General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLBJ was bullied into VietNam war same way they are bullying Obama now...
Heard this on Thom today, evidently that phuck McNamara would work night and day convincing LBJ to send in troops.
Then today we heard a phone call between LBJ and McNamara where LBJ is telling of two phone calls he got, one from a Wall Street banker and the other from a Texas rich prick ranch owner, both telling LBJ he cannot cut and run from Vietnam (this was very early on) and that he had to show everybody how tough we were.
Typical CHICKENSHIT CHICKENHAWKS telling the president to send OTHER PEOPLE to fight and DIE in a war so THEY dont feel inadequate, the same GOD DAMN way motherphuckers like Dick Cheney and George W Bush and Sean Hannity and the list is long, did with Iraq.
bastards...
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)In WW1, it was this guy. Anglophile, racist, warmonger.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Obama's going to be the laughing stock of history if he "reinitiates" this war.
Had LBJ specifically OPPOSED the initial intervention ( which he NEVER did) and THEN escalated it, people would still be mocking his confusion, hypocrisy and opportunism.
randys1
(16,286 posts)that he responds to fox news or McCain or any of them as if they have ANY validity, at all.
He has done it from day one and it makes me crazy.
I understand why he THINKS he has to do it, but he is wrong to do it.
Easy for me to say, however.
Sitting back and judging him is a part time job for all cons and many dems, so I try and not do it anymore than I have to.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)tonkin. It was his decision. There is no excuse for that lie, and no way he is absolved from the responsibility of expanding that war.
Johnson wrote, "If I...let the communists take over South Vietnam, then I would be seen as a coward and my nation would be seen as an appeaser and we would both find it impossible to accomplish anything for anybody anywhere in the entire globe."
I don't know where hartman is coming from, but he is plain wrong. Johnson did exactly what Johnson wanted to do
There were republicans and Democrats such as Fulbright who were opposed to the war from the get go
randys1
(16,286 posts)stuff from others and was being pressured.
He, LBJ, can be heard on the tape saying he wanted to TALK TOUGH but not actually do anything that would cause problems, which was thought to be a war.
Listening to the tapes is very revealing
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)Obama, who I supported in both campaigns and still support, would tell the chickenhawks to shut up and stay out of Iraq period.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Bigmack
(8,020 posts)..LBJ.
If you tried to... it would be like trying to push/jump start a bulldozer.
I think they told him that he'd look weak if he didn't jump in.
Even though he damn near got me killed, I've always had a soft spot for ol' Lyndon. If he hadn't pissed away his legacy in the war, he'd have been a damn good president.
randys1
(16,286 posts)that others were telling him that...
the others being chickenshit chickenhawks I presume
My point is less about LBJ or more about the people pressuring him not to look weak, those unwilling to themselves fight
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)rights bill even though he was "pressured" by southern Democrats at the time that if he did that, the Democrats would lose the South.
I lived through that period, and most liberals were against the war at the time. By the time 1968 rolled around Hubert Humphrey ended up being the Democratic nominee, but would have lost in the primaries to Bobby Kennedy, if Kennedy wasn't assassinated I believe. Eugene McCarthy did not have the political pull that Humphrey or Kennedy had. Both Kennedy and McCarthy were against the war, and Humphrey was very pro war which I believe hurt him against Nixon who was claiming he had a "magic" solution to the war. Of course he didn't, no one did except to get the heck of the Viet Nam where so many people were killed at our expense.
Read Daniel Ellsberg's the Pentagon Papers how the American public was lied to. I still have that book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
My point is LBJ didn't need other people at the time to pressure him not to look weak, he was more than capable of taking charge.
randys1
(16,286 posts)in my hometown a couple nights before he was assassinated by god knows who (not the trigger man but who was behind it)...
I was a kid, trying to touch the famous man, and i reached up and grabbed his leg...
I lived thru the time also, young though, and this thread is about Thom's impression of the phone calls LBJ was getting and how they were similar to what is happening to Obama today.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)had several chances with John, Bobby, and MLK, and we never got the chance
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Just hours after her husband's assassination, widow Jackie Kennedy stands next to Lyndon Johnson on Air Force One as he is sworn in as the 36th President of the United States. Although her personal assistant laid out a fresh change of clothes on her bed aboard the plane, Jackie refused to change out of her blood-spattered clothing. Also aboard Air Force One was the casket carrying the body of President John F. Kennedy, age 46.
