Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 303







Post#7551 at 11-11-2003 11:45 AM by David Krein [at Gainesville, Florida joined Jul 2001 #posts 604]
---
11-11-2003, 11:45 AM #7551
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Gainesville, Florida
Posts
604

David - You're right in this sense. Never before in American history have we had a President who failed to get a plurality of the popular vote, where the Senate was split 50/50 between the two major parties, and with a slight edge to the president's party in the House. There is really nothing to compare it to. I take your concern/criticism to be that the Republicans are acting as if they have a mandate to make fundamental changes in our system when, in fact, they do not. While I don't like Republicans very much (I don't care for very many Democrats either), what would you have them do - sit on their hands until the next election? Or try to get as much of their agenda through as they can while they have an advantage they might not have in 14 months. Politics is politics, and sensitivity to the minority side has seldom been a hallmark of American national politics, especially in a 3rd Turning. And whatever they do can be undone later (except for justices, and Senate filibustering seems to have thwarted Bush & co. in that direction) should the Democrats get control.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit shall lure it back to cancel half a line, Nor all your Tears wash out a word of it." - Omar Khayyam.







Post#7552 at 11-11-2003 01:08 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
11-11-2003, 01:08 PM #7552
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
We're in a stealth 4T, in which the Republican party is trying to use a tiny but highly disciplined majority in the House and Senate to remake America. It is not the slightest exaggeration to say that nothing like this has EVER happened in American history before.
"David - You're right in this sense. Never before in American history have we had a President who failed to get a plurality of the popular vote, where the Senate was split 50/50 between the two major parties, and with a slight edge to the president's party in the House. There is really nothing to compare it to. "

Ah, yes, 911 never mentioned, never happened.

It is unprecedented, in American history, for the Senate minority party to filibuster presidential judicial candidates merely because they don't like the way they think.

It is not unprecedented, in American history, for a U.S. President to wage war after having received a joint Congressional "resolution" to do so.

As Republican gains continue to mount at both the state and national level, the shrill tone from the "MARTIN, BARTON AND FISH" crowd shall grow more and more shrill, and making less and less sense to the hearers of their words.

And that, if our esteemed historians might recall, is not unprecedented at all. :wink:







Post#7553 at 11-12-2003 09:53 AM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
11-12-2003, 09:53 AM #7553
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Martin, Barton and Fish. Haven't heard those names for a LONG time. How about Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice? Scans well.

Now. To begin with, Bush has a better record of getting judicial nominations through than Clinton did. One thing a different kind of Administration might do (an Eisenhower Administration, let's say, or a Ford Administration) would be to appoint judges who did not take extreme positions on the most controversial issues of the day. Another would be to take some note of the consequences of tax cuts rather than trying to strangle the federal government until it could be drowned in a bathtup. Another would be not to try to roll back every major environmental advance of the past thirty years. Another would be not to try to destroy public education in the guise of saving it. Should I go on?

The extraordinary discipline of the Republicans in Congress--something for which I honestly can't remember a precedent--is a force multiplier. They are functioning like a Communist party; they have their think tanks, their press (led by the Op-ed page of the WSJ), their tv shows, etc., etc., etc. They have created an environment in which they never hear a dissenting view. And they vote alike on every issue regardless of how the bulk of the American people feel--and count, apparently, on appeals to greed and patriotism to re-elect them.

This is rather new. Really. The post-civil war Republicans did similar things,but they had substantial majorities and could allow some dissent!

We are getting a glimpse of a multi-saeculum rhythm. A saeculum that promotes inequality (Civil War) is followed by one that reduces it (Great Power)--and, it seems, vica verca.

David Kaiser '47







Post#7554 at 11-12-2003 11:07 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-12-2003, 11:07 AM #7554
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
... We are getting a glimpse of a multi-saeculum rhythm. A saeculum that promotes inequality (Civil War) is followed by one that reduces it (Great Power)--and, it seems, vica verca.

David Kaiser '47
God I hope you're wrong! The imbalance is already high. I can't see how we can go through another concentration cycle and still recover. Mr. Franklin of Philadelphia thought we would choose despotism at some point, because we would be unable to rule ourselves. Are we there yet?

The other David '47







Post#7555 at 11-12-2003 11:27 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
11-12-2003, 11:27 AM #7555
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
This is rather new. Really. The post-civil war Republicans did similar things,but they had substantial majorities and could allow some dissent!
I had thought that I detected a strong bias when I read your book on Vietnam. Having read your last ten posts at this website I am now sure that I did detect a very strong bias in your otherwise "scholarly effort."

