[Peace-discuss] Nixon the last liberal prez...

[n.dahlheim at mchsi.com]

David,
    You could make a very strong argument for Nixon being the last liberal (at least on domestic affairs) 
president this country has had.  Many would instantly name President Carter as the last liberal, but 
remember the war in Afghanistan where the CIA trained the mujhadeen fighters who would eventually 
constitute Al-Qaeda began under Carter with the aid and planning of Zbigniew Brezinski---the 
Democratic counterpart to Kissinger.  Also, the Carter Doctrine officially committed the United States to 
military dominance in the Middle East---this before the Iranian Revolution and the emergence of 
Reagan-Bush to office.  Yes, Carter brokered the meeting of Begin and Sadat; yes, he increased foreign 
aid to Africa; yes, he returned the Panama Canal (at least officially) to the Panamanian people---but, 
the earlier events had much more of an effect upon the course of American foreign policy.  Finally, on 
domestic affiars; Carter partially deregulated water and electrical utilities nationwide as well as the 
airlines which paved the way for the ill-fated air traffic controllers strike under Reagan.  De-regulated 
airlines resulted in clogged hubs and impossible traffic conditions that had overstretched the 
underpaid, overworked air traffic controllers.
   Finally, Nixon also funded the NIH and cancer research heavily, passed the Clean Air Act of 1970, 
produced a report recommending the decriminalization of marijuana (a no-brainer there), as well as 
used wage and price controls to prevent inflation from draining the savings of the poor and elderly on 
fixed incomes....  Stuff that Carter never did when inflation was generally worse from 1978-1982 
(under Reagan the economy still fell even further).  
   Sadly, after Nixon de-regulation and "law and order" (especially Reagan-Bush 41's twelve years) as 
well as new rounds of imperialist wars fought with covert ops and our "all-volunteer" military have 
become the norm---Democrat or Republican has ceased to matter as the overall template for action 
has seemingly been set in stone.  
    I am not hailing Tricky Dick as some great man, but he was nevertheless an astute politician (if not 
cunning and lying on the Pentagon Papers, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Watergate) whose domestic 
policies represented those of a liberal pragmatist rather than that of the neoliberal consensus so 
draining the wealth and power of the United States into the coffers of rich bankers, industrialists, 
warmakers, CEO's, and worthless entertainers at the expense of our cities, our middle class, our family 
farms, and our economic security more generally.
       Nick


----------------------  Original Message:  ---------------------
From:    David Green <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
To:      Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] on Kucinich and Paul
Date:    Tue, 13 Nov 2007 19:03:57 +0000

> LBJ ran in 1964 as the peace candidate in contrast to Goldwater, even after his 
> provocation in the Gulf of Tonkin. Reagan ran as opposed to government spending, 
> and then increased the military budget by 3-fold, if I recall correctly, 
> exploding the deficit. Nixon used the southern stategy and exploited class/race 
> resenement regarding the minimal northern gains of the Civil Rights Movement, 
> and then implemented a large federal jobs program and affirmative action in the 
> construction trades, making him the last liberal president, in that sense.
> 
> "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:  There's very little correlation. 
> Remember Bush the Less campaigned
> against the Clinton admin's "nation building."
> 
> Classic case is the 1932 election, when FDR campaigned against incumbent
> Herbert Hoover in the midst of the Great Depression. At the center of
> FDR's campaign was a promise to balance the budget, over against
> Hoover's deficit spending!
> 
> Roosevelt said: "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the 
> American people", coining a slogan that was later adopted for his 
> legislative program as well as his new coalition. But during the 
> campaign, it meant the opposite of what it came to mean. Roosevelt 
> campaigned on the Democratic platform advocating "immediate and drastic 
> reductions of all public expenditures" and for a "sound currency to be 
> maintained at all hazards."
> 
> In some cases expediency, in others flat-out lies. To the latter
> category belong John Kennedy's 1960 "missile gap" scare stories, which
> Kennedy knew weren't true. (But his belligerent, semi-fascist rhetoric
> was all too true and announced what was probably the most dangerous
> admin until the current one.) --CGE
> 
> 
> Karen Medina wrote:
> > Peace discuss,
> > 
> > Anyone know some good political science studies that look at the 
> > campaigns of presidential candidates and then the terms in office 
> > that shows what they say and what they end up doing.
> > 
> > I know we all get general impressions and there are media reports 
> > that summarize things like the first 100 days in office, but I am 
> > more interested in a deeper analysis. Can anyone suggest one?
> > 
> > With regard to Tom Mackaman's complaint that one particular person 
> > did not stand up for the peace demonstrators as they were removed 
> > from the Democratic National Convention, was there anyone who did 
> > stand up for the demonstrators? And ultimately is there anything we 
> > can say about all of those who did not defend the demonstrators?
> > 
> > Who would Ron Paul have defended?
> > 
> > -karen medina
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss