History will reveal itself in due course

[hoosier]

The assassination of John F. Kennedy on Nov._22, 1963, marked the end of an American political era: the age of confident liberalism. Lyndon B. Johnson carried forward JFK's legislative legacy, cutting taxes and pushing through landmark civil rights laws. But LBJ's overambitious wars in Vietnam and on poverty were damaging to America and shattering for liberalism. The late 1960s and the 1970s saw skyrocketing crime and illegitimacy, American humiliation in Vietnam, and the tragedy of Watergate.

Finally, with the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the country hit rock bottom: malaise, gas lines, the Soviets in Afghanistan, the invasion of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Blessedly, 25 years ago today, it came to an end with the election of Ronald Reagan and the dawn of the age of confident conservatism. The ensuing two decades saw unprecedented economic growth, victory in the Cold War, and a gradual diminution of the timidity about employing U.S. military force overseas that is known as the "Vietnam syndrome." By the mid-1990s, a Democratic president was even undoing the worst excesses of LBJ's Great Society.

We're inclined to view the presidency of George W. Bush, and especially his muscular foreign policy, as a continuation of the Reagan era. There is an argument to be made on the other side: that conservatism is now in its LBJ phase, having produced swollen government at home and overextended America's capabilities abroad. The left, meanwhile, is as weak, angry and paranoid as the right was in the heyday of the John Birch society--but perhaps one day it will reconnect with reality and resurge politically.

History will reveal itself in due course, but for today let us remember how, on Nov._4, 1980, America began to reverse its decline by electing a man who shared the country's faith in itself.
- OJ

[a.e.B.O.T.]

well said, well twisted

[lifesaver]

Originally posted by hoosier

The ensuing two decades saw unprecedented economic growth, victory in the Cold War, and a gradual diminution of the timidity about employing U.S. military force overseas that is known as the "Vietnam syndrome."

You forgot that under reagan, we saw diminishing academic performance, explosive growth in the gap between rich and poor, exodus of manufacuturing jobs overseas, creation of a multi-billion dollar trade deficit and finally, the genesis, under reagan, of the multi-trillion dollar budget deficit, that was only paid down under a Democratic president, yet to be resurrected by the joke of a president known as GWB.

[DeltAlum]

"LBJ's overambitious war in Vietnam?" Let's not forget that Eisenhower actually sent the first "advisors." Johnson certainly grew the war, and Nixon took it to a new low.

I didn't like Johnson much, but to lay Vietnam totally at his feet is absurd.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
"LBJ's overambitious war in Vietnam?" Let's not forget that Eisenhower actually sent the first "advisors." Johnson certainly grew the war, and Nixon took it to a new low.

I didn't like Johnson much, but to lay Vietnam totally at his feet is absurd.

I concure - LBJ may have been a tool but to peg everthing - even your revisionist history - down to partisan political agendas is really a dis-service.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by lifesaver
You forgot that under reagan, we saw diminishing academic performance, explosive growth in the gap between rich and poor, exodus of manufacuturing jobs overseas, creation of a multi-billion dollar trade deficit and finally, the genesis, under reagan, of the multi-trillion dollar budget deficit, that was only paid down under a Democratic president, yet to be resurrected by the joke of a president known as GWB.

-Deficits are not implicitly bad - in fact, the Reagonomics defecit has much theory behind it . . .

-"Outsourcing" is not an implicit negative

- "Diminishing academic performance" is quite subjective, and may not show objective performance outcomes to support the theory

-Past that, I actually agree with much of your editorializing - but much like the OP (double meaning), you're oversimplifying.

[lifesaver]

Originally posted by KSig RC
-Deficits are not implicitly bad - in fact, the Reagonomics defecit has much theory behind it . . .

-"Outsourcing" is not an implicit negative

- "Diminishing academic performance" is quite subjective, and may not show objective performance outcomes to support the theory

-Past that, I actually agree with much of your editorializing - but much like the OP (double meaning), you're oversimplifying.

I appreciate the lesson, but my minor is in economics. I agree that outsourcing is not necessarily a negative. Those who can most efficiently produce the work, should, and there’s generally a net gain because of that. But it matters a whole lot to the textile worker who is without a job and isn’t provided the opportunity to retrain.

Quite simply, the Reagan deficits won us the cold war. We outspent the soviets. But at what cost? Are we that much safer? I'd argue the world is just as dangerous, just without the obvious, easily identifiable anxiety the cold-war duality created.

I didn’t cite sources - because I really don’t care that much and posting/arguing/replying to hoosier is like arguing with a zealot - someone who does not possess the intelligence or capability to debate in an objective fashion. You can tell - he always posts controversial articles, or one-sided articles, and then rarely if ever posts during the follow up posts/debate.

