PDA

View Full Version : US Presidents Reconsidered - By Death Toll


L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-10-2014, 10:15 PM
In this interview with Al Carroll, author of President's Body Counts: The Twelve Worst and Four Best American Presidents Based on How Many Lived or Died Because of Their Actions, US presidents are reviewed on a wholly new basis. Presidential histories and analysis of accomplishments and failures come in myriad forms, but no one has looked at the presidency quite the way historian and professor Al Carroll does in his new book, President's Body Counts: The Twelve Worst and Four Best American Presidents Based on How Many Lived or Died Because of Their Actions (http://www.amazon.com/Presidents-Body-Counts-American-Because-ebook/dp/B00KMU2X0S/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1406567008&sr=1-3&keywords=al+carroll). In his introduction, "How to Judge a President, or the Presidency if Human Life Matters," Carroll, a professor of American, American Indian and Latin American history, sets up the unique premise of the book: The methodology used in this book is simple: Did a president commit actions that knowingly led directly to the deaths of innocents? If yes, then that president belongs in a category for the degree of evil they carried out, the number of mass deaths. The categories are ranked in order of how many were killed as a result and how culpable a president is for these deaths, from outright genocide to the smaller numbers of deaths that occur during periods of mass incarceration of dissidents. Each president within that category is further ranked by the number of deaths, the most prolific killers at the top.
Each section begins with a definition of the category. This is followed by several brief summaries of the facts before going into a detailed discussion:

What: A quick summary of the atrocities done.

The Body Count: How many deaths, based on the best credible estimates.

Who Also Gets the Blame: Discussion of who besides the president is guilty of causing these atrocities, or who is often blamed.
[In two later sections,] "The Good Records of Presidents" and "What If? Who Would Have Been Far Better at Saving Lives as President?," the summaries are only a slightly bit different:

What: A quick summary of the events likely to lead to many lives saved.

The Number of Lives Saved: The most credible estimates, generally based on the events that presidents could have avoided.

Who Also Gets the Credit: Others, public officials, leaders, or social movements, that also played a part in saving many lives.
Presidents are listed in order of the worst of all first, in terms of numbers of atrocities and degree of blame and evil.
Truthout recently spoke with Al Carroll about the book.

Peter Handel: What caused you to take what could be termed a rather unusual approach to presidential history?
Al Carroll: Presidents are routinely ranked every year, and it's often partisan. The Federalist Society even named [George W.] Bush the sixth greatest president of all time, during the worst of the Iraq War. Too many of these rankings are simple-minded, "Let's cheer for our side or point of view."

We need both an objective way to rank and an imminently practical one. Who lived better as a result of these men's actions?
Better yet, who lived or died because of them?

A key perspective you write from is how the concept of genocide is defined. Could you briefly elaborate on how you frame the definition and its subsequent manifestations?

Genocide was a term coined by Raphael Lemkin right after the Holocaust. What was important to me is that the reader see how governments and leaders try to avoid using it because admitting genocide is going on in places like Darfur requires them to take action to stop it. Many Americans are also reluctant or were never taught that genocide has happened here, in America, and was worst of all in California. There were also some presidents that ignored genocides, as recently as Clinton ignoring Rwandan genocide.

Which president's actions do you consider the most egregious?

Nixon was the worst by far for what he did in Cambodia, what many argue was outright genocide. He ordered the carpet bombing and invasion of a neutral nation for no other reason than to convince conservatives he was still tough on communism. Half a million were killed, including 50,000 executions.

Nixon also ignored genocide against Bangladesh, continued a program of mass torture far worse than GW Bush's, ordered chemical warfare in Vietnam, and pardoned a mass murderer of women and children, Lieutenant Calley at My Lai.
Reagan was a close second for collaborating with genocide in Guatemala. But he did not initiate it as Nixon did in Cambodia.

We've had 43 different presidents - how many do you discuss in the book?

The 12 worst presidents: Nixon, Reagan, Jackson, Buchanan, Polk, Fillmore, Clinton, Ford, Truman, McKinley, GW Bush and Andrew Johnson. The four best: Lincoln, Van Buren, Carter and Grant.

Plus five more that carried out both great evil and great good: Jefferson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Bush Sr. and Obama.
There are some surprises in that supposed greats like Washington were stable presences at best. But how many people can name anything Washington did besides being first? Several presidents deserve dishonorable mention, including Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and Eisenhower.