In her bedroom on board the plane, Jackies personal assistant had laid out a fresh outfit for the First Lady. Despite urging from staffers and handlers to clean up her appearance, Jackie refused to get out of her bloodied clothes. She shook her head hard:
"No, let them see what theyve done.
Somehow, that was one of the most poignant sights, Mrs. Johnson later wrote, that immaculate woman exquisitely dressed, and caked in blood.
https://lisawallerrogers.wordpress.com/tag/lyndon-johnsons-swearing-in-as-president/
The GOP tried to unseat Johnson less than a year later by running:
Barry Goldwater (January 2, 1909[1] May 29, 1998) was a businessman and five-term United States Senator from Arizona (195365, 196987) and the Republican Party's nominee for president in the 1964 election. An articulate and charismatic figure during the first half of the 1960s, he was known as "Mr. Conservative".
Goldwater is the politician most often credited for sparking the resurgence of the American conservative political movement in the 1960s. He also had a substantial impact on the libertarian movement.[2]
Goldwater rejected the legacy of the New Deal and fought through the conservative coalition against the New Deal coalition. He mobilized a large conservative constituency to win the hard-fought Republican primaries. Goldwater's conservative campaign platform ultimately failed to gain the support of the electorate[3] and he lost the 1964 presidential election to incumbent Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson by one of the largest landslides in history, bringing down many Republican candidates as well. The Johnson campaign and other critics painted him as a reactionary, while supporters praised his crusades against the Soviet Union, labor unions, and the welfare state.
His defeat allowed Johnson and the Democrats in Congress to pass the Great Society programs, but the defeat of so many older Republicans in 1964 also cleared the way for a younger generation of American conservatives to mobilize. Goldwater was much less active as a national leader of conservatives after 1964; his supporters mostly rallied behind Ronald Reagan, who became governor of California in 1967 and the 40th President of the United States in 1981.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
About the same time was Curtis LeMay saying we could bomb North Vietnam to the Stone Age. The slogan of 'Nuke 'em' or 'Bomb 'em back to the Stone Age' was popular with conservatives.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay
Curtis LeMay was a friend of Goldwater, and he also ran for public office:
Curtis Emerson LeMay (November 15, 1906 October 1, 1990) was a general in the United States Air Force and the vice presidential running mate of American Independent Party presidential candidate George Wallace in 1968.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay
Those of us against Goldwater in 1964 countered their campaign slogan of 'In your heart, you know he's right' with 'In your heart, you know he's nuts.'
We know who walked into Goldwater's seat in the Senate. 'Bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran' John Mc Cain. It just goes on and on. There were millions who wanted the Cold War and the Vietnam war to keep on going.
We'd already lost both Kennedys and MLK by that time. If Goldwater had won, the New Deal would have been gone before Carter. LBJ was aware of political reality and just how far these guys would go and I don't know how much of this was about his own ideas.
These guys were not about to give up, big money never does, it can wait out activists, in fact they count on our growing old and getting out of their way.
There is a solid line connecting the groups then, and those now. The Tea Party and Libertarians are closer to achieving their goals, but the agenda has never changed.
JMHO.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)And the obstructionist GOP has and is still doing all it can to ruin everything he wants to focus on domestically. I think Johnson got a lot done domestically because they would have gone after that if they didn't get their way.
As a person who grew up in that era I also know the fear of communism was as knee jerk as the monster under the bed to many. Not me or my family, but that was the national atmosphere from post WW2 and then after the Cuban missile crisis. It was a time when people were going with the bunker mentality.
LBJ was not immune to the hysteria, anymore than HRC was. The fear was almost a solid object that could not be ignored. Some forget the anthrax deaths, the horror of WTC and the pivotal event it was. There were years of terror stoked leading to Vietnam being used a proxy by superpowers who dared not attack each other directly. The country was made into a sacrifice zone.