FDR's "Martin, Barton and Fish" mantra stuck with every middleclass Tom, Dick and Harry because of the strong element of truth in the phrase. Namely that the Republican Party represented the isolationist crowd of the 1940 presidential campaign. As E.J. Dionne and Anthony Lake correctly point out, this New Isolationism now breathes heartily on the Left side of the aisle, as they seek to withstand the onslaught of that "Radical GOP."

Therefore the new mantra for 2004 will be "Pelosi, Dashcle and Dean!" I rather like the sound of it, don't you, Professor?

To count the numbers of passing judicial nominations, of course, is to obscure the real meaning of the unprecedented filibustering by the Democrats. But Professor Kaiser really addresses this when he claims that only a political party with "substantial majorities ... could allow some dissent." This is really bizzare thinking. But noting the historical record, how the Democrats held the White house for an unprecedented twenty straight years and how they helf the U.S. House of Representative, and the federal purse strings with it, for an unprecedented forty straight years, one gets a better feel for how Professor and his friends in the Democratic Party must feel these days.

A once glorious and triumphant Party with "substantial majorities" has been reduced to a blubbering, whining bunch of filibusters.

Really! :wink:

Niether David or the other David







Post#7556 at 11-13-2003 12:09 AM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
11-13-2003, 12:09 AM #7556
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Not quite sure what you mean by bias. Am I a Democrat? Yes. Have I slanted any facts? Prove it.

I'm not sure "Martin, Barton and Fish" actually had anything to do with isolationism. I think he was referring to their opposition to farm bills. Believe me, I would love to hear George W. struggle with Pelosi, Daschle, and Dean. All those syllables. . .much too much for him.

A reluctance to rule the world--to remove any regime that does not meet our theoretical standards--is now called "isolationism." We actually could use some real isolationism in this country; it might get our foreign policy somewhere nearer the middle!

The Democratic Party did command a plurality in the last election. With readable ballots in Florida Gore would be President. We have not fallen out of contention yet; although I admit our future lies with the Millennials.

But on the economic front. .. it's very hard for me to see how things are going to be reversed. But take heart. The future, as de Gaulle liked to say, lasts a long time.

David Kaiser '47







Post#7557 at 11-13-2003 10:14 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
11-13-2003, 10:14 AM #7557
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
A reluctance to rule the world--to remove any regime that does not meet our theoretical standards--is now called "isolationism." We actually could use some real isolationism in this country; it might get our foreign policy somewhere nearer the middle!

David Kaiser '47
There is a scene in the movie Hamburger Hill, I'm sure you can recall it, Professor; The battle for the hill is in it's ninth day, C Company is coming down from another day's fighting and is greeted by CBS et al News:
  • Newsman: Hey, word down at Division is you guys can't take this hill. What do you have to say about that? In fact, Senator Kennedy says you guys don't have a chance at all.

    Frantz: You really like this shit, don't you? It's your job. A story. You're waiting here like a fucking vulture. Watching for somebody to die, so you can take a picture.

    Newsman: It's my job.
The young, hawkish, soon-to-be-Chappaquiddick-marred Kennedy notwithstanding, this vulturesque scene reminds me of the current Democratic Party position on Iraq. Tom Daschle led his collegues in support of the Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of Force Against Iraq, back in October of last year. According to the wire reports, "It was a floor statement by Senate Majority (Democratic) Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota that set the stage for certain passage of the resolution. Daschle, who had previously expressed his doubts about the measure, said he now supported it and told his colleagues:
  • "I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment."
Less than five months later, with our troops fully deployed, Tom Daschle, now Senate Minority Leader, had a change of heart. Again, according to the wire reports, "In a speech Monday ? given hours before President Bush delivered an address to the nation in which he gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a 48-hour deadline to accept exile or face war ? Daschle said,
  • "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. I am saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
One can only assume that the meaning of the word "critical" radically changed in the light of Daschle's own change from "Majority" to "Minority" status, and that now opposing Bush with an acute stab in the back, before the president even speaks to the enemy, means Daschle was just doing his "job," eh? Again, I was reminded of the conclusion of that scene in Hambruger Hill:
  • Frantz: I've got more respect for those little bastards up there. At least they take a side. You just take pictures. You probably don't even do your own fucking. No one ask my AO.

    Newsman: What?

