What makes this even more bizarre is that the last Americans left Viet Nam in the Ford administration.  Carter was elected in 1976.  I think one of the reasons Carter lost in 1980 was that New York and Washington based media couldn't stand the man's accent or his moral honesty.  They mocked his cardigan, his "lusting in his heart", his "Malaise" speech--anything they could think of.  Reagan got away with murder...talk about the Teflon Presidency. 

I would only add that the President who normalized relations with Vietnam was Bill Clinton, and this act of reconciliation hurt his popularity not a bit.

aMike

Hopefully 'the next right thing they do' is get us out of IRAQ.

And lets not forget those grand wars Republicans got us into; Beirut/Granada, Panama, Somalia, Desert Storm, Iraq.

By the way, did we ever learn what Nixon's "secret plan" for getting us out of Vietnam was?

relocated post

J. McCutchen

Although the parallels are often compelling, there's at least one difference between 1970 and 2007 (other than 37 years yikes!) - Nixon knew what he was doing

Gen William Odom
Democratic Party Weekly Radio Address stream mp3

Good morning, this is Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army, retired. I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, I do not speak for the Democratic Party. I speak for myself, as a non-partisan retired military officer who is a former Director of the National Security Agency. I do so because Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, asked me. "In principle, I do not favor Congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The conflict in Iraq is different. Over the past couple of years, the President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. "Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment....

Let's also not forget Vietnam escalation primarily occurred under Johnson and Nixon, and that is was Eisenhower who promoted the "domino theory" as he was accustomed to seeing th world as a battlefield with front lines.

Also, the prevailing force behind the Vietnam war policy, across administrations, was Henry Kissinger.

JFK was already having serious doubts about Vietnam prior to his assassination, and wanted to contain or end it.

Johnson was a Dixiecrat. He was an economic populist and Democratic in that regard, but on FP he was more of a southern hawk Republican. JFK chose him as a counterweight on the presidential ticket, a concession to the south. RFK hated Johnson. For all Johnson's faults, at least he refused to bomb Cambodia. When he left politics, in depression, he hated and regretted the war.

Nixon greatly expanded the war, defied congress, and carpet bombed Cambodia which destabilized it eventually leading to the death of millions.

On April 28, 2007 - 7:37pm kozmik said:

That seems incredibly simplistic and a real distortion of the facts.

Exactly, especially the line:

"Ending the Vietnam War is about the only thing Democrats have done right in the past half-century."

Didn't Carter get a peace agreement in the Middle East?

As for "Clinton's Haiti plan"; is this the plan that brought the democratically elected Aristide back to power after the coup by General Cedras?

And wasn't it a Jimmy Carter brokered agreement that got Cedras to leave the country?

Didn't Clinton deny the neocons who wanted him to invade Iraq?

Didn't Kennedy get the Soviet missiles out of Cuba?

Didn't Clinton stop the genocide in Kosovo?

Didn't Truman save South Korea?

Yeah, like Ellen said: Democrats

"are a bunch of weak-kneed imperialists who hardly ever get anything right......

Ending the Vietnam War is about the only thing Democrats have done right in the past half-century."

Exactly right. 

The thing Gitlin fails to note is that while the broad public hated the Vietnam War, they hated even more the hippies and radicals that were the most public face of the antiwar movement.  Democrats are STILL paying a political price for letting themselves get defined as the party of the counterculture, even if the public was with them on the issue of the Vietnam War. 

In 2002, I knew the antiwar movement not only would not only be ineffective, but would also be a net negative on the Democratic Party because it was dominated by the spiritual descendents of the rabble that fueled the antiwar movement in the 1960s and 70s.  Neo-Stalinists like the folks from International A.N.S.W.E.R. will NEVER attract the broad middle of public opinion.

However, 2007 is not 2002 or 1968.  Opposition to the Iraq War is so broad and deep that it seems there is little danger in being foursquare against it.  But even more encouraging, Democrats, at least the major Presidential candidates, have learned the lessons of the past and emphatically distanced themselves from radicalism.  Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all for changing direction on Iraq, but they also take pains to stress that they believe in an engaged, activist foreign policy that does not eschew military force when needed.  This is vitally important to prevent what happened after Vietnam.

In truth, the country elected Reagan over Carter not because of Reagan’s sentimental tribute to the Vietnam war, but despite it.