The Tonkin incident was a tool to stop what some saw as a greater evil in the world, and we can look back on it and mock and hate them all we want, but we were not in charge of all those things. I was out in the streets and doing all I could with so many others to raise the national consciousness and insist we must leave the Vietnamese to make their own decisions and stop the war. We also saw what it was doing to us domestically.
But we were also confronted with a Iarge segment of the American people who felt the war was right and necessary, just as they did with Bush and Iraq. No amount of persuasion or education made them change their minds and they have not gone away. Their fury at our ascending to power and doing progressive things turned into the toxic waste that is the Tea Party and lunatic fringe groups.
LBJ realizing he was not on the right side is why he decided not running for office was the best choice. Johnson was stuck in a war growing since WW2. He left office a broken man, and the job of a POTUS is a very conflicting one. I think Obama will leave office with less affecting his soul than Johnson did. As to Bush, well, you can't lose what you never had.
We are still not over Vietnam, and neither is the tortured nation that all that blood was shed over it.
randys1
(16,286 posts)lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)at the time, and the war was close to an end at that time anyway, but I had friends who weren't so lucky
I have a very mixed feelings about Johnson. He stepped up to greatness with the Great Society and Civil Rights, but really messed up on Nam. I don't think he pissed away his legacy though, because Medicare and Civil Rights were major achievements.
I am very glad you made through, it was a very agonizing time. Every week they would report the body counts, reports from the war zone, not the "sanitized" pseudo news they report now about Afghanistan or Iraq. Out sight out of mind.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Between the media doing its job and the draft, there was no way of ignoring what was happening as there is now. People had to get involved, one side or the other.
Now with no draft we thought we could starve the MIC. That was before 9/11, 'the second Pearl Harbor' that BushCo wanted to unite America against the ME. The media has refused to cover the humanitarian side of the wars, they've only been cheerleading although their message is not being accepted as well as before.
It's not at all like it was then because of the end of the draft which made people take a stand. A large segment of the American public regards those who went to war in Iraq and Afghanistan as contract labor and not their problem, denying the effect of income inequality on enlistment.
It's part of a philosophy that relegates the service of today's veterans as nothing to respect, just another government job they should have known better than to hire on for.
Some claim they are anti-war in the method of the LIbertarian Party, and shouldn't be taxed to pay for them. It's a very different world view.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)He was pals with all of the other Texas fuckers involved.
Now that Jackie's tapes were released, telling how much she despised Johnson, it becomes much clearer, eh?
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)randys1
(16,286 posts)thom may have said pressured and not bullied, not sure
but he was clearly making the point that the public positions LBJ took with the war were in large part due to the behind the scenes pressure he was taking on
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)He was a good president. He did some great things.
But it seems generally accepted that he owns that war.
randys1
(16,286 posts)point that while LBJ owned the war, he was getting pressure from the same kind of chickenhawks pressuring Obama today, the phone call proves that
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)You heard the entire phone call?
You heard an unedited, non-redacted phone call?
You heard the preceding and following phone calls?
You heard all the phone calls?
----
You follow me? Just playing a little devils advocate, but to say he took a call from a monger is one thing, to say it's the reason for war is another (or point to that effect)
randys1
(16,286 posts)saying he had listened to multiple calls like this one...
But I didnt, I was relying on what Thom said...
For me the point is less about LBJ and his guilt as he sure is responsible for that war and more about the chickenhawks pressuring him and Obama, etc.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)And I don't disagree with your position on Obama.
I think he's doing the right thing now. Flak aside. He needs to keep all options open, but most importantly fluid.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Robert Caro's multi volume biography of LBJ provides copious foot notes to that issue.
LBJ was also capable of good things for the right reasons
and not good things for what he thought were the right reasons at the time.
He got behind the war early on, when he took over as President.
And he listened to Bundy and McNamara, and he did indeed create the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
but then, as the country became very evidently against the war, he realized he had over stepped.
Johnson hated to lose. It was a HUGE deal for him to lose.
He knew there was a good chance he would not be re-elected because of the war,which is why he chose not to run.