    Frantz: You listen to me. We're gonna take this fucking hill, Newsman. I see you on the top taking pictures of any of my people...I will blow your fucking head off. Now you haven't earned the right to be here. Do you understand that?
Fortunately, like the military, politics also has a "code of justice." It is called an election. I do not anticipate seeing the face of the back stabbing Daschle anymore with his vulturesque glaring buddies at CBS et al News come 1/1/05.

p.s. As you are probably well aware, Professor Kaiser, presenting "a mass of documentary evidence that reveals" it was really Ike's war in Indochina does not require "slanting facts" as much as it does a willingness to believe that Kennedy and Johnson were "later led to the fateful moves toward greater involvement" in Vietnam. In order to extricate the prime responsibility of that "quagmire" from the Democratic Party you needn't have stopped "the buck" at Ike's desk, because the "facts" clearly reveal that the first "domino" fell during General MacArthur's imperialist tenure.







Post#7558 at 11-13-2003 01:29 PM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
11-13-2003, 01:29 PM #7558
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

I can't believe this drivel.







Post#7559 at 11-13-2003 01:36 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-13-2003, 01:36 PM #7559
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Croaker'39
I can't believe this drivel.
Marc/Yo/ Mr. Dots accidently posted his Hamburger Hill comentaryhere instead of Films to Prepare Generations for their role in the Crisis.







Post#7560 at 11-13-2003 01:54 PM by Cato [at Ohio joined Oct 2003 #posts 136]
---
11-13-2003, 01:54 PM #7560
Join Date
Oct 2003
Location
Ohio
Posts
136

Speaking of Anger

Although some of the left-wing here won't like to know this is on the Fox website, I just read an article on the growing anger and pessimism in America: you need to give this a chance:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102830,00.html

The author seems very objective: a quick excerpt:

... despite several months of stock market recovery and a spate of positive economic numbers, society's anger is growing.

-- a long-term shift toward pessimism arrived in early 2000. Anger, and the negative social mood behind it, has been slowly building for nearly four years. The bitter political atmosphere, the continuing bear market, rising unemployment and increasingly crass and violent entertainment are all evidence that this pessimism persists...

Opinion makers, and the voters and investors who listen to them, have yet to grasp this long-term shift to pessimism, despite the sort of evidence that's as close as the local bookshop. The supply of angry books I described above is growing. They wouldn't be there if there were no demand.
Robert Folsom is a financial writer and editor for Elliott Wave International, a financial analysis company. He has covered politics, popular culture, economics and the financial markets for 16 years, and today writes EWI's popular Market Watch column. Robert earned his degree in political science from Columbia University in 1985.







Post#7561 at 11-13-2003 01:56 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
11-13-2003, 01:56 PM #7561
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Cato, would you connect the dots and say we be early 4T?







Post#7562 at 11-13-2003 03:07 PM by Cato [at Ohio joined Oct 2003 #posts 136]
---
11-13-2003, 03:07 PM #7562
Join Date
Oct 2003
Location
Ohio
Posts
136

Subjectivity vs. Objectivity

Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Cato, would you connect the dots and say we be early 4T?
As a scientist I objectively see too many 4T things swimming around in my petri dish, like what the article states about pessimism and anger, but I also want to be cautious: I still think the ultimate 4T catalyst is yet to come, that the 9-11/War on Terror is actually only a precursor, which leads me also to hope subjectively that this ultimate crisis is still off in the future, meaning we are still 3T, but metamorphosing quickly!







Post#7563 at 11-13-2003 03:16 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
11-13-2003, 03:16 PM #7563
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Re: Subjectivity vs. Objectivity

Quote Originally Posted by Cato
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Cato, would you connect the dots and say we be early 4T?
As a scientist I objectively see too many 4T things swimming around in my petri dish, like what the article states about pessimism and anger, but I also want to be cautious: I still think the ultimate 4T catalyst is yet to come, that the 9-11/War on Terror is actually only a precursor, which leads me also to hope subjectively that this ultimate crisis is still off in the future, meaning we are still 3T, but metamorphosing quickly!
Given that, and your reference to the rising anger in the body politic, do you believe we're seeing an emerging domestic crisis? That's fits my view, but validation is always a plus.







