunctional our national political system is today. Congress has been unable to pass major pieces of legislation, and has passed "stop-gap" measures just to "keep the lights on."
Obama is not to blame, and if he had a personality like Harry Truman, he could easily run against the "Do Nothing Congress" of today. Obama does make the point that Congress, specifically the Republicans in Congress, have played an obstructionist role.
The Republican House of Representatives has passed bills, but most of them were only statements of their agenda, with no expectation that the Senate's Democratic majority could accept them, and they haven't. The Democratic Senate, on the other hand has been stalemated by the Republican Senate minority's routine use of the "filibuster," rendering the 41 Republican Senators the controlling bloc, while the less unified and more diverse 59 Democrats (including two independents) have been unable to advance even a portion of their agenda.
A few Republicans have attempted to compromise with Democrats, to bring something workable to the floor, but, like Senator Lugar, they have been defeated in their party primaries, defeated by the accusation of "Republicans in Name Only," or RINO's. No Democrats have lost primaries for similar reasons.
Long ago, when I taught Political Science in Florida, a colleague exclaimed he'd just proven, beyond a doubt, that Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted more frequently along party lines than they did with the other party! In those days (the 1970's), this was a fairly significant finding, because Democrats and Republicans did what is now unthinkable: they worked together on important pieces of legislation. Votes were often not along party lines. Now, among Republicans, it is almost unthinkable for them to vote for any policy proposed by Democrats, even if many, like Obamacare, were originally proposed by Republicans. Democrats break ranks more often, but much more rarely than in the 1970's.
Today we have a Congress that is probably as stalemated as the Congresses that preceded the Civil War. The Republican Senate minority has been open about what they intend: to do anything possible to prevent Obama's re-election, even if that drives us back into the Great Recession and immiserates their constituents. They can always blame everything on the Democrats.
Rome's Senate in the fifth century was even less functional: the Emperors, meaning, their advisors, and Senators as office-holders, made the only meaningful decisions--usually for their own self-interest.
That gives you an idea of how dysfunctional our national political system is today. Congress has been unable to pass major pieces of legislation, and has passed "stop-gap" measures just to "keep the lights on."
Obama is not to blame, and if he had a personality like Harry Truman, he could easily run against the "Do Nothing Congress" of today. Obama does make the point that Congress, specifically the Republicans in Congress, have played an obstructionist role.
The Republican House of Representatives has passed bills, but most of them were only statements of their agenda, with no expectation that the Senate's Democratic majority could accept them, and they haven't. The Democratic Senate, on the other hand has been stalemated by the Republican Senate minority's routine use of the "filibuster," rendering the 41 Republican Senators the controlling bloc, while the less unified and more diverse 59 Democrats (including two independents) have been unable to advance even a portion of their agenda.
A few Republicans have attempted to compromise with Democrats, to bring something workable to the floor, but, like Senator Lugar, they have been defeated in their party primaries, defeated by the accusation of "Republicans in Name Only," or RINO's. No Democrats have lost primaries for similar reasons.
Long ago, when I taught Political Science in Florida, a colleague exclaimed he'd just proven, beyond a doubt, that Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted more frequently along party lines than they did with the other party! In those days (the 1970's), this was a fairly significant finding, because Democrats and Republicans did what is now unthinkable: they worked together on important pieces of legislation. Votes were often not along party lines. Now, among Republicans, it is almost unthinkable for them to vote for any policy proposed by Democrats, even if many, like Obamacare, were originally proposed by Republicans. Democrats break ranks more often, but much more rarely than in the 1970's.
Today we have a Congress that is probably as stalemated as the Congresses that preceded the Civil War. The Republican Senate minority has been open about what they intend: to do anything possible to prevent Obama's re-election, even if that drives us back into the Great Recession and immiserates their constituents. They can always blame everything on the Democrats.
Rome's Senate in the fifth century was even less functional: the Emperors, meaning, their advisors, and Senators as office-holders, made the only meaningful decisions--usually for their own self-interest.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Democrats, Republicans, Wars and History
Kennedy's main opponent in the primaries, until very late in 1960, was Stuart Symington, also a Senator (from Missouri, endorsed by retired President Truman). He was relatively liberal and later critical of the Vietnam War, though former first Secretary of the Air Force (1947-50); he'd been prominent in standing up against McCarthy's redbaiting. He refused to speak to segregated audiences in the South, while Kennedy did, so Symington lost the South to Kennedy and Johnson--as well as doing less well than Kennedy in the rest of the country.