And thus gave us Nixon.
roamer65
(36,739 posts)Johnson WAS the bully. What Johnson wanted, he got "come hell or high water".
H2O Man
(73,323 posts)from an accurate picture of what happened. McNamara did indeed lobby LBJ for many of the increases. But, not only would it have been impossible for him to bully LBJ, he simply would have had no reason to attempt to.
As VP, LBJ was not on board with JFK's inner circle, including on Vietnam. However, the conflict in Vietnam provides a curious example of LBJ's getting information that JFK and McNamara did not get. This began to occur when Kennedy was using the military's outright lies that things were going well, to justify an anticipated removal of US "advisers." The VP was actually getting the more accurate information -- largely from the CIA, and to a lesser extent, the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- that showed that South Vietnam would be crushed if the US did not send in troops.
Johnson did not agree with the Kennedy policies -- he blamed the administration for Diem's murder -- and had no intention of sticking with it. There are fascinating phone calls, some recorded, others transcribed, that taken out of context can make LBJ appear to be being manipulated. This rarely happened, and certainly never by Robert McNamara.
I do think that the machine is attempting to force President Obama into getting the US more involved in Iraq than it presently is. And that should be troubling to everyone here .....enough so that we should be engaging in coordinated efforts to lobby for non-violence.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The Pentagon and CIA gave LBJ, as veep, a more accurate picture of what was happening in Vietnam than they provided JFK, as president.
Why? JFK said he would not get into a land war in Southeast Asia and he certainly was not going to place US draftees in the middle of Vietnam's civil war; Johnson did.
Vietnam Withdrawal Plans
The 1990s saw the gaps in the declassified record on Vietnam filled inwith spring 1963 plans for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. An initial 1000 man pullout (of the approximately 17,000 stationed in Vietnam at that time) was initiated in October 1963, though it was diluted and rendered meaningless in the aftermath of Kennedy's death. The longer-range plans called for complete withdrawal of U. S. forces and a "Vietnamization" of the war, scheduled to happen largely after the 1964 elections.
The debate over whether withdrawal plans were underway in 1963 is now settled. What remains contentious is the "what if" scenario. What would Kennedy have done if he lived, given the worsening situation in Vietnam after the coup which resulted in the assassination of Vietnamese President Diem?
At the core of the debate is this question: Did President Kennedy really believe the rosy picture of the war effort being conveyed by his military advisors. Or was he onto the game, and instead couching his withdrawal plans in the language of optimism being fed to the White House?
The landmark book JFK and Vietnam asserted the latter, that Kennedy knew he was being deceived and played a deception game of his own, using the military's own rosy analysis as a justification for withdrawal. Newman's analysis, with its dark implications regarding JFK's murder, has been attacked from both mainstream sources and even those on the left. No less than Noam Chomsky devoted an entire book to disputing the thesis.
But declassifications since Newman's 1992 book have only served to buttress the thesis that the Vietnam withdrawal, kept under wraps to avoid a pre-election attack from the right, was Kennedy's plan regardless of the war's success. New releases have also brought into focus the chilling visions of the militarists of that erafour Presidents were advised to use nuclear weapons in Indochina. A recent book by David Kaiser, American Tragedy, shows a military hell bent on war in Asia.
CONTINUED with very important IMFO links:
http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm
Funny in a police state sort of way how little of this gets mentioned anywhere, even DU.
H2O Man
(73,323 posts)It is impossible to understand either "how" -- or, much more importantly, "why" -- things changed as far as US policy in Vietnam post-November 22, 1963, without a knowledge of this.
Most JFK and/or LBJ books do not mention it. Obviously, before FOI allowed access to the files that document it, authors did not know. Interestingly, that includes the Kennedy men who also served under Johnson. And that includes men like Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., who were horrified by the path that LBJ took the nation on.
It's interesting to note that LBJ's sources were, by and large, the same war-mongers that were around Nixon. That is not a coincidence -- something that I know you know very well.
RFK was also unaware that VP Johnson was being fed intelligence at the time. If he had, it seems highly unlikely that LBJ would have stayed on the ticket, had JFK lived. But, of course, that type of split would have reduced JFK's chances of being re-elected. The machine wanted that war. It demanded it.