Post#7564 at 11-13-2003 03:56 PM by Cato [at Ohio joined Oct 2003 #posts 136]
---
11-13-2003, 03:56 PM #7564
Join Date
Oct 2003
Location
Ohio
Posts
136

Re: Subjectivity vs. Objectivity

Quote Originally Posted by RadioHead
Quote Originally Posted by Cato
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Cato, would you connect the dots and say we be early 4T?
As a scientist I objectively see too many 4T things swimming around in my petri dish, like what the article states about pessimism and anger, but I also want to be cautious: I still think the ultimate 4T catalyst is yet to come, that the 9-11/War on Terror is actually only a precursor, which leads me also to hope subjectively that this ultimate crisis is still off in the future, meaning we are still 3T, but metamorphosing quickly!
Given that, and your reference to the rising anger in the body politic, do you believe we're seeing an emerging domestic crisis? That's fits my view, but validation is always a plus.
I always prefer optimism! However, as my wife says, my preference for optimism is another term for being unrealistic!

I want it both ways: given my optimistic hopes, I want the domestic crisis to be resolved quickly, whatever it is. But...

Domestic Crisis Issues:
I suspect the globalization and robotization of the workplace will lead to continued unemployment/underemployment among the proletariat, and it will be irrelevant who is in charge politically. There are several ways out perhaps: one of my favorite ideas - I thought of it ! - allow a kind of deliberate antiquarianism to return for such people who cannot handle the high-tech world. Employ them as carvers, carpenters, hand-craftsmen-women of all kinds in "living museums" or as part of the education system, or simply sell their objects, which would no doubt have a higher quality than anything made by a 3rd-world factory.
Another favorite idea: employ them to bury the power/telephone/cable lines in every part of America. When I was in Europe for a conference, I noticed many cities, especially in Germany, even in older areas, do not have this cat's cradle of wires hanging everywhere. They have buried the wires, and so storms and winds do not blow out the power, trees do not have to be savaged, etc. This could be a CCC style project sponsored by the FedGov and the various industries involved.
Idea Number 3: employ them in a serious environmental clean-up and reforestation project. They would need to be trained about hazardous chemicals, etc. but it would not involve the technical training needed for the high tech world. Again, this could be a CCC style crusade.

The alternative: pass out the checks to the bottom 15%-20% and keep them anesthetized with pop culture so that they don't riot. Panem et circenses!

Interesting from what I can tell that most people do not see rising long-term and insoluble unemployment for the ineducable as a danger. They too often think the union is the answer (look around, Jack!) or that some politician (usually a Democrat, but Republicans promise jobs also) will wave a magic wand and those 1950's assembly lines will be back in action in no time.

And then there is public education: Harper's had an article in the September 2003 issue by a NY state teacher of the year named John Gatto, who is in favor of ending the entire system, and letting people find or found or fund their own schools. I can hear the outcry already: what about the poor, the unemployed you just wrote about? Read the article: a little liberating libertarianism, a little laissez-faire Darwinism might wise up the ones who can be wised up. Or give that $10,000 per pupil that states spend directly to the parents to choose their own school. Imagine a teacher with only 10 students who would receive that $100,000! Imagine how that would revolutionize education! Imagine how that will never be allowed to happen!
I hate class warfare, which is why dislike practically every Democratic candidate. But you will get class warfare I fear if the present divide continues.

In which case, a 4T crisis domestically!







Post#7565 at 11-13-2003 05:26 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
11-13-2003, 05:26 PM #7565
Guest

Re: Subjectivity vs. Objectivity

Quote Originally Posted by Cato
Quote Originally Posted by RadioHead
Quote Originally Posted by Cato
Quote Originally Posted by Kiff 1961
Cato, would you connect the dots and say we be early 4T?
As a scientist I objectively see too many 4T things swimming around in my petri dish, like what the article states about pessimism and anger, but I also want to be cautious: I still think the ultimate 4T catalyst is yet to come, that the 9-11/War on Terror is actually only a precursor, which leads me also to hope subjectively that this ultimate crisis is still off in the future, meaning we are still 3T, but metamorphosing quickly!
Given that, and your reference to the rising anger in the body politic, do you believe we're seeing an emerging domestic crisis? That's fits my view, but validation is always a plus.
I always prefer optimism! However, as my wife says, my preference for optimism is another term for being unrealistic!

I want it both ways: given my optimistic hopes, I want the domestic crisis to be resolved quickly, whatever it is. But...

