MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Andrew Bacevich on the 2016 election candidates compared to the choices in the Eisenhower years.
Comments
If you wish to hit a link, redo it under the link button.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176172/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_pseudo-election_2016/#more
But this is a goooooooooood link anyway.
A little history might help us all.
Ike rocked.
Adlai showed real genius actually.
Do we have real choices anymore?
Good link Lulu
by Richard Day on Thu, 08/04/2016 - 4:12pm
Thanks, D.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 08/04/2016 - 8:36pm
Here is a link.
3 August 2016 - Trump asks why US can't use nukes.
msnbc-joe-scarborough-reports.
Bacevich is just adhering to the Holy Text of Both Siderism, spoken by the high priests of the Beltway Media Temple - both sides are always to be blamed.
by NCD on Thu, 08/04/2016 - 6:48pm
I think of Both Siderism as a tactic often used to excuse somebody rather than to accuse somebody. "So what, they do it too". Bacevich is saying that both sides are at fault, in some similar ways and some different ways, but he isn't excusing anyone. I happen to agree. Your mileage may very. Apparently it does.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 08/04/2016 - 8:44pm
I'd take our current foreign policy over the foreign policy of Eisenhower. Back then we simply picked our School of the Americas trained general and gave him the resources to take control of the country. At which point he brutally oppressed his people and gave the US what it wanted. That was the traditional plan, as your article points out, and that's the plan Putin is trying in Syria. That's just not workable for the US anymore. Active overthrow and installation of oppressive strongman isn't sop anymore. Even Bush had to make a wink and a nod to democracy in Iraq. It may not seem like much but it's enough for me to see Eisenhower as a far worse president than Obama or Hillary based on her likely foreign policy choices.
by ocean-kat on Thu, 08/04/2016 - 9:38pm
Agree. The Dulles brothers reigned supreme under Ike. Foster at State and psychopathic Allen at CIA. Recent book on them by David Talbot, The Devil's Chessboard.
by NCD on Thu, 08/04/2016 - 10:03pm
Your description of 'the traditional plan' is accurate as far as it goes. I think your description of Putin re Syria is way too simplistic. Putin did not install Assad and many credible observers have contended that Assad would have won a fair election in Syria at any time since the hostilities broke out there and would do so today. That claim seems credible to me because considering the forces aligned against him he must have a lot of internal support to have survived this long.
I guess that depends on what the meaning of 'active' is.
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 08/04/2016 - 10:29pm
Another stupid shit article - our ability to reason has gone so far down the shitter, it's unbelievable.
First of all, Hillary is "likeable" in the usual sense of the word - go have drinks with her, discuss politics, do grandma crap, watch a movie, whatever. It's only when "likeable" gets tied into 25 years of political smears that anyone may think she's not likeable. "Mistrusted" is probably the word they want, but we're too fucking stupid to know. Pity us. And since much of that "mistrust" comes from Fox News and Rush LImbaugh 24x7 and "trustworthy" assholes like Newt "shut down the government while I bang up another staffer to be wife" Gingrich, well, consider the sources, no? Guess not.
[BTW, did you know Gingrich at 19 married his 26-year-old high school geometry teacher? wonder when that started - something for a seamy Hollywood thriller, though guess she aged a bit too much over the years]
Iraq??? For fuck's sakes, how many senators voted for our horribly executed foray into Vietnam where 58,000 American soldiers were killed (1/4 black), along with millions of civilians? Do you wrap a sign of shame around any of them in particular? 1968 Humphrey was the Democratic candidate - the VP who'd helped drive us deeper into war. Nixon was the Republican candidate and ultimate winner - the VP who'd helped Eisenhower set the wheels in motion a decade earlier.
1952 & 1956 the GOP was the party of McCarthy, not Ike - whatever the grownup might have done in office, it was lipstick on a pig for all the rest of their outrages. Yeah, Mr. Congenial and what-not, and nice professorial Stevenson - fucking *twice* - how stupid were Democrats? Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis and George McGovern are probably "likeable" as well. Why should I give a shit?
Rigged elections? LBJ voted half the cemetery to get his first election, Harry Truman used a Kansas City racketeer to get elected, Kennedy used Daley's Chicago machine to steal Chicago & thus the state & thus the country in 1960 (he held up the vote count til late at night until they were sure they had the numbers - Nixon would have sued, but his guys had too much dirt on them stealing votes in southern Illinois). Talk about naïve. Elections are much cleaner and more transparent these days.