I think not. The investment bankers with the Fed and the oil giants made a ton of money out of the public with deliberate rotten monetary policy and a phony oil shortage both of which Carter got blamed for as intended. Jimmy Carter would not play ball with those establishment giants by the third year of his Presidency so they got rid of him, and made a lot of money doing so. Then they backed for president a naive lackey already far down the road to senility for president and the public got the Death Valley Days "B" rated movie actor for cowboy in chief and puppet...one would have thought the public would have learned from that tragedy, but no…now we are saddled by a village idiot drug store cowboy puppet…

The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.

H. L. Mencken

Remember Kissinger doesn't enter the Vietnam scheme until Nixon is elected in 1968. The Bundy brothers, Dean Rusk, JFK himself, McNamara, and RFK were all Cold Warriors although JFK was backing off Vietnam a bit when he was killed. Bobby seemed to be evolving beyond simple Cold War analysis when he was killed. LBJ was almost as dumb about foreign policy as W is. Henry the K was late to the game on Vietnam.

Tom

I think we lost 50 some thousand in Korea. I believe close to 5 million people were killed.

Tom

There was a dispute over casualties for many years, but I think it's been pretty well resolved at the number the wiki entry gives -- 36,940 dead (including 3,275 non-combat).

Yeah -- and the "warmongering" left, too. Read Beinart.

I'll concur with Good 4 America. Carter lost in 1980 because of the hostage crisis and only because of the hostage crisis. It's worth noting that prior to that, Carter was well ahead of Reagan in the polls.

Reagan's other stunning victory, in 1984, came from the Democrats decision to run an animatronic figure named Walter Mondale.

Sadly, this is all too typical of Reagan's presidency and career. Always less than meets the eye, always hype over substance. Reagan made it okay for an idiot to be President. He made faux likeability more important than competence or genuine morality.

notthere said:

In my memory there was far more and worse violence and visible, longer lasting division associated with civil rights than anti-war protest.

Other than a very few, the only direct memory the majority of others in this thread have of those times is that of there mothers changing their soiled diapers... The rest of their accounts of those years comes from word-of-mouth, books, and myth...

~OGD~

He's not saying prominent leaders on the left were hippies.

He's talking about news cameras at anti-war rallies which tended to focus on stoned hippies and topless chicks putting flowers in gun barrels. People who courted media attention and made the left look bad. They were a small minority, but they were so prominent, they appeared to be a large part of the left.

That shapes people's opinions.

If the black civil rights marchers looked like radicals, were smoking dope and running around topless, they would have been very unsuccessful and prompted a reemergence of reactionary thinking, just as hippies did.

That's part right, part simplistic on the whole issues of Vietnam, FP, Carter and Reagan.

Carter specifically, as opposed to other Democrats, was elected for his unique traits such as being a conservative looking, southern, pious Christian, peanut farmer, with a wholesome American storybook background, and strong military credentials.

That was all in direct context of Vietnam and a backlash against radicals. The Democratic candidate had to be extra wholesome to reassure middle America.

While the south didn't vote for him, had he been popular and won a second term, the momentum towards Republicans in the south might have slowed or even reversed.

The right portrayed him as weak especially on matters of FP and the national interest, just as they do now against Democrats, because they need that issue desperately to exploit the cultural rift created by the 60's and Vietnam. They needed to continue making gains in the south on those issues, and a moderate Democratic southerner with military credentials would not do.

Yes the hostage crisis was a major contributing factor, but in many ways more important was the economic problems like the energy crisis and inflation, and yes they were manipulated to make Carter appear weak on FP and "US national interests" which again has direct links to Vietnam and the fear of peaceniks weakening the national interest.

Reagan's hawkishness was a major campaign plank. It helped him win much of the right, south, and middle, who were still thinking of Vietnam, reeling from the hostage crisis and energy crisis, and wanted to more vigorously wage the cold war and purse foreign resources.

Of course the USSR was already crumbling, and Reagan was largely irrelevant to that, but the public didn't know that. And Reagan was great actor with a keen sense for staging and props like the Berlin wall.

Throughout the 70's and 80's and even into the 90's, Vietnam is a background issue, symbolic for a willingness to aggressively use warfare if need be to secure "US national interests" like oil, the panama canal, etc.

Counter to that is the public disdain for over aggressive acts, like Vietnam or Iran/Contra.

So, a moderate willing to use force when necessary should win.

But if the left can be portrayed as too "hippyish" then hawks will win. If the public perceives the choice to be between a peacenik or a war monger, the war monger will win.