Domestic Crisis Issues:
I suspect the globalization and robotization of the workplace will lead to continued unemployment/underemployment among the proletariat, and it will be irrelevant who is in charge politically. There are several ways out perhaps: one of my favorite ideas - I thought of it ! - allow a kind of deliberate antiquarianism to return for such people who cannot handle the high-tech world. Employ them as carvers, carpenters, hand-craftsmen-women of all kinds in "living museums" or as part of the education system, or simply sell their objects, which would no doubt have a higher quality than anything made by a 3rd-world factory.
Another favorite idea: employ them to bury the power/telephone/cable lines in every part of America. When I was in Europe for a conference, I noticed many cities, especially in Germany, even in older areas, do not have this cat's cradle of wires hanging everywhere. They have buried the wires, and so storms and winds do not blow out the power, trees do not have to be savaged, etc. This could be a CCC style project sponsored by the FedGov and the various industries involved.
Idea Number 3: employ them in a serious environmental clean-up and reforestation project. They would need to be trained about hazardous chemicals, etc. but it would not involve the technical training needed for the high tech world. Again, this could be a CCC style crusade.

The alternative: pass out the checks to the bottom 15%-20% and keep them anesthetized with pop culture so that they don't riot. Panem et circenses!

Interesting from what I can tell that most people do not see rising long-term and insoluble unemployment for the ineducable as a danger. They too often think the union is the answer (look around, Jack!) or that some politician (usually a Democrat, but Republicans promise jobs also) will wave a magic wand and those 1950's assembly lines will be back in action in no time.

And then there is public education: Harper's had an article in the September 2003 issue by a NY state teacher of the year named John Gatto, who is in favor of ending the entire system, and letting people find or found or fund their own schools. I can hear the outcry already: what about the poor, the unemployed you just wrote about? Read the article: a little liberating libertarianism, a little laissez-faire Darwinism might wise up the ones who can be wised up. Or give that $10,000 per pupil that states spend directly to the parents to choose their own school. Imagine a teacher with only 10 students who would receive that $100,000! Imagine how that would revolutionize education! Imagine how that will never be allowed to happen!
I hate class warfare, which is why dislike practically every Democratic candidate. But you will get class warfare I fear if the present divide continues.

In which case, a 4T crisis domestically!
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/
Ten year anniversary of [i]Dumbing Us Down[/b]? As in he's been saying this stuff and getting this published in 1993, indisputably a 3T year? His getting more exposure seems more like 3T than 4T...







Post#7566 at 11-13-2003 06:25 PM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
11-13-2003, 06:25 PM #7566
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Reply to Yo, etc.

Yo, anyone who could read my book without recognizing that I assigned FULL and COMPLETE responsibility for the decision to go to war in Vietnam to LBJ, Rusk, McNamara, and Bundy is guilty of bias, sorry, I mean blindness, or do I. But thanks anyway for taking the time.

Senator Kennedy, in fact, violently criticized the Hamburger Hill operation, not for failure, but as a complete waste of American lives, which it was. That led, apparently, to an order from Nixon to General Abrams to knock off these useless offensive operations--but 1969 was still the second most costly year of the war.

Changing the topic, I did see another potential 4T catalyst in the Florida right-to-die case. The idea of the legislature forcing through special legislation was scary, and I had a vision of private bills all over the country trying to stop daughters, wives and girlfriends from having abortions. I also wonder what the Alabama reaction to Judge Moore's removal will be. I'm very frightened of a culture war 4T, but it could happen.

David K '47







Post#7567 at 11-13-2003 06:41 PM by Stephen Pulaski [at Pittsburgh joined Oct 2001 #posts 129]
---
11-13-2003, 06:41 PM #7567
Join Date
Oct 2001
Location
Pittsburgh
Posts
129

Re: Reply to Yo, etc.

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
Changing the topic, I did see another potential 4T catalyst in the Florida right-to-die case. The idea of the legislature forcing through special legislation was scary, and I had a vision of private bills all over the country trying to stop daughters, wives and girlfriends from having abortions. I also wonder what the Alabama reaction to Judge Moore's removal will be. I'm very frightened of a culture war 4T, but it could happen.

David K '47
Or private bills to force daughters, etc. to have abortions.







Post#7568 at 11-13-2003 06:48 PM by Earl and Mooch [at Delaware - we pave paradise and put up parking lots joined Sep 2002 #posts 2,106]
---
11-13-2003, 06:48 PM #7568
Join Date
Sep 2002
Location
Delaware - we pave paradise and put up parking lots
Posts
2,106

Re: Reply to Yo, etc.

Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Pulaski
Or private bills to force daughters, etc. to have abortions.
Or to force anyone to endure chemotherapy.
"My generation, we were the generation that was going to change the world: somehow we were going to make it a little less lonely, a little less hungry, a little more just place. But it seems that when that promise slipped through our hands we didnīt replace it with nothing but lost faith."