You also delve into numerous candidates, wannabe candidates and various politicians such as Ross Perot, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and Dick Cheney. How do they fit into your overall analysis of the various presidents?

It's important that people see and think about how things may have been different based on the choices of who we vote for. Had McCain been elected, he likely would not have lived through his whole term and we would all have to deal with President Palin. There was a failed assassination attempt on GW Bush that could have given us President Cheney. Either one would have given us a longer Iraq War and likely a war with Iran.

While war is probably responsible for the highest "body counts," you also cite numerous other instances of lives lost due to presidential actions, such as the ongoing war on drugs and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Can you explain?

How many died because of the failed war on drugs is hard to say. But we can point to times when it was a literal war. Panama was invaded by Bush Sr. as part of the drug war, killing perhaps 3,000. In Colombia, in part, chemical warfare: spraying herbicides to kill coca and marijuana that don't work because they can be easily washed off. But the chemical does poison farmers, water supplies and food crops. Many don't realize that the drone program under Obama also includes assassinations in Colombia.

Most of the deaths in Katrina were preventable. The clearest example of that is Hurricane Sandy, with less than one-tenth the deaths though the area had a higher population.

In Section Nine, "What Ifs? Who would have been far better as presidents?" you speculate on numerous alternative scenarios involving, for instance, no invasion of Iraq by an Al Gore presidency or what Robert Kennedy might have done about the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Can you give us a few more examples of these "What ifs?"

RFK publicly called for complete withdrawal from Vietnam. He would have had to do so before the 1970 midterm elections for his party to do well. This means 20,000 or more US troops do not die and at least half of a million Vietnamese don't either. Even better, RFK would never have ordered genocide against Cambodia as Nixon did.
Gore would not have called for invading Iraq, but would have invaded Afghanistan. A focus on just Afghanistan means it is likely Bin Laden could have been caught much sooner.

Who are some of the presidents you consider "better" - ones who chose a less violent and destructive ideological approach to potential genocidal situations they faced?

Lincoln is widely regarded as our best president and I agree, but for different reasons. More important than keeping the US united is ending slavery. Slaves had a mortality rate double that of free people. Every year, slavery continued to kill at least tens of thousands of black children.

Most are unaware that Lincoln also helped bring an end to California Indian genocide. Most Americans don't even know there was a genocide in California, where the Native [American] population was mass murdered or enslaved, dropping from 180-300,000 to just 30,000 in 15 years. Lincoln ended California Indian slavery as well as black slavery.

Finally, defeating the Confederacy prevented them from their planned invasions of Mexico, Cuba and the Dominican Republic to create more slave states. The Confederacy also planned to bring back the slave trade, banned in the US since 1808. That's hundreds of thousands more lives saved.

Jimmy Carter also is a great humanitarian president. His human rights policy saved at least 50,000 dissidents and helped bring democracy to two-dozen nations. He also rescued over 100,000 refugees from communism, helped end the Cold War sooner, and prevented wars in the Mideast with the Camp David treaty.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/25376-us-presidents-reconsidered-by-death-toll

SoCalBronco
08-10-2014, 11:17 PM
Lol

What an awful methodology. Whoever is a dove gets a high score....whoever doesn't sucks! Virtually any large scale military action will lead to deaths, including sometimes of innocents and yes sometimes knowingly. Methods which place guys like Grant and Carter at the top tells you all you need to know.

Yeah, that's an evenhanded way of deciding it. Glad to see them criticizing others for "let's cheer for our point of view" and then ranking people based on their point of view.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-10-2014, 11:46 PM
Lol

What an awful methodology. Whoever is a dove gets a high score....whoever doesn't sucks! .

Um, yeah - that's sort of the idea inasmuch as the study attempts to rank presidents by death toll.

You're undoubtedly sore because your hero (deservedly) is #1 on the "worst" list.

In any event, the study is pretty even-handed and non-partisan, so don't blame the author if the truth hurts.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-10-2014, 11:50 PM
Virtually any large scale military action will lead to deaths, including sometimes of innocents and yes sometimes knowingly.

Unlike you, the author doesn't attempt to spin or rationalize these deaths for better or worse.

We're simply talking numbers, e.g., body counts, here.

SoCalBronco
08-10-2014, 11:53 PM
The truth doesn't hurt because it isn't a practical way of ranking people. It is a hypocritical methodology. You don't criticize Group A for ranking people based on cheering for their side and then turn around and put together a system that is heavily slanted towards doves. It assumes there is only one proper view of foreign policy and forces everyone under that standard. That's not how it works. Foreign policy and protecting interests is often messy, bloody and involves terrible choices.