The hostage crisis was part of it, but that's missing a lot.

The hostage crisis comes in context of several major crisis Carter faced in the M.E. which can all be lumped under "US National Interests" like oil, projection of military power, Israel, etc. Basically the same issues underlying Vietnam, which the Republicans have been campaigning on ever since. Campaigning not against actual Democrat presidents, but against the perception of the left as being hippies.

Mondale is another good case in point. He was dopey in a lot of ways, but one major blunder was the tank ride where he looked wimpy and totally phony.

Which again played right into the hands of Republicans who since Vietnam have been saying you can't trust the left on FP. And that perception has nothing to do with the acts of Democratic Presidents, but due to peaceniks and hippies in the broader moderate anti-war movement making the left look bad.

Hopefully this is finally changing. But the last thing we want to do is encourage more hippies to scare the middle off the left for another generation.

I'm sorry, but I just can't take the 'dirty stinking hippies' meme seriously.

So, the hippies went out and took over the peace movement and discredited the whole progressive left? Uh huh.

Because they hogged all the media attention?
Uh huh.

Look, let's get serious here for a few minutes.

The youth counterculture ("hippies") as a group were mostly ineffectual. It was the nature of their movement. They had no particular organization, no structure, no effective leadership, their gestures were principally symbolic. They were often relatively apolitical.

The American media was fundamentally conservative, even then. The American media wasn't questioning the myths of the cold war, the illusions of vietnam, the dishonesty of Kissinger or Nixon. Before them, the American political system was ruled by the likes of Humphries and Johnson. The whole point was that the American establishment including media was of, by and for middle aged men in suits, still whining about losing China and communists under the bed.

These were the people who made the hippies the poster boys for reactionism. And these were the people who circulated every other extremist cliche, from bra-burning hairy-legged lesbian feminists, to African named, converted muslim, daishiki wearing black power activists and black panthers, to flaming faggots.

Do not tell me that the black civil rights movement was not demonized and degraded. They shot Martin Luther King for gods sakes, and no less a person than Dick Cheney decades later was denouncing him from the floor of congress. The face of black civil rights in the 60's was King, but it was also Malcolm X, the black panthers, the "Angry Black Man", Melvin Van Peebles, and a whole bunch of guys who talked violent revolution, mispronounced Swahili words, and dressed their homes and wardrobes with African junk.

Blaming hippies for the re-emergence of reactionary thinking is like blaming jews for the rise of Hitler. Sorry, in both cases, jews and hippies were simply poster boys, convenient 'objet's du hate'.

Frankly Kozmik, I enjoy your posts and you often show remarkably clear and insightful thinking.

But on this one, you're just wrong.

The hostage crisis comes in context of several major crisis Carter faced in the M.E. which can all be lumped under "US National Interests" like oil, projection of military power, Israel, etc.

Actually, Carter was doing extremely well in the middle east up until that time.

The major OPEC crisis, and the last major Arab/Israeli War took place in the early 70's in Nixon's term.

Under or by Carter's time, relations with OPEC had stabilized and while America was experiencing higher oil prices, the threat of oil shocks or political manipulation had passed. Saudi Arabia was once more well within the US orbit.

The Iranian revolution caught the Carter administration by surprise. But that debacle was widely blamed on the CIA who had a long history of missing the boat. Carter handled that as best as could be expected, since there wasn't much he could do. The major irritant was of course the fate of the Shah, but it bothered the Iranians a lot more than the Americans. Ultimately, the United States was on the way to stabilizing relations with the new Iran when the hostage crisis broke out.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was also a blow. But most people didn't care very much. Carter's reactions were moderate.

Most of Carter's problems in the middle east were largely small potatoes. But set against them was a huge and unique triumph. Carter brokered the only major peace accord, the Camp David Accord, between Israel and Egypt. Got him international acclaim, a nobel peace prize eventually, ensured peace in the middle east and made his bones. It was an almost insurmountable victory.

It's true, Carter did have problems at home and abroad. But he also had strengths, and without the manipulation of the hostage crisis, he was playing his strengths.

Mondale is another good case in point. He was dopey in a lot of ways, but one major blunder was the tank ride where he looked wimpy and totally phony.

It was Dukakis that took the tank ride.

I've already made my point on the demonization of the hippies. The right has always been good at demonizing its enemies. That's what it does. So if the hippies were demonized and made into the poster boys of the left... well, that's the rights work, its not the hippies accomplishment.