Symington lost primarily because he was outclassed in charisma, and in organization, but Kennedy was to his right, politically. Johnson was even more conservative--until he became President--but no more warlike. Kennedy campaigned, in the general election, on "the missile gap." Supposedly, the USSR had more and better missiles. Multiple Independently targeted Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV's) were something everyone talked about: reportedly, the Soviets had missiles with 9-10 warheads; we only had 3 on most of ours. Later, we found out: the Soviets didn't have so many, and what they did have were vulnerable (on the ground), while ours were invulnerable (at sea), and way more accurate (that's one of the things my Army duty in Turkey was about finding out--retrieving Soviet missile data, through intercepting their telemetry in missile tests).
Point is, Kennedy was a liberal hawk, who may have deliberately miss-represented the issue to get votes. Symington--and Stevenson--were less hawkish, and didn't compete with Nixon on Defense; Kennedy did, and he succeeded. Probably, that's why we got into Vietnam. Early as President, Kennedy began to meddle in South Vietnam, continuing Eisenhower's policy even more aggressively. In retrospect, people say he would not have dived headfirst into the Vietnam War, as Johnson did in 1964, but that may be a romantic gloss appended after JFK's assassination.
After all, Democrats were more militaristic than Republicans in WWI and II, and also started the Korean intervention, as well as Vietnam. They only became less hawkish with McGovern in 1972 and since--less hawkish than Republicans, anyway.
Carter turned away from McGovern's anti-war policy when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. It's why I voted for a third party candidate in 1980--and regretted it since: Reagan won, of course, and Carter was dubbed "a failure." Reagan began the Republican assault on the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society. The assault has been going on ever since, and Democrats are still in retreat, resisting, being only a little less retrograde than the continually more warlike, pro-corporate, anti-union, anti-worker and socially reactionary Republicans.
Reaction has taken the Republicans back to the 1920's, at least: "Taking America back," the Tea Partiers say. That's "back" before WWII created most of the American Empire; it's now in decline, like Rome in the fifth century.
Symington lost primarily because he was outclassed in charisma, and in organization, but Kennedy was to his right, politically. Johnson was even more conservative--until he became President--but no more warlike. Kennedy campaigned, in the general election, on "the missile gap." Supposedly, the USSR had more and better missiles. Multiple Independently targeted Re-entry Vehicles (MIRV's) were something everyone talked about: reportedly, the Soviets had missiles with 9-10 warheads; we only had 3 on most of ours. Later, we found out: the Soviets didn't have so many, and what they did have were vulnerable (on the ground), while ours were invulnerable (at sea), and way more accurate (that's one of the things my Army duty in Turkey was about finding out--retrieving Soviet missile data, through intercepting their telemetry in missile tests).
Point is, Kennedy was a liberal hawk, who may have deliberately miss-represented the issue to get votes. Symington--and Stevenson--were less hawkish, and didn't compete with Nixon on Defense; Kennedy did, and he succeeded. Probably, that's why we got into Vietnam. Early as President, Kennedy began to meddle in South Vietnam, continuing Eisenhower's policy even more aggressively. In retrospect, people say he would not have dived headfirst into the Vietnam War, as Johnson did in 1964, but that may be a romantic gloss appended after JFK's assassination.
After all, Democrats were more militaristic than Republicans in WWI and II, and also started the Korean intervention, as well as Vietnam. They only became less hawkish with McGovern in 1972 and since--less hawkish than Republicans, anyway.
Carter turned away from McGovern's anti-war policy when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. It's why I voted for a third party candidate in 1980--and regretted it since: Reagan won, of course, and Carter was dubbed "a failure." Reagan began the Republican assault on the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society. The assault has been going on ever since, and Democrats are still in retreat, resisting, being only a little less retrograde than the continually more warlike, pro-corporate, anti-union, anti-worker and socially reactionary Republicans.
Reaction has taken the Republicans back to the 1920's, at least: "Taking America back," the Tea Partiers say. That's "back" before WWII created most of the American Empire; it's now in decline, like Rome in the fifth century.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Going Downhill
When I was born, liberal New Deal politics was dominant. As I grew up, Republicans first made headway using the Red scare, McCarthyism and anti-union propaganda: "union bosses," vs "corporate statesmen." The first chinks were Taft-Hartley, the McCarran Act, and Cold War hysteria.