If you want a benevolent world leader who cares about all the worlds people, go read a Marvel comic book. Not everyone subscribes to that view, so forcing everyone under that narrow standard of how many deaths did you cause is dumb.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-11-2014, 12:10 AM
^

The study is about as balanced and non-partisan as it gets, so the only "hypocrisy" here is in your mind.

I notice you don't attempt to dispute the factual assertions in the study - you merely rationalize/minimize/justify the deaths enumerated.

That says a lot about your conscience (or lack thereof.)

Reality check: What Nixon did to Cambodia was immoral, unconscionable and inexcusable.

SoCalBronco
08-11-2014, 12:18 AM
^

The study is about as balanced and non-partisan as it gets, so the only "hypocrisy" here is in your mind.

I notice you don't attempt to dispute the factual assertions in the study - you merely rationalize/minimize/justify the deaths enumerated.

That says a lot about your conscience (or lack thereof.)

Reality check: What Nixon did to Cambodia was immoral, unconscionable and inexcusable.

It isn't balanced because again it's hypocritical. Take the India Pakistan example. Bad...bad US you allowed a genocide to occur and did nothing but tilt towards Pakistan. Well tilting towards Pakistan was in the US strategic interests because Pakistan was helping us build a connection to China which would split the communist world and alter the balance of power. Carroll's analysis doesn't take into account any of that.....he says look at the loss of life, that's the end of the analysis. Yeah, that's stupid...so no it isn't balanced at all, because he is forcing one view onto every leader and says if someone else's doesn't match his own, then they suck.

Which would be ok until he criticized someone else for ranking leaders based on their views. Maybe he should you know....stop being a hypocrite.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-11-2014, 12:28 AM
^

What India/Pakistan example?

In any case, you've made it clear that you are willing to rationalize or excuse any atrocity as long as it can somehow be construed as "in our interests" (read: quests to steal resources that belong to others or to enrich the usual cast of war profiteers.)

Arkie
08-11-2014, 01:40 AM
I'm really happy for Obama, but Jimmy Carter was the best Nobel Peace Prize winner of all time! All he did was fund mujahideen and back Indonesia's genocide.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-11-2014, 02:13 AM
I'm really happy for Obama...

Obama almost single-handedly turned the award into a travesty and a joke.


...but Jimmy Carter was the best Nobel Peace Prize winner of all time! All he did was fund mujahideen...(sic)

That was Reagan.

...and back Indonesia's genocide.

I'd like to see some actual evidence for this.

Rohirrim
08-11-2014, 08:19 AM
What I find sickly funny in all this, is that if Nixon were alive today, he'd be driven out of the modern Republican Party for being too liberal. Ha!

All that aside, he should have gone to jail. That pardon was one of the worst things that ever happened in our history. You could almost say it was the first incidence of "Too big to fail, too big to jail" that has now become a common theme among the American elite.

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 11:59 AM
Stupid is not stopping the Soviets under the pretext of stopping people from being killed, as if somehow by the record of Marxist regimes it's not patently obvious that NOT stopping them kills FAR more people.

But that would require higher order thinking.

W*GS
08-12-2014, 12:38 PM
Stupid is not stopping the Soviets under the pretext of stopping people from being killed, as if somehow by the record of Marxist regimes it's not patently obvious that NOT stopping them kills FAR more people.

But that would require higher order thinking.

"We have to destroy the village to save it".

AFAICT, you'd kill 10 to keep the Commies from killing 10.

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 12:45 PM
What I find sickly funny in all this, is that if Nixon were alive today, he'd be driven out of the modern Republican Party for being too liberal. Ha!

JFK advocated what you call 'trickle down economics.'

I do believe that makes him an evil corporatist bastard in your philosophical corner, does it not?

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 12:46 PM
"We have to destroy the village to save it".

AFAICT, you'd kill 10 to keep the Commies from killing 10.

Except as usual you come up with these weird cliches and sayings to respond to what I said.

You're position advocates sacrificing the many to presumably save a few lives. History shows you're wrong.

Rohirrim
08-12-2014, 12:48 PM
JFK advocated what you call 'trickle down economics.'

I do believe that makes him an evil corporatist bastard in your philosophical corner, does it not?