I just can't take the 'dirty stinking hippies' meme seriously.

I'm not saying "dirty stinking hippies." But the simple fact that so many people would, across the country, proves my point. Take a poll across America today, and hippie is still a dirty word in most places. Poll MLK and black civil rights marchers, much more positive.

People think associatively, and not always rationally.

These were the people who made the hippies the poster boys for reactionism.

Sure, we agree on that. But my point is that was predictable and there will always be reactionaries, so no need to give them ammo, and no need to make moderates teetering on the fence fall off to the right by scaring them with radical stuff. A lot of the country is apolitical and indecisive, likely to fall one way or the other based on a perception.

That's exactly why black civil rights marchers required people to wear their church best, be orderly, and respectable in every way. It was to prevent anyone an opportunity to portray them as trouble makers. And that's why they wouldn't march with hippies.

The hippie movement never had that discipline. They wanted to be anti-war at the same time they were counter-culture. And the notion of them running anything scared the bejezzus out of many Americans.

Do not tell me that the black civil rights movement was not demonized and degraded.

I didn't say that. When they were treated badly, such as with fire hoses and such, the images middle America saw was of well dressed, orderly, and respectable looking marchers being treated horribly, and they won public sympathy. Go watch old news reels of the marches. All conservatively dressed, orderly, and peaceful.

Blaming hippies for the re-emergence of reactionary thinking

I'm not blaming them for anything or using moral condemnation language. I'm talking about the utility of various strategies, and pointing out the utility of the hippie strategy was very low, even counterproductive in many regards, compared with that of black civil rights.

It was hep before it was hip. ;)

Regardless, yes the media smeared the left, but the very notion of a political movement is that not everyone agrees with you yet, and they may even dislike you. That's a reality that has to be anticipated and dealt with.

Black civil rights marchers did. They knew if they dressed in a way that would alienate middle America it would hurt their cause. They knew smoking dope would hurt them.

Why didn't hippies?

And more importantly, what can we learn from this?

Actually, Carter was doing extremely well in the middle east up until that time.

The major OPEC crisis, and the last major Arab/Israeli War took place in the early 70's in Nixon's term.

I'm referring to the 1979 oil crisis, which also created long lines and high prices, and certainly did occur under Carter. It was sparked by the Iranain Revolution, again another Vietnam-like shift, though far more vital to our "National Interests" i.e. oil. The Iranian hostage crisis followed the Iranian energy crisis. Two FP matters where Carter was perceived as weak, even though they were not his fault.

And again, after the counterculture movement and particularly peaceniks being associated with the left, a Democratic president needs to reassure the public they're agressive enough on FP. Anything goes wrong, and the public will wonder if they should have backed a hawk i.e. a Republican.

Which is part of what Reagan campaigned on.

It was Dukakis that took the tank ride.

Right you are. I must be sleepy. But regardless, the point remains about how it played as another Democrat perceived as weak on FP, which is again a mistake Democrats can't afford. Why? That problem goes back specifically to the 60s, even though Democratic presidents were fairly hawkish. It's definitely the counterculture movement which created the perception or fertilized it.

And more importantly, what can we learn from this?

I think the important lesson is never ever accept the language or memes of the right at any point on any subject.

The hippies were a short and transient phenomenon. But by the seventies, long and longish hairstyles and facial hair was acceptable for men.

Clothing styles became more casual and functional, denim became a clothing staple.

Well, marijuana has become a social drug no more obnoxious than tobacco or alcohol, but still illegal. Meanwhile, other more virulent drugs have emerged - cocaine with its elation, feelings of power and energy, became the drug of the 80's and of the yuppie, amoral, reaganesque mystique. Crack became the drug of the ghetto. Ecstasy became the drug of the rave culture.

The free-er sexual mores of hippies were adopted easily by the larger mainstream community. Pre-marital sex is now common. Common-law relationships without marriage vows are common. Children are no longer ostracized for illegitimacy.

The "culture war" that the right wing endlessly pisses and moans about is largely their frustration over the fact that although they managed to demonize 'dirty stinking hippies' and blame them for everything, most of the values and mores of those hippies somehow transmitted into and were adopted by mainstream culture to a greater or lesser extent.

As far as I'm concerned, every time you complain about Hippies you're just channelling Rush Limbaugh.

If it hadn't been the hippies, it would have been something else. It was always going to be something.