Bruce Springsteen, 1987
http://brucebase.wikispaces.com/1987...+YORK+CITY,+NY







Post#7569 at 11-13-2003 11:37 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
11-13-2003, 11:37 PM #7569
Guest

Re: Reply to Yo, etc.

  • Aaron L. Friedberg, professor of politics and international affairs and director of the Research Program in International Security at Princeton, convincingly argues that anti-statist inclinations prevented Cold War anxieties from transforming the United States into a garrison state. War?or the threat of war?usually strengthens states at the expense of its citizens and their liberties. -- Review by Greg Domin, Periclean America: Dodging the Cold War's Statist Bullets
Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
Yo, anyone who could read my book without recognizing that I assigned FULL and COMPLETE responsibility for the decision to go to war in Vietnam to LBJ, Rusk, McNamara, and Bundy is guilty of bias, sorry, I mean blindness, or do I. But thanks anyway for taking the time. David K '47
No, your "mass of documentary evidence" sought to expose Ike's motives ("Eisenhower and his advisors took an aggressive attitude--including an openness to using nuclear weapons toward communist advances anywhere, 'especially in Southeast Asia,' Kaiser finds"), while exonerating Kennedy ("Kaiser offers voluminous and meticulous evidence that Kennedy repeatedly rejected, deferred or at least modified recommendations for military actions," writes Publishers Weekly), and, finally, cast Johnson as a tragic "Pericles" figure.

Yes, I did take "the time" to read your book.

Now aside from the question of "bias," (cycle theories, as S&H point out concerning Arthur Schlesinger, can merely mislead the most well-meaning historian) I do find the latter notion of Johnson being Pericles intriguing. I do so in that one might conclude, as does Friedberg, that Johnson, like Pericles in Greece, actually saved America from the grip of a hideous "Shadow of the Garrison State."

Now, the human misery of suffered under Pol Pot, the vast tide Vietnamese boat people and the loss of America prestige abroad notwithstanding, I don't have a problem with that. Hell, how could I? I was a mere nineteen year old in 1975. :wink:

But you? In maintaining your allegiance to the Party of LBJ, one can only assume that you would prefer that "the present trend continue." Namely that America remain in retreat and defeat just as Pericles left Athens in the grip of the "plague" which killed him.

And we all know what came of Athens after Pericles, right? Another author of "military history" drew some parallels recently to our war in Iraq, and the side you've chosen, Professor, to be on, in describing the continuing tragedy:
  • I thought immediately of the macabre aftermath to the battle of Arginusae in 406 B.C. After destroying a great part of the Peloponnesian fleet in the most dramatic Athenian naval victory of the war, the popular assembly abruptly voted to execute six of their eight successful generals (the other two wisely never came back to Athens) on charges that they had failed to rescue seamen who were clinging to the wreckage.

    The historian Xenophon records the feeding frenzy and shouting of the assembled throng. Forget that Sparta felt beaten and was ready for peace after such a catastrophic defeat; forget the brilliant seamanship and command of the Athenian triremes; forget that a ferocious storm had made retrieval of the dead and rescue of the missing sailors almost impossible; forget even that to try the generals collectively was contrary to Athenian law. Instead the people demanded perfection in addition to mere overwhelming success ? and so in frustration devoured their own elected officials. The macabre incident was infamous in Greek history (the philosopher Socrates almost alone resisted the mob?s rule), a reminder how a society can go mad, turn on its benefactors, throw away a victory ? and go on to lose the entire war.
Is this the Periclean "trend" you wish of Johnson's "American Tragedy" to continue (which you completely ignored in my Daschle post), Professor? Are you part of the "mob," or thinking as a Socrates, today?







Post#7570 at 11-14-2003 08:21 AM by KaiserD2 [at David Kaiser '47 joined Jul 2001 #posts 5,220]
---
11-14-2003, 08:21 AM #7570
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
David Kaiser '47
Posts
5,220

Parallels

I'm not responsible for Tom Daschle, or, indeed,for anyone else.

I made absolutely no contrast between Johnson and Pericles, thus can't comment on any.