You can make the dead say whatever you want them to say. The Right Wingers sure hated JFK when he was alive. Now he's their hero. Ha!

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 12:59 PM
You can make the dead say whatever you want them to say. The Right Wingers sure hated JFK when he was alive. Now he's their hero. Ha!

I'm not the one quoting him. I was quoting him as quoted by Thomas Sowell. Do you think there is a conspiracy on his part to misquote Kennedy?

Either way, since you think there is a conspiracy to misquote Kennedy, then correct the claimed misquotes with evidence otherwise.

If you fail to do so, then you're talking out of your butt and making **** up.

Again.

Rohirrim
08-12-2014, 01:09 PM
I'm not the one quoting him. I was quoting him as quoted by Thomas Sowell. Do you think there is a conspiracy on his part to misquote Kennedy?

Either way, since you think there is a conspiracy to misquote Kennedy, then correct the claimed misquotes with evidence otherwise.

If you fail to do so, then you're talking out of your butt and making **** up.

Again.

But that's not what Sowell said, is it? He said JFK, Wilson and Keynes all agreed that taxes that are too high can be counter-productive. JFK was operating at a time when the top rate was 90%. He favored lowering taxes and closing loopholes, a reasonable act of stewardship for the post-war era of his times, and certainly not ideological.

So, you have misrepresented JFK and also misrepresented Sowell. In other words, "...talking out of your butt and making **** up."

nyuk nyuk
08-12-2014, 01:13 PM
But that's not what Sowell said, is it? He said JFK, Wilson and Keynes all agreed that taxes that are too high can be counter-productive. JFK was operating at a time when the top rate was 90%. He favored lowering taxes and closing loopholes, a reasonable act of stewardship for the post-war era of his times, and certainly not ideological.

So, you have misrepresented JFK and also misrepresented Sowell. In other words, "...talking out of your butt and making **** up."

Except you've given not a single document as a source, unlike I have.

Rohirrim
08-12-2014, 01:56 PM
Except you've given not a single document as a source, unlike I have.

Not on this thread, you haven't.

TonyR
08-12-2014, 02:03 PM
Really interesting read on Rick Perlstein's The Invisible Bridge. Sounds like a fascinating book.

http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/liturgy-absolution/

...The Invisible Bridge devotes a significant portion of its second half to following Jimmy Carter’s road to the presidency, and the most striking sense one gets from the story is that — despite our present historical common sense — Carter was, in some ways, as capable as Reagan at speaking to the country’s desire for newborn innocence.

Yet Carter ultimately failed. Reagan succeeded: even to his detractors he is a world-historical figure, apparently important in a way Carter cannot be even to his greatest admirers. Part of that, Perlstein claims, is the luck of history: Carter came first and inherited an economy Richard Nixon ruined while Reagan benefited from the recovery that followed. But the better part of their difference was in how they displaced and rationalized their personal objectives in terms of public interest.

“Where Reagan and Carter converge,” Perlstein explains, “They’re telling a story about American innocence. But where they diverge is that Carter believed that in order to achieve that innocence, we had to acknowledge all of the damage that was going on.” In other words, we needed the painful reckoning. “Whereas Reagan’s intuition was the confidence with which he never even acknowledged those problems existed.”

Reagan offered the easy way out: the story of America that had never lost its innocence, where all the apparent upheavals of our trauma were not rooted in our national character, but in forces outside of it. “Carter's appeal at the time was that he spoke to this mood in the dominant political culture that something was deeply wrong,” Perlstein told me, “but for Reagan, the idea was that the things that were wrong were foreign forces, things that weren’t really America at all. All our troubles with race, with violence, with corruption: they had somehow invaded America like a bacillus.”

“What Reagan was saying was that there is nothing in Watergate, for example, that's essential to the American character. That it can be wished away because America is fundamentally decent and good. He just kept on saying it. And the fact that he said with such confidence gave people a kind of psychological permission to believe the same thing.”

This is what Perlstein calls the “liturgy of absolution”: Ronald Reagan’s capacity to cleanse America of its transgressions without the pain of self-reflection. For those who saw the heroic hometown lifeguard, this liturgy was the salve that put their troubled minds at ease. But for those who saw the man in search of a medal, it was the essence of Reagan’s sin, the moment we surrendered our last, best chance to heal ourselves. The fairy tale was more appealing. The division of a people, laid bare by their reaction to a leader: in exposing this, at least, The Invisible Bridge achieves Perlstein’s stated goal.