And, of course, the two men who could have influenced the '68 election -- RFK and MLK -- in a powerful, anti-war manner, did not survive the first half of '68. Especially after Tet, the potential to withdraw US troops was expanding.
Even today, it is sad to ponder what might have been ....
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)60,000 Americans - including my dad's older brother - and 2,000,000 Vietnamese lost to that pointless war.
lpbk2713
(42,696 posts)Just as guilty as the rest.
USN 65 - 69
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)And, if he is and falls for it, he should step aside and let someone else do the job.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)first official act upon taking office was to reverse Kennedys NSAM 263 ordering full U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.
Not a coincidence ..... a fact
LBJ ties
See Brown and Root
See Bell Helicopter
See Billy Sol Estes
See Bobby Baker
See US Agricultural Dept. official Henry Marshall
See Malcolm Wallace
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Galbraith and Vietnam
by RICHARD PARKER
The Nation, March 14, 2005 issue
In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.
But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.
Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics.
Early that November, just as Taylor and his team arrived back in Washington, Galbraith arrived from New Delhi for the state visit of Prime Minister Nehru. Hoping to gain a quick upper hand over Taylor and his mission, he arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. Ten days earlier, Galbraith, in one of his back-channel messages, had shared with Kennedy his growing concerns about Vietnam. From India, he'd played a role in defusing the Laos situation that spring, but over the summer, the Berlin crisis had sent a sharp chill through relations with the Soviets, with the risks of nuclear confrontation for a time all too real. About this, Galbraith now told the President:
Although at times I have been rather troubled by Berlin, I have always had the feeling that it would be worked out. I have continued to worry far, far more about South Viet Nam. This is more complex, far less controllable, far more varied in the factors involved, far more susceptible to misunderstanding. And to make matters worse, I have no real confidence in the sophistication and political judgment of our people there.
This was advice Kennedy was hearing from no one else in his Administration, but clearly welcomed.
CONTINUED...
http://www.johnkennethgalbraith.com/index.php?display=10&page=articles
No guy. No problem.
H2O Man
(73,323 posts)was isolated from even his top advisers when it came to Vietnam. There were really only two general opinions within the administration: those who were in favor of sending troops in immediately, and those looking to do so on a slower pace. But only the President was in favor of pulling out the "military advisers" (who were very much involved in the warfare, especially from the air).
It's curious to consider that one of the very few who did oppose sending troops was W. Averell Harriman. Technically, he had a couple of relatively minor positions within the administration. But he was more of an "elder statesmen" -- one of the few members of the already established "shadow government" who combined public service with private business (aka intelligence).
Harriman understood that, because of the backing of the USSR and China, the US could kill 1,000 "enemies" for every US soldier killed, and that it would drain the US's resources. He was also a balance to some of the mad men in various positions (government, military & intelligence) who viewed nuclear weapons as an option.
It's a shame that the public's understanding of how and why Vietnam happened has become so shallow. In my opinion, that is why we are facing similar situations today. The machine requires military conflicts.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth
Tyler Cowen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014
The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.
An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.
The world just hasnt had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but todays casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.
Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nations longer-run prospects.
It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not todays entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.
War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.
SNIP...
Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you dont get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but its something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.
Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0
He's making friends in all the right places, cough, Koch.
H2O Man
(73,323 posts)seen that .... thanks for posting it.
Sadly, not surprising.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)He's the new intellectual darling of the Koch Brothers.
Free Market is the Secret to Happiness A Billionaires PR Initiative
By Chris Young
Global Research, June 26, 2014
EXCERPT...
On Wednesday, the Charles Koch Institute will host what its calling its Inaugural Well-Being Forum at the Newseum in downtown Washington, D.C.
Not-so-diverse board
The five-member advisory board of the Well-Being Initiative includes Ángel Cabrera, president of George Mason University and Tyler Cowen, a popular libertarian professor at the school who has been dubbed Americas Hottest Economist.
As the Center reported in March, two of the six private charitable foundations the Koch brothers control and personally fund combined in 2012 to pump more than $12.7 million into colleges and universities. George Mason University has received more Koch money than any other school.