I said (proved, really) that the Eisenhower Administration adopted the policy that we would fight in Laos and/or South Vietnam. Kennedy refused to implement it, repeatedly. Johnson did implement it. If we had allowed a neutralist regime to take power in Saigon in 1965, none of us would ever have heard of the Khmer Rouge or Pol Pot.
Glad you brought up Thucydides, whom I teach twice a year. The parallel between the US and Athens is very apt. We are very proud of our position of power and insist that, if anything, it has to increase. We believe we can make good things happen by wishing for them. Our involvement in the Middle East is quite reminiscent of the Sicilian expedition. There, too, the Athenians expected to be greeted as liberators.
It's a big problem of today's conservatives that they have concluded that hubris must be a good thing--provided Americans have it.

David Kaiser '47







Post#7571 at 11-14-2003 09:43 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
11-14-2003, 09:43 AM #7571
Guest

Re: Parallels

A Tale of two hills
  • When I asked whether there could have been another way to win Okinawa, one sighed and said, "Maybe ? but Okinawa was an island of thousands of enemy soldiers in our way to Japan, and we couldn't just leave that many of them behind us. We were at war." When I pressed further whether the tactics of head-on charges against entrenched troops made sense, the general consensus was, "Who knows? But that was the Marine way and we accepted it. It was our job to take the island, and we did it." -- Victor Davis Hanson, Ripples of Battle: How Wars of the Past Still Determine How We Fight, How We Live, and How We Think.

    Senator Kennedy, in fact, violently criticized the Hamburger Hill operation, not for failure, but as a complete waste of American lives, which it was. That led, apparently, to an order from Nixon to General Abrams to knock off these useless offensive operations--but 1969 was still the second most costly year of the war. -- David Kaiser
Good morning, Professor!

Quote Originally Posted by David Kaiser '47
Our involvement in the Middle East is quite reminiscent of the Sicilian expedition. There, too, the Athenians expected to be greeted as liberators... It's a big problem of today's conservatives that they have concluded that hubris must be a good thing--provided Americans have it.
Hubris, Professor? Let us consider some history...

There is a hill on the island of Okinawa called Sugar Loaf. In 1945, as recounted by William Manchester who climbed it with the Raggedy Ass Marines, taking that hill "took ten days and cost 7,547 Marine casualties." Time magazine reported after a typical night: "There would be 50 Marines on top of Sugar Loaf Hill [Manchester and Hanson's father were just two among them.]. They had been ordered to hold the position all night, at any cost. By dawn, 46 of them had been killed [Hanson's father among them] or wounded [Sargent Manchester among them]. Then, into the foxhole where the remaining four huddled, the Japs dropped a white phosphorous shell, burning three men to death. The last survivor crawled to an aid station."

The wounded Manchester later jumped ship and returned to the fight, only to be nearly killed several days later. He called it an "act of love." Said another who fought on Sugar Loaf:
  • "Who knows? But that was the Marine way and we accepted it. It was our job to take the island, and we did it."
Twenty four years later, Hamburger Hill, Senator Kennedy's "violently criticized" as a "complete waste of American lives" operation in Vietnam took ten days and cost 300 casualties.

The latter hill was fought during a Republican administration, the former during time of FDR, a Democrat. One has to wonder what the good professor means by "hubris"? Has the Democratic Party renounced FDR, and the "Great Crusade"?

And one more question...

Quote Originally Posted by David Kaiser '47
The Democratic Party did command a plurality in the last election. With readable ballots in Florida Gore would be President. We have not fallen out of contention yet; although I admit our future lies with the Millennials.
In light of the S&H theory of American cycles, what sort of plans does your Democratic Party have for this generation of potential "canon fodder," Professor?







Post#7572 at 11-14-2003 10:17 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
11-14-2003, 10:17 AM #7572
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

DOB

Mr. Red, White & Blue Jeans was born in 1953.


His father was not killed in WWII (unless he was the fruit of early sperm donation???)... I think it was his namesake that died in the Pacific Theater. HTH







Post#7573 at 11-14-2003 10:44 AM by Croakmore [at The hazardous reefs of Silentium joined Nov 2001 #posts 2,426]
---
11-14-2003, 10:44 AM #7573
Join Date
Nov 2001
Location
The hazardous reefs of Silentium
Posts
2,426

Re: Reply to Yo, etc.