Rohirrim
08-12-2014, 02:18 PM
Really interesting read on Rick Perlstein's The Invisible Bridge. Sounds like a fascinating book.

http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/liturgy-absolution/

In other words, life sucks, but not when you're on Prozac!

It's the American way. :puff:

Carter was reality. Reagan was Prozac.

I'm reading Wolin's Democracy, Inc. He also argues that one of the elements launched by the Reagan revolution was something he calls "archaism." It's a belief in the past. Somewhere back in American time there was a perfect America with "real" American values and "real" Americans. They were bigger, stronger, smarter and just all around better than us, and of course, Right Wing politics and laissez faire economics will take us right back to those halcyon days. A whole bunch of myth, but people lap it up.

Requiem
08-12-2014, 02:45 PM
In other words, life sucks, but not when you're on Prozac!

It's the American way. :puff:

Carter was reality. Reagan was Prozac.

I'm reading Wolin's Democracy, Inc. He also argues that one of the elements launched by the Reagan revolution was something he calls "archaism." It's a belief in the past. Somewhere back in American time there was a perfect America with "real" American values and "real" Americans. They were bigger, stronger, smarter and just all around better than us, and of course, Right Wing politics and laissez faire economics will take us right back to those halcyon days. A whole bunch of myth, but people lap it up.

What happens to people who remain static in a dynamic world?

mhgaffney
08-12-2014, 06:34 PM
I'm really happy for Obama, but Jimmy Carter was the best Nobel Peace Prize winner of all time! All he did was fund mujahideen and back Indonesia's genocide.

It appears you are a decade off.

The genocide in Indonesia happened in the 1960s -- not the 1970s.

Arkie
08-12-2014, 06:56 PM
I'm talking about the invasion of East Timor. Carter stepped up U.S. military aid to the Jakarta regime as it continued to murder Timorese civilians. By the time Carter left office, about 180,000 people had been slaughtered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_invasion_of_East_Timor

While the US government claimed to have suspended military assistance from December 1975 to June 1976, military aid was actually above what the US Department of State proposed and the US Congress continued to increase it, nearly doubling it.[71] The US also made four new offers of arms, including supplies and parts for 16 OV-10 Broncos,[71] which, according to Cornell University Professor Benedict Anderson, are "specially designed for counter-insurgency actions against adversaries without effective anti-aircraft weapons and wholly useless for defending Indonesia against a foreign enemy." The policy continued under the Carter administration. In total, the United States furnished over $250,000,000 of military assistance to Indonesia between 1975 and 1979.[73]

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-14-2014, 01:55 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/10406959_10152320882591094_7893497515655686616_n.j pg

BroncoLifer
08-14-2014, 10:10 AM
Took you until page 2 of the thread to bust out a cartoon? You're slipping, dude, slipping.

BroncoBeavis
08-14-2014, 10:28 AM
In other words, life sucks, but not when you're on Prozac!

It's the American way. :puff:

Carter was reality. Reagan was Prozac.

I'm reading Wolin's Democracy, Inc. He also argues that one of the elements launched by the Reagan revolution was something he calls "archaism." It's a belief in the past. Somewhere back in American time there was a perfect America with "real" American values and "real" Americans. They were bigger, stronger, smarter and just all around better than us, and of course, Right Wing politics and laissez faire economics will take us right back to those halcyon days. A whole bunch of myth, but people lap it up.

Funny. You preach a similar faith with your talk of labor-driven golden ages from about the same era.

Rohirrim
08-14-2014, 10:30 AM
Funny. You preach a similar faith with your talk of labor-driven golden ages from about the same era.

Where? When? Which? Show it.

BroncoBeavis
08-14-2014, 10:43 AM
Where? When? Which? Show it.

Uh, just from a quick glance...

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3874585&postcount=23

Can't believe you'd argue with someone holding you to one of your own core tenets.

"These damn Republicans and wanting to go back to things they thought worked better! Morans!

Now where was I?
Oh yeah, it all started when we repealed Glass Steagall!"

Rohirrim
08-14-2014, 10:46 AM
Uh, just from a quick glance...

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3874585&postcount=23

Can't believe you'd argue with someone holding you to one of your own core tenets.

"These damn Republicans and wanting to go back to things they thought worked better! Morans!

Now where was I?
Oh yeah, it all started when we repealed Glass Steagall!"