Clinton doesn't "apologize" like no one else ever apologizes (did Bush Sr. apologize for defying congress & smuggling weapons from Iran to Nicaraguan contras? I must have missed it). Nor does the left apologize for having no fucking strategy at all for how to deal realistically with uprisings and revolutions in Mideast states, how to remove Russia from Afghanistan, or how to stop crazed Islamists from blowing up embassies and hijacking planes and beheading reporters. "Sorry for being lameass motherfuckers who can only criticize others who make difficult unwinnable decisions" - not that hard... Instead, still whining about that bombed Sudanese aspirin factory & no-flight zones in Syria and what not.
Trade? in the 1950's our trade policy was overthrowing "banana republics" and having the locals pick bananas (that's what "Day-O" is about), supporting dictators like Somoza as he controlled literally 90% of the country's wealth. Are we going to compare that with TPP or say China trade policy that's increased personal wealth in that country may 20x over the last 3 decades?
whatever, that's all this one deserves - sure, 1950's were Happy Days, and the Fonz was as evil and depressing as it got, & Hillary's a cross-dressing Heath Ledger Dark Knight in drag. G'night, John Boy.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/05/2016 - 3:42am
Speaking of "stupid shit", maybe avoiding knee-jerk reaction to anything which is in any way critical of your chosen hero and instead concentrating a bit more on reading comprehension before going into a fit of ape-shit word-salad blather would make an examination and discussion of the political situation of our country a bit more productive.
Do you, actually believe that Hillary's "likeability" was the point of the article rather than one minor data point in describing the author's view of the state of our national politics, and our electoral system as exemplified by the candidates that our citizenry have parred down to two for the final electoral contest? Hillary and Trump themselves are not even the essential targets of Bacevich's thesis. His target is the American situation and how it got to be as it is. Hillary and Trump and what they represent are merely examples to illuminate his point.
Then something about a Republican jerk named Gingrich. That was to what point? Then to a defense of a stupid vote by pointing out that other politicians made the same stupid vote. If the weight of politicians vote stupidly do you claim that that makes Hillary's stupid vote somehow smart? Then a paragraph about 1952 and 1956 which presents the rhetorical question, "How stupid were Democrats?" That begs the question: How stupid are Democrats today? Have they gotten so much smarter? And why should you give a shit? You will have to answer that for yourself, I know why I give a shit.
The rest is just more of what I take to be, using NCD's word, a bothsiderism defense of Hillary even though Bacevich said clearly that Hillary is not the cause of the problems we face today but rather just a representative continuance of what has come about. He also says that of the two major candidates, Hillary is the only grownup. Of course grownups make mistakes too, sometimes innocent, sometimes cynically. You point out that politics have always included lying, cheating, vote stealing, and stupidity so why make any issue of lying, vote stealing, cheating, and stupidity when evidenced in politics today. Both sides do it so we should just accept that that is the way things are and surely not a reason to be critical of anyone doing it today. G'night, P boy.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 08/05/2016 - 11:54am
Paragraphs:
1) young boy fooled by impressions of war hero over intellectual
2) "we are the best" is illusion
3) naïve, oh but to be able to choose between those heroes!!!
4) no nostalgia, no rose-colored glasses - bad bad men. Stevenson loser
5) And Ike - regime change galore + nukes!!!
6) and Vietnam!!!
7) but still, them 2 candidates in 2016, whew...
8-10) 1's a child, neither likeable, and people like me see elections are now rigged and corrupt!!!
11) how?
12) Trump deserves it - let her fly, media hounds! on the heels of misadventure!!!
13) And Hillary, well, somehow deserves it too!!! (there's always some truth behind a scandal, no?)
14) she acts entitled
15) email, trade, Wall Street and Mideast - toss 'em all in a bag, shake 'em up - You've Got Mail!!!
16) Trumps no better, but Hillary's flawed (shakes, shivers, brrrrr....)
17) Trump = moron
18) Hillary = scripted
etc., etc. - need to go do something real, but you can guess the rest, no? If not, my sympathies.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 08/05/2016 - 12:13pm
I think it's just the opposite. I think you like articles for no other reason than that the criticize Hillary. The articles main contention is that Eisenhower, for all his faults, was manifestly better than the present candidates. I disagree. I would vote for Obama or Hillary over Eisenhower for the reasons I briefly stated above. More than that, I would vote for Jeb Bush over Eisenhower. People tend to look at the past with rose covered glasses. Can you make the case that Eisenhower's legacy of coups and installation of brutal dictators was better than what you might expect from Jeb Bush's foreign policy decisions?
by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/05/2016 - 3:02pm