Still, Ike, a Republican, continued New Deal policies (including top-end tax rates of 91%) and sponsored large government programs like the Inter-State Highway system. Then, the John Birch Society was at the right-wing fringe of politics, inveighing against the Communist threat, and seeing liberal movements like civil rights for blacks as Communist conspiracies.
Ron Paul keynoted last year at the 50th anniversary of the Birchites, and yet it appears the only reason that conservative Republicans ignore his Presidential campaign is because he says things like: the empire is nearing its end.
On other issues, Paul is even to the right of Bachman and Perry. He's against all abortions, even pregnancies caused by rape. In effect, he'd enable rapists to pick the "carriers" of their babies. He'd also abolish the Fed and the income tax, both of which date to the Progressive era before we entered WWI, yet he's even popular among some progressives.
How did we get here from there, from a political system in which a relatively conservative Texas Democrat--LBJ--could propose and pass Medicare, Medicaid and the voting rights act?
Part of the answer has to be the success of a reactionary slice of the wealthy, which sank billions of dollars into think tanks, educational institutions and the media, beginning as a reaction against LBJ's Great Society, and Nixon's continuation of it--and Nixon's elimination of the last remnant of the gold standard, (which Ron Paul would undo).
Part of the answer is the successful demonization of "big government" as partial welfare state, when the demand-driven inflation from the Vietnam War, met the supply-driven inflation caused by OPEC.
And part of the answer is the successful recruitment of front men: Reagan, especially, and a whole series of young, conservative Supreme Court Justices.
And then, along came Bush II. He may not be the culmination of this conservative counter-revolution, despite the crash, in part because liberals/progressives did such a poor job recruiting their own front men. Obama is determinedly non-ideological and appears constitutionally incapable of confrontational politics. I bemoan Truman's absence: he was re-elected by bashing the "Do-nothing Republican Congress."
Even if Obama is re-elected, he'll stand for little but the lesser evil. Perry, Bachman and Ron Paul offer small government premised on the dominance of the super-wealthy (the selfish class)--who wish to eviscerate government services, because they don't need them--they only want profitable government contracts.
It'll be a privatized world of crony corporations. However, they won't create jobs when there's no demand (only government would do that). It's doubtful they can resuscitate a dying empire, either.
Maybe they'll try to "outsource" and privatize it.
Still, Ike, a Republican, continued New Deal policies (including top-end tax rates of 91%) and sponsored large government programs like the Inter-State Highway system. Then, the John Birch Society was at the right-wing fringe of politics, inveighing against the Communist threat, and seeing liberal movements like civil rights for blacks as Communist conspiracies.
Ron Paul keynoted last year at the 50th anniversary of the Birchites, and yet it appears the only reason that conservative Republicans ignore his Presidential campaign is because he says things like: the empire is nearing its end.
On other issues, Paul is even to the right of Bachman and Perry. He's against all abortions, even pregnancies caused by rape. In effect, he'd enable rapists to pick the "carriers" of their babies. He'd also abolish the Fed and the income tax, both of which date to the Progressive era before we entered WWI, yet he's even popular among some progressives.
How did we get here from there, from a political system in which a relatively conservative Texas Democrat--LBJ--could propose and pass Medicare, Medicaid and the voting rights act?
Part of the answer has to be the success of a reactionary slice of the wealthy, which sank billions of dollars into think tanks, educational institutions and the media, beginning as a reaction against LBJ's Great Society, and Nixon's continuation of it--and Nixon's elimination of the last remnant of the gold standard, (which Ron Paul would undo).
Part of the answer is the successful demonization of "big government" as partial welfare state, when the demand-driven inflation from the Vietnam War, met the supply-driven inflation caused by OPEC.
And part of the answer is the successful recruitment of front men: Reagan, especially, and a whole series of young, conservative Supreme Court Justices.
And then, along came Bush II. He may not be the culmination of this conservative counter-revolution, despite the crash, in part because liberals/progressives did such a poor job recruiting their own front men. Obama is determinedly non-ideological and appears constitutionally incapable of confrontational politics. I bemoan Truman's absence: he was re-elected by bashing the "Do-nothing Republican Congress."
Even if Obama is re-elected, he'll stand for little but the lesser evil. Perry, Bachman and Ron Paul offer small government premised on the dominance of the super-wealthy (the selfish class)--who wish to eviscerate government services, because they don't need them--they only want profitable government contracts.
It'll be a privatized world of crony corporations. However, they won't create jobs when there's no demand (only government would do that). It's doubtful they can resuscitate a dying empire, either.
Maybe they'll try to "outsource" and privatize it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)