The level of your idiocy is astonishing.

BroncoBeavis
08-14-2014, 10:54 AM
The level of your idiocy is astonishing.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6d/ce/ec/6dceec4ba03537d14fa1c7715788f165.jpg

Johnykbr
08-14-2014, 11:08 AM
In other words, life sucks, but not when you're on Prozac!

It's the American way. :puff:

Carter was reality. Reagan was Prozac.

I'm reading Wolin's Democracy, Inc. He also argues that one of the elements launched by the Reagan revolution was something he calls "archaism." It's a belief in the past. Somewhere back in American time there was a perfect America with "real" American values and "real" Americans. They were bigger, stronger, smarter and just all around better than us, and of course, Right Wing politics and laissez faire economics will take us right back to those halcyon days. A whole bunch of myth, but people lap it up.

I see no difference between this and the Progressive "re-emergence" that was launched with reverence towards FDR.

Nor do I truly see anything wrong with this. Both parties relish a "golden age" of their philosophy. The interesting thing is that both are actually combing the philosophies of different presidencies. Reagan's approach is a combination of Ike's social values and Coolidge's economics (though skewed). The current Progressive is what I would consider to be Carter's idealism and FDR's one-stop shopping government.

Human nature.

Rohirrim
08-14-2014, 01:28 PM
I see no difference between this and the Progressive "re-emergence" that was launched with reverence towards FDR.

Nor do I truly see anything wrong with this. Both parties relish a "golden age" of their philosophy. The interesting thing is that both are actually combing the philosophies of different presidencies. Reagan's approach is a combination of Ike's social values and Coolidge's economics (though skewed). The current Progressive is what I would consider to be Carter's idealism and FDR's one-stop shopping government.

Human nature.

Except that, in the "archaism" that the Right sells, the nation was in a blessed state of higher morals, more church-going, better values, etc. In other words, a myth.

When a progressive like myself talks about the past, I don't mythologize FDR or anybody else. FDR made many mistakes and overreaches. Even my personal favorite president, TR, the father of progressivism, had major faults, one being his energetic imperialism.

When I talk about better times, I'm not talking about myths. I'm talking about numbers. The middle class in America, over the last ten years, has lost 36% of its wealth. This is a direct result of the implementation of Rightist policy; tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, supply side economics, "free" trade agreements, social safety net reform, etc. This nation, and especially working people, was doing ten times better under progressive leadership (of both parties) than they have since the Reagan Right Wing revolution, which dismantled the progressive system in America.

And that's not a fairy tale. That's in the numbers.

I don't know what "re-emergence" you're talking about. The Democratic Party establishment has completely given up on progressive politics. They won't even let them in the room. Look at Obamacare. The first thing Obama did was take single payer, universal coverage (the progressive option) off the table. There is maybe a handful of progressives left, and they are pushed out on the fringe by the party establishment, which has become a centrist, status quo party.

BroncoBeavis
08-14-2014, 02:47 PM
Except that, in the "archaism" that the Right sells, the nation was in a blessed state of higher morals, more church-going, better values, etc. In other words, a myth.

When a progressive like myself talks about the past, I don't mythologize FDR or anybody else. FDR made many mistakes and overreaches. Even my personal favorite president, TR, the father of progressivism, had major faults, one being his energetic imperialism.

When I talk about better times, I'm not talking about myths. I'm talking about numbers. The middle class in America, over the last ten years, has lost 36% of its wealth. This is a direct result of the implementation of Rightist policy; tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, supply side economics, "free" trade agreements, social safety net reform, etc. This nation, and especially working people, was doing ten times better under progressive leadership (of both parties) than they have since the Reagan Right Wing revolution, which dismantled the progressive system in America.

And that's not a fairy tale. That's in the numbers.

I don't know what "re-emergence" you're talking about. The Democratic Party establishment has completely given up on progressive politics. They won't even let them in the room. Look at Obamacare. The first thing Obama did was take single payer, universal coverage (the progressive option) off the table. There is maybe a handful of progressives left, and they are pushed out on the fringe by the party establishment, which has become a centrist, status quo party.

Everyone mythologizes their own ideological forefathers to some extent. Even you.

Regardless, it's easy enough to blame all of our woes on some coincidental (and largely peripheral) tax policy while ignoring the 8,000,000,000 ton Gorilla in the room of fundamental global economic change.