Quote Originally Posted by KaiserD2
Yo, anyone who could read my book without recognizing that I assigned FULL and COMPLETE responsibility for the decision to go to war in Vietnam to LBJ, Rusk, McNamara, and Bundy is guilty of bias, sorry, I mean blindness, or do I. But thanks anyway for taking the time... David K '47
David--

I?m very pleased to read your posts, although I have not yet read any of your fine books (makes a green frog literally greener, you know). But I?ll take a jump here at your quoted post to yo (who adds spiritual meaning to the term ?sheep dip?). You have emphatically attributed America?s critical advance into Viet Nam to Johnson and his advisors. While I despise the shameful actions of LBJ to increase the war effort at great cost and then bail out for the comfort of his ranch down in Texas, I blame the critical decisions leading us down the garden path into Viet Nam squarely on JFK.

I am basing my judgment mostly on a 4-hour TV documentary that I watched back in the 1960s, during the Nixon era. Real inside footage of stormy power struggles was revealed, and I?ve never seen it aired since. It was chilling to watch: the French couldn?t cut it at Diem Bien Phu, so they pulled out in the late 50s. So then what to do about South Viet Nam? The communists had their designs on it, its politics was soft, but this guy called ?Big Min? was willing to lead a force to meet the insurgents, if only he get America to replace those chicken-hearted French. Crunch time came down for JFK in this critical moment, and that amazing documentary outlined the sequence of events. I remember quite well how RFK was outraged to the extreme by the attention his brother paid to the Pentagon, and to the military-industrial complex Eisenhower had just warned everybody about. The eruptive RFK showed bitter opposition in the Oval-Office footage, and eventually JFK took the wrong advice: the U.S. threw its support behind Big Min, and the rest is history.

I don?t recall much about LBJ?s input. And the other key figures are vague to me at this moment. But that documentary left no doubt in my mind about who made the bad decision in the first place. As much as I admired JFK, I think he should have listened to his younger brother.

Do you give very much credit to this aspect of Viet Nam in your book?

--Croaker







Post#7574 at 11-14-2003 11:16 AM by [at joined #posts ]
---
11-14-2003, 11:16 AM #7574
Guest

Re: Reply to Yo, etc.

Quote Originally Posted by Croaker'39
But I?ll take a jump here at your quoted post to yo (who adds spiritual meaning to the term ?sheep dip?).
Funny, reading this reminded me of Barry Goldwater's observation at that 1984 Republican Convention:
  • Every war in this century began and was fought under Democrat administrations. You doubt me? World War I, Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. World War II, Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat. Korea, Harry Truman, Democrat. Vietnam, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, both Democrats . . .
One would have to add Kosovo, Bosnia, Sudan and Iraq, and the name of William Clinton to that list, at the 2004 Republican Convention.

So, it would appear that the term ?sheep dip? applies best to those who, in spite of this beligerent and violent heritage, now claim to be apostles of peace while remaining in that same Democratic Party!

How long must we endure your lies and deceit, Democrats? How long will it be before you fess up to the horrid truth of your wicked, evil past? FDR wages all out world war, and institutes a vast "military industrial complex," and you people just shrug and say "you just had to have been there to understand." Ike ends the Truman war plague in Korea, you you all call Korea "The Forgotten War." Nixon picks up the LBJ war pieces in Vietnam, and you all now call it "Nixon's war." Reagan rebuilds the military from Carter "malaise" and wins the Cold War, and you all despise him as a "warmonger." And now, Bush is your almighty "Nazi fascist" threatening to "rule the world"!

Alas, it's just more and more obfuscating and denial from each and every one of your sad, pathetic little dwarfs running for president. You people make me gag.


p.s. The "Victor Hanson" in the story must then be VDH's uncle? Sorry for the mistake.







Post#7575 at 11-14-2003 11:47 AM by Cato [at Ohio joined Oct 2003 #posts 136]
---
11-14-2003, 11:47 AM #7575
Join Date
Oct 2003
Location
Ohio
Posts
136

Re: Reply to Yo, etc.

Quote Originally Posted by yo
Quote Originally Posted by Croaker'39
But I?ll take a jump here at your quoted post to yo (who adds spiritual meaning to the term ?sheep dip?).
Funny, reading this reminded me of Barry Goldwater's observation at that 1984 Republican Convention:
  • Every war in this century began and was fought under Democrat administrations. You doubt me? World War I, Woodrow Wilson, Democrat. World War II, Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat. Korea, Harry Truman, Democrat. Vietnam, Jack Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, both Democrats . . .
.
I have never understood that quote: how exactly was WWII Roosevelt's fault, when it was started by Stalin, Hitler, and Tojo? Should the U.S. have stayed out of WWII?!

I can see where you can make a case against Wilson for not staying neutral, and the case for not intervening in Korea might be made - weakly I think.
-----------------------------------------