So I took the bait and decided to post something as one-sided as he does. I don’t know why I do it, but I guess I am hoping that something will click in his reptilian brain and make him realize that most of us 1) don’t care for his opinion (not that he cares if we care - cause he’s selfish like that) and 2) and that contrary to what he has openly expressed on GC, that we are not these blind, mindless children who have all been indoctrinated by the liberal elite in academia (its pathetic to still buy into that argument, don’t you think?) and aren’t capable of forming our own thoughts. Like we sit around waiting for his ruminations or something and he does this out of some twisted paternalism on his part.

Pathetic really.

[_Q_]

Originally posted by lifesaver
You forgot that under reagan, we saw diminishing academic performance, explosive growth in the gap between rich and poor, exodus of manufacuturing jobs overseas, creation of a multi-billion dollar trade deficit and finally, the genesis, under reagan, of the multi-trillion dollar budget deficit, that was only paid down under a Democratic president, yet to be resurrected by the joke of a president known as GWB.

The Prince Myshkins have a pretty funny song about Reagan - you can see the lyrics at http://www.princemyshkins.com/remember.html .

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
"LBJ's overambitious war in Vietnam?" Let's not forget that Eisenhower actually sent the first "advisors." Johnson certainly grew the war, and Nixon took it to a new low.

I didn't like Johnson much, but to lay Vietnam totally at his feet is absurd.

I saw a show on the History Channel that said that Truman actually began our involvment in Vietnam.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by hoosier
The assassination of John F. Kennedy on Nov._22, 1963, marked the end of an American political era: the age of confident liberalism.

I disagree with that. The percentage if Americans who identified themselves as Liberals reached its peak under LBJ at 50%. I would argue that American "Liberalism," which is really a misnomer as its really social-democracy, was crippled by Watergate.

The Nixon administration, Watergate and Vietnam aside, was the last administration that had a credibly ambitious social agenda. On the table were market mechanisms to ensure that all Americans had housing and health insurance.

One of the great ironys of American History is that Nixon's push for universal health coverage was killed by Sen. Ted Kennedy, because it was not completely government run . Those who know Sen. Kennedy say that he now regerts this because it was the last time that there was a realistic opportunity to provide all Americans with health coverage.

On the surface, it would seem that Watergate should have weakened the Republican Party. What it did do was help weaken American's trust in government. This, by extension, helped strengthen the Republican Party.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by lifesaver
I appreciate the lesson, but my minor is in economics.

Not meant to be a lesson, dude - I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject, I was just pointing out some elements of gray area in the discussion . . .

Originally posted by lifesaver
So I took the bait and decided to post something as one-sided as he does.

. . . because I didn't realize this was happening.

No worries.

[KSigkid]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
I saw a show on the History Channel that said that Truman actually began our involvment in Vietnam.

I'd heard a little bit about that as well during college. I think it's interesting people still pin all the blame about Vietnam on Johnson when the wheels had been turning for a number of years before then.

He made some awful mistakes during his presidency, but you can't pin the entirety of Vietnam on him.

[GeekyPenguin]

I hear there was this guy who was president from 1992-2000 or so. What was his name again? He did something with some sort of surplus.

[lifesaver]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Not meant to be a lesson, dude - I don't doubt your knowledge on the subject, I was just pointing out some elements of gray area in the discussion . . .



. . . because I didn't realize this was happening.

No worries.

No prob, Rob.

[Tom Earp]

Had never heard anything about My Man and Brother HST being the one who began the Viet Nam conflict (WAR). If memories serve me correctly, Truman Fired Mc Carther as He wanted to control SE Asia alone.

JFK, dumped on the Cubans on the Bay Of Pigs fiasco. JFK was killed in Dallas. Anyone driven the route that knows anything about fire arms. One Man alone?

LBJ took over of course, but McNamara was a Key Behind the scenes player. Nam was of course a Political war and that is the reason so many people were killed and We lost.

Regan, why is He so reveared? He did make a great presentation at Cheif of State, but He was an Actor. Not even a good one.

Clinton, Well give Bill credit, He had maybe as much sex as JFK did but was caught big time. Hillary was nearly as reveared as JFKs wife.

Nixon, well, He was the consumate Polotitcion wasnt He for all of the dirty tricks and got caught. Chine Really liked Him and didnt understand American Polotical thinking of kicking Him out!

Jimmy Carter, well that is all I can say. Better carpenter than a Pres.

GW, placed in power, run by Power Brokers and Money (Big Bus). He has helped take this country to a new low. While His intentions may be good, look at what He and The Replican led Congress it is trying to do the the Mid and Lower Class, the Elderly and the Poor.


Ted Kennedy as a side bar should have been prosecuted. He should not still be in Office either along with some of the To Long in the tooth Legislatures.

but, Watch out for Sam Brownback of Ks. I say that not in a positive frame either. See how He is playing the Political Game!