The hippies are gone, which is why demonization succeeded. Feminists, Gays, Blacks and others remained to fight the continued demonization, and they've managed to win a more balanced picture... which is why you can talk about cuddly clean cut civil rights protestors.

If the hippies had persisted as a concrete social phenomenon, you'd be speaking more respectfully.

The lesson, as I've said, is never accept anything from the right.

Again, bull. The counterculture movement didn't create or fertilize the perception.

"Soft on communism" and weak on foreign policy was a Republican attack against Democrats since the red scares of the 1920's.

FDR was repeatedly denounced as a being a leftist, and his foreign policy 'weakness' was the subject of virulent republican criticism.

In the 50's, it was the Republicans once again whining about who lost China, and communists infiltrating the government.

Frankly, there wasn't anything unmuscular about Truman's foreign policy, or Kennedy's, or Johnson's.

You can't blame the counterculture.

At best, you can say that the right wing picked up the counterculture and used it as a stick to beat on democrats with. But guess what, they'd been trumping the charge long before the counterculture, and they're still trumpeting the charge long after the counterculture has gone.

Conclusion: It's not the counterculture.

The civil rights movement was generally demonized in the form of angry radical black men with sunglasses and berets, other angry black men with giant afros and african shirts

I thought it was obvious I was referring to the MLK style of BCR, not the Malcolm X style.

But you're right, the militant part of the BCR movement was easy to dismiss, exactly proving my point about how image matters.

However, that was not all the coverage, and it was the other part of the BCR movement that was successful, as you know.

There was Rosa Parks, whose protest was carefully planed long in advance, and she was chosen for her "uprightness" which would make her difficult to smear. MLK and the peaceful part of BCR that is revered today was always non-violent, non-confrontational, very upstanding and definitely not-radical or hippies.

The difference between hippies and blacks

Blacks smoked dope too. They invented it in America. Just not when they were marching for civil rights. Blacks dressed in hipster clothes. They invented the words hep and then hip. Just not when they were representing their cause, they wore church clothes.

The difference between hippies and the successful elements of BCR, is hippies wanted to be counter culture, BCR wanted to be more a part of the culture. The larger culture mostly included blacks, and was mostly counter to hippies.

Me and my wife were the elder hippies on South Street, but this was AFTER we were beatniks for a while. Drinking espresso in coffee houses in and around center city Philly was cool :-)

The larger culture included blacks?

Again, bull. If it hadn't been hippies, it would have been something else. The reason that the hippies made a lasting stick is that the hippies didn't last.

You start second guessing everything over the sticks they might beat you with, then you're just dancing to their game. You adopt their language, you surrender to them.

Allow the right to define the terms of the debate and what is or is not acceptable and who is or is not appropriate, and you've lost before you enter the field of battle.

Martin Luther King did not give an inch to the 'moderate' Birmingham clergy. He called them down for what they were.

You distinguish between the 'suit and tie' Black Civil Rights movement, and the more radical and showy civil rights movement. But that's not a distinction anyone made at the time.

Martin Luther King was on the same side as Shabazz Afrika and Malcolm X and Muhammed Ali. He knew it, and his opponents knew it. His opponents never tired of tarring him with that brush.

I love the hypocritical two-way attack here. On one hand, Reid gets blasted for saying publically that opposing the Iraq war will benefit Democrats in future elections. That's an odd thing to attack. I always thought that representing popular opinion was a way to win an election.

On the other hand, we're supposed to not oppose the Iraq war because opposing the Viet Nam war hurt Democrats later? I'm glad Gitlin debunked that one.

But, sheesh, if the Democrats were to listen to their critics on this issue, what would they do? Be ambivalent about the war? That's not a strategy, it's capitulation.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

[Reagan] stayed in office 'cause he made people feel good about being greedy.

A couple people noted that there had been a profound change in political culture as soon as Reagan campaigned with the question: "Are you better off today than you were five years ago?"  I suspect that the change had been long in coming.  Even so, Reagan's campaign was the first time that a national figure focused on the individual's welfare, rather than the common welfare.

Gettysburg,

The Democrats got us into Vietnam and it was the Democrats that got us out. Now, hopefully, the Democrats will get us out of Iraq, Bush's Folly.

notthere,

I always thought Johnson's comment; "there goes the South", when he signed the Civil Rights Act was a sad commentary on the South.

For you here.