At the end of the day, we're incredibly fortunate to live within the system we do. But like any wildly successful startup, others have caught on to our model and are willing to compete with their own new variations of it.

And our government has very little to do with that fundamental global shift. We adapt, and compete, or we lose, long term. But the days where the United States controls vast majorities of global production are over. And while that's a challenge for us, ultimately it's a good thing for much of the rest of the world.

Rohirrim
08-14-2014, 03:26 PM
Everyone mythologizes their own ideological forefathers to some extent. Even you.

Regardless, it's easy enough to blame all of our woes on some coincidental (and largely peripheral) tax policy while ignoring the 8,000,000,000 ton Gorilla in the room of fundamental global economic change.

At the end of the day, we're incredibly fortunate to live within the system we do. But like any wildly successful startup, others have caught on to our model and are willing to compete with their own new variations of it.

And our government has very little to do with that fundamental global shift. We adapt, and compete, or we lose, long term. But the days where the United States controls vast majorities of global production are over. And while that's a challenge for us, ultimately it's a good thing for much of the rest of the world.

Vast amounts of money are being made. More than ever, in fact. The policy changes have simply redistributed the wealth. That's what I'm talking about. Global economic change has very little to do with it other than the elite using it against our own people, ie labor.

Guess Who
08-15-2014, 12:32 AM
Lol

What an awful methodology. Whoever is a dove gets a high score....whoever doesn't sucks! Virtually any large scale military action will lead to deaths, including sometimes of innocents and yes sometimes knowingly. Methods which place guys like Grant and Carter at the top tells you all you need to know.

Yeah, that's an evenhanded way of deciding it. Glad to see them criticizing others for "let's cheer for our point of view" and then ranking people based on their point of view.

The article is about Presidents "death toll"

There is nothing in there you can argue about. Spin away the Vietnam scenario of RFK pulling the U.S. out in 1970 into a bad thing. Waiting.....:-*

No democrat would have invaded Iraq.... I bet no President in either party would have invaded Iraq. That was all GW and Cheney's doing.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-15-2014, 01:57 AM
Took you until page 2 of the thread to bust out a cartoon? You're slipping, dude, slipping.

You're right - I need to do a better job of taking care of all the right-wing morons who only look at the pictures. :D

BroncsRule
08-15-2014, 06:58 AM
Uh, just from a quick glance...

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3874585&postcount=23

Can't believe you'd argue with someone holding you to one of your own core tenets.

"These damn Republicans and wanting to go back to things they thought worked better! Morans!

Now where was I?
Oh yeah, it all started when we repealed Glass Steagall!"

I read that post. It is absolutely 100% NOT what you claim it is.

Beavis Fail. We has it.

BroncoLifer
08-15-2014, 01:20 PM
You're right - I need to do a better job of taking care of all the right-wing morons who only look at the pictures. :D

It's good to know that you care.

nyuk nyuk
08-19-2014, 03:44 PM
What happens to people who remain static in a dynamic world?

I think being static would be clinging to failed economic theories.

nyuk nyuk
08-19-2014, 03:47 PM
In this interview with Al Carroll, author of President's Body Counts: The Twelve Worst and Four Best American Presidents Based on How Many Lived or Died Because of Their Actions[I]

The guy is so dumb he called David Yeagley a "white supremacist," even though he's a ****ing Comanche Indian.

:clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:

Rohirrim
08-19-2014, 05:12 PM
I think being static would be clinging to failed economic theories.

Are you kidding? The Right has made its living doing that. Ha!

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
08-19-2014, 06:25 PM
The guy is so dumb he called David Yeagley a "white supremacist," even though he's a ****ing Comanche Indian.

:clown: :clown: :clown: :clown: :clown:

Did this happen in one of your hallucinations, DramaLlama?

:crazy:

nyuk nyuk
08-22-2014, 06:55 PM
No democrat would have invaded Iraq.... I bet no President in either party would have invaded Iraq. That was all GW and Cheney's doing.

They were there shaking their pom pons at the time.

Mind you, they got us into WWII and started the Vietnam War. The idea that Democrats are big flower children and Republicans "war mongers" is one of the biggest pieces of bull**** to come out of the DNC's propaganda mill.

nyuk nyuk
08-22-2014, 06:55 PM
Did this happen in one of your hallucinations, DramaLlama?

:crazy:

Try looking up his bio rather than saying incredibly ignorant things as a way of salving your hurt ego by taking lame-assed pot shots at me.