[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Re: [Discuss] Fw: What hath got rot?

[Laurie Solomon]

I have no qualms with this analysis except one:  I think your first 
paragraph is a cheap shot.   I can only assume that that is how you describe 
and consider anyone who says anything good about Obama and maybe about any 
chief magistrate including Nixon who you appear to praise.  In praising his 
actions - even if they were begrudging and against what he really  wanted, 
are not you also" identifying with the aggressor"?

Having said that, I only want to note that, while you note correctly - I 
believe - that the Nixon Administration was more liberal than any other 
President or administration  that came after him or it and that the whole 
political spectrum has been shifting to the right more and more every year 
to the point that it is now very far to the right, you appear to not give 
much significance to the fact that the political environment during the 
Nixon period and even prior to it allowed the Nixon Administration to be as 
liberal as they were; but now the political environment has changed and no 
President or administration since then could be that liberal or progressive 
and get away with it - much less survive- in the period that came after 
Nixon.  Thus, holding this or any other administration that came after 
Nixon's up to the Nixon Administration might comprise a very unfair 
comparison historically and analytically.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "C. G. ESTABROOK" <cge at shout.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:52 PM
To: "Melodye Rosales" <melodye at nitrogendesign.com>
Cc: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>; "Marti Wilkinson" 
<martiwilki at gmail.com>; "peace discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>; 
"socialist forum core" <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>; "C-U Citzens for Peace and 
Justice" <discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org>
Subject: [sf-core] Re: [Peace-discuss] [Discuss] Fw:  What hath got rot?

> It's hard to make sense of this statement, but it seems to be praise for 
> our
> chief magistrate.  As such, it seems to be an example of what some
> psychoanalysts call "identification with the aggressor."
>
> Sticking to political as opposed to psychological analysis, it's clear 
> that the
> health "reform" enacted by the current administration is substantially to 
> the
> right of that offered by the Nixon administration (and torpedoed by 
> Democrats).
>  Here's what the Nixon administration was talking about a generation ago:
> <http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/September/03/nixon-proposal.aspx>.
>
> In terms of effect (as opposed to the personal commitments of leading 
> members)
> the Nixon administration was clearly the most liberal administration since 
> WWII,
> from the EPA to the negative income tax. It was driven to be so, against 
> its
> will, by the accumulated political demands of "the sixties."  It took a 
> major
> counterattack by capital, under the name "neoliberalism," beginning in the
> Carter administration, to roll it back.
>
> Nixon in the early 1970s proposed to reform welfare by replacing it with a
> guaranteed annual income; Clinton reformed it by abolishing AFDC. "Only 
> Nixon
> could go to China"; only Clinton could destroy welfare.
>
> Today's Democratic Party, on economic policy and social welfare policy at 
> least,
> is well to the right of the Republican Party during the days of Nixon and 
> Ford.
> In fact the entire political spectrum in the US has shifted far to the 
> right,
> such that the liberal/left would be ecstatic if even single-payer could 
> ever be
> established here.
>
> That's the result of 30 years of reaction: we frogs think the water is 
> quite
> temperate, thank you.  Try not to notice that real wages have not risen in
> America in that time.
>
>
> Melodye Rosales wrote:
>> Impossible to please everyone---Bush bankrupt us for 8 years 
>> straight---so we
>> are trying to tackle an ambitious and financially expensive task----even 
>> if
>> we are doing it one dime at a time!
>>
>> To echo those poor souls who were victims of the Stockholder's Bean 
>> Counter
>> approach to the Health Care industry,
>>
>> /"CHANGE is never perfect. It's always gonna have its critics, Monday 
>> night
>> quarterbacks, and when one thing doesn't go as planned---you're gonna 
>> have
>> your share of "I told you so, you so'n'so"  But Thank the Lawd we have
>> somebody willin' to take on Goliath! Somebody who is willing to try 
>> something
>> different because they see the suffering getting worse--- not better.
>>
>> Thank the Lawd almighty that we might  get at least one good clasp on the
>> monopoly that has been insulating the Health Care industry, keeping us 
>> from
>> pull it apart ----just enough---- to open the possibility for fair trade 
>> and
>> competition.  Then--just maybe---we will encourage enough David's to step
>> forward, enabling them to gain access to the support needed to maintain 
>> and
>> sustain alternative venues for citizens of the most powerful country in 
>> the
>> world to have the medical means to finally live long enough to enjoy the
>> fruits of their work in this Land of Plenty. GOD BLESS AMERICA and my
>> President, Obama!!!" /
>>
>> So, my trillion dollar question, "Who, before President Obama, was able 
>> or
>> willing to provide a plan to include the 'have nots'? And, though the 
>> Health
>> Care Bill is not a perfect piece of legislation, give me one that is, one
>> that has gone this far to include a mass of people regardless of age, 
>> gender,
>> economics, religion, political party affiliation or ethnicity?  Who?"
>>
>> It never ceases to amaze me how some of the biggest critics (on every
>> subject) coming out of the shadows have done---- what?
>>
>> I, for one, am so tired of the endless critics who cast blame and carry 
>> no
>> sustainable solutions.
>>
>> Even locally, though I know most of you and believe you accomplish a
>> tremendous amount of good and goodwill--------I am still waiting for the
>> demonstrations and forums associated with, to stop being the end all 
>> answer
>> to every inequitable problem and voter education and voter drives to 
>> become
>> the new wave mantra, motivator, and means to exercise the voices of 
>> change to
>> CHANGE the system into a more equitable playing field------right inside
>> Champaign County. Not just during the voting season---but year 'round. 
>> Let's
>> start here.  The place where we live. We need registered voters who 
>> actually
>> vote. We need to get them to the polls.  That is where CHANGE truly 
>> begins
>> and ends.
>>
>> -Melodye
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core/
>
> <*> Your email settings:
>    Individual Email | Traditional
>
> <*> To change settings online go to:
>    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sf-core/join
>    (Yahoo! ID required)
>
> <*> To change settings via email:
>    sf-core-digest at yahoogroups.com
>    sf-core-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    sf-core-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.