Ticia

Todd quotes Tomasky:

By overwhelming margins, Americans have always believed -- and continue to believe -- that the Vietnamese conflict was wrong.

Gallup began asking a version of the “mistake” question in 1965. The first majority calling the war a mistake appeared in August 1968, after the Tet Offensive and Walter Cronkite’s famous anti-war editorial at the end of his newscast on the night of February 27 of that year.

I won't take Tomasky to task for contradicting himself, but will just point out that it isn't true that Americans have always believed that the Vietnam war was wrong.

Where Democrats and Republicans have both gotten it wrong, on both Vietnam and Iraq, is that the public seems to be inclined to support a war before it starts, and in the initial period after it starts. We the public share the blame for getting ourselves into both of these debacles, and politicians of both parties share the blame for encouraging us.

All true enough!

I'm just calling Daniel on his standard tactic of saying Dmeoctrats do X. Then when challenged he throws up Chomsky as an example.

Why do you hate America?

I realize that the question is not intended seriously. However, there is a serious point lurking behind it. A crucial totalitarian principle is that the state is identified with the people, the culture, the society. For those who adopt that principle, criticism of the state is hatred of the country. In the old Soviet Union, for example, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet” or “haters of Russia,” because they condemned policies of the Holy State. We, however, rightly regarded them as the people most dedicated to the welfare of the Russian people.

The concept has biblical origins. King Ahab, the epitome of evil in the Bible, condemned the Prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel because he denounced the crimes of the evil king, who, like all totalitarians, identified state power—himself—with the society and people. Where there is a democratic culture, such a notion would be ridiculed. In Italy, for example, if someone were to publish a book called “the Anti-Italians,” denouncing people who dare to criticize government policy, people would collapse with ridicule. It is rather striking that in the US, such a book (of course full of outlandish lies) is reviewed seriously and treated with respect. The US is alone, to my knowledge, outside of totalitarian states, in that concepts like “hate America” or “anti-American” are adopted in the style of King Ahab and his totalitarian successors. That should trouble us.        

 Noam Chomsky

Full interview here.

I kind of cheated by attaching my comment to yours, for thread clarity. I know you were addresing DG's tactic.

However, I would be happy if Chomsky considered himself a Dem.

Thanks to Ticia, below, for a representative Chomky comment.

What has he written, outside of linguistics that is right. The United States and Israel are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. It is not anti-parochialism it is anti-Westernism. It is the wrapping himself, and his devotees, in the guilt of the successful. Chomsky is one the big promoters of the victims,(third worlders to use a bit dated phrase) can do no wrong and the victimizers, the strong and succeful are to be blamed for everything.
Thus the "blaming the victim" so often used at the Cafe is meant as a devastating retort but is mainly counterfactual.

He and the many Leftists might not be Democrats but because the Party allowed the blending together of Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism and anti-Americanism Democrats have for too long have run away from Liberalism.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Chomsky (and Zinn for that matter) imo gets his facts correct, and gets most of his arguments in immediate proximity to the facts, right. However, on "big picture" opinions, which are furthest away from the facts, and the most subjective interpretations of everything combined, he resorts to his own personal bias, as we all do.

I agree with some of his large scale interpretations, and disagree with others. Overall he's a very useful contributor to the discussion and it would benefit more people to read him whether or not they fully agree with him.

Rosa Parks certainly wasn't a front. She absolutely was "upright" in every sense of the word including the conservative sense. She was a lot more than somebody who sat down on a bus one day in protest.

And yes, she absolutely was chosen for that, months beforehand, and that protest was carefully planned for maximum effect. If you read about the thought process that went into planning the protest, it was long decided that Rosa Parks would be the icon of the movement's core aspirations.

Her message would be clear: civil rights for blacks, with no ulterior counter culture agenda.

There had been a number of other similar protests which were ineffective because the protesters themselves were easy to disparage and "trouble makers" and the timing was wrong.

Choosing Rosa parks and timing so carefully made all the difference.

Yes those are good points about HUAC's influence on the culture.

But also remember that HUAC was disgraced among the majority of Americans by the late 1950s - early 1960's.

The cultural net outcome of HUAC was a further polarization between the left and right that still exists today. "Hollywood liberals" "Vietnam" "McCarthyites" "Fascists" "peachniks" "warmongers" etc.

But the outcome for moderates was more against HUAC than for it.

Afterwards HUAC (and to a lesser degree beforehand) Democratic candidates had to demonstrate aggressively against communism, such as JFK Catholic strong opposition to communism, LBJ the Dixiecrat, Carter's naval command, etc. Conversely, Republicans must demonstrate they're not war mongers, which is why Nixon claimed ot have a secret plan to end the war, and why Bush for example claimed he was a 'compassionate conservative' against 'nation building.'

That's why there is a profound opportunity at this moment to stop the pendulum, and chart a new direction of smarter FP which is more balanced.

...

Back to the present, due to Iraq we're now at a place much like the post Vietnam era. the public, and most especially moderates, have seen the excesses of hawkish polices, and been reminded of why jingoism is bad.

The middle is ready hear a smarter approach to FP. One that is also cognizant of blow back and unintended consequences, and which doen't simply react in a jingoist manner, but which also values allies and diplomacy.

Though, into the foreseeable future, the American public, and importantly the middle, will still require a president be decisive and retain the right use force when necessary.

So, there is an incredible, generational, opportunity to adopt smarter FP now.

We've been reminded of the faults of jingoism. The last thing we want to do is remind moderates of hippies, peaceniks, and such on the left.

Well that's certainly a part of it, but is also kind of a victim mindset. It's unrealistic to say that all of the backlash against hippies, and consequentially the left, was all manufactured by rt wingers.

Most people had some hippies in their family or close circles, so it's not as though the media primarily shaped the perception of them. If no form of media from TV to newspapers had ever been invented, moderates still would have disliked many elements of the hippie movement from personal acquaintance.

Also, the hippies themselves were created by parts of the media to a significant extent.

By the way I think Nixon went into Cambodia 37 years ago today.

Tom

Too late to try him for treason.  But someday soon we will be able to celebrate when his evil assistant, Dr. Kissinger, joins him in hell.

btw, i have to add i personally can't stand Reagan or Bush based on what I know about them, and would have no problem impeaching them or burning effigies for that matter.

But I also have relatives and know plenty of good people who are moderates, aren't political junkies, and don't know much of what I know. Therefore, it's unrealistic for them to understand why someone might want to impeach or burn an effigy.

I think the proper way to go about such things is to inform and persuade moderates, respectfully of their basic goodness and intelligence, and without insulting them.

Then, when most everyone agrees, including moderates, that impeachable offenses have been committed, impeach. Later, if people feel like it, invite over some moderates to burn an effigy.

But too often those steps are taken in reverse, and it just alienates the middle and hurts the left.

Good points. Your absolutely right that the most difficult questions in the public sphere are about how far change should go. Politically, reforms must have wide support to get through, which must, by needs, include moderates. So there is always a fine line to be walked and politics is ultimately a selling game.

My problem with the ‘60s radicals-took-America-down smear is that the campaign does seem to have had an effect, not directly on people who remember or know their recent history, but on the media. And the media has definitely grown conservative (or much more conservative, I should say).

The new media juggernaut has defined the country more towards the middle and influenced new generations of ditto-heads. I think the problem now is that what would be moderate and popular reforms (and reformers) get defined by the media first as being “far out” and radical, and never get off the ground.

Why do you hate America?

I realize that the question is not intended seriously. However, there is a serious point lurking behind it. A crucial totalitarian principle is that the state is identified with the people, the culture, the society. For those who adopt that principle, criticism of the state is hatred of the country. In the old Soviet Union, for example, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet” or “haters of Russia,” because they condemned policies of the Holy State. We, however, rightly regarded them as the people most dedicated to the welfare of the Russian people.

The concept has biblical origins. King Ahab, the epitome of evil in the Bible, condemned the Prophet Elijah as a hater of Israel because he denounced the crimes of the evil king, who, like all totalitarians, identified state power—himself—with the society and people. Where there is a democratic culture, such a notion would be ridiculed. In Italy, for example, if someone were to publish a book called “the Anti-Italians,” denouncing people who dare to criticize government policy, people would collapse with ridicule. It is rather striking that in the US, such a book (of course full of outlandish lies) is reviewed seriously and treated with respect. The US is alone, to my knowledge, outside of totalitarian states, in that concepts like “hate America” or “anti-American” are adopted in the style of King Ahab and his totalitarian successors. That should trouble us.

Noam Chomsky

Bang on!

So correct and quote worthy it deserves repeating.

I can't say how much I admire Dr Chomsky.

Whenever two people meet, there are really six people present. There is each man as he sees himself, each man as the other person sees him, and each man as he really is.

William James