The Charles Koch Foundation has been generous to the university, and they have supported various efforts in areas that are important to us, so this time around they wanted my guidance and advice, and I thought it would be a great thing to do, Cabrera told the Center for Public Integrity in an interview.
CONTINUED...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/free-market-is-the-secret-to-happiness-a-billionaires-pr-initiative/5388747
The guy reminds me of Walter Mathau's Dr. Professor Groeteschele in "Fail Safe." Every penny spent on feeding the poor or educating the public robs our nation of its ability to kill the enemy.
PS: I want to ask you about Harriman, a fellow New Yorker. His associations with the warmongering and war profiteering Dulles brothers, Walker and Bush always made me wonder what kind of fellow he really was. I was surprised to learn he had a two-track approach to the dance in Vietnam.
'Arrogant' CIA Disobeys Orders in Viet Nam
PPS: Thanks for the kind reminder about Rockefeller. There were statesman, once. Giants, too.
H2O Man
(73,323 posts)who is one of the very best examples of the type who was equally comfortable being a public figure, and a behind-the-scenes broker. A lot of people remember him as serving in the Truman administration, a governor of NYS, and the head of the club known as the "Wise Men" who advised JFK and LBJ.
I have an autographed copy of his book about serving as the "Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin 1941-1946." (Elie Abel actually wrote the book, though largely from Harriman's records.) It's signed to one of my (distant) cousins, a republican who was being groomed to go from county to state politics.
My father said that Harriman wanted to be President, but in his two primary runs, he was not willing to give up the behind-the-scenes power he enjoyed, for a position of lesser power.
In terms of Vietnam, my father said that Harriman was intent upon creating stronger economic bonds between the USA and USSR. That would make war between the two far less likely. To do this, he believed the US had to divide the USSR from communist China. He viewed Vietbnam in that context -- he knew the North and the Viet Cong were not fighting to become back under Chinese control. Vietnamese history wasn't pointing in that direction. If the US had stepped back, Vietnam -- clearly one nation, not two -- would favor relations with the USSR.
By the time he was advising JFK, Harriman was old. He was somewhat less of a military hawk than he had been, though ever bit the economic vulture. So he knew the US military in Vietnam would lead to a closer relationship with China -- which supplied people to fill the industrial cog roles that those from the North left, when they went south to fight.
In my opinion, he is also a classic example of a guy who put the American ruling class first, and saw the democrat vs republican contests as a parlor game.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The guy knew how to play the game. In public, a sage and statesman. In private, one of the guys Smedley Butler wrote about. As JFK's roving ambassador at large, he may have been the mother ship for all the loose cannons, like the little known John Michael Dunn.
You know I treasure your wisdom, H20 Man. I very much appreciate the perspective of your father, who helped make you the way you are. His understanding of the politics of Vietnam -- what was seldom, if ever, addressed by the US news media -- has been proven true by the years. Four years after the fall of South Vietnam and the unification, China and Vietnam went to war over their border -- several times, as a quick visit to Wiki helped remind me.
Our family tree, too, stands on roots that come from various parts of the political soil; its branches head to various parts of the political sky. One of my grandfather's distant cousins was an ambassador to Vietnam in those years. I disagree with his position, but know he held his views as a patriot. He was loyal to the country.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Seems he went there first with Henry Cabot Lodge. In PDF form, fascinating reading:
http://web2.millercenter.org/lbj/oralhistory/dunn_john_1984_0725.pdf
PS: I forgot to mention one of those synchronicities of history: E Howard Hunt had a gig working under Gov. Harriman, postwar in the Marshall Plan Economic Cooperation Authority (ECA).
http://books.google.com/books?id=B-QCAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=howard+hunt+averell+harriman&source=bl&ots=Pvr9r7cp8g&sig=xr7KmAyz_WQN8lJ4AWTk6hD_VyQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2_utU-fYDIyHyASukYFg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=howard%20hunt%20averell%20harriman&f=false
Interesting times, wot.
Alex P Notkeaton
(309 posts)Beyond drone strikes against ISIS, he won't do squat. And I'll bet dollars to nickels the "advisers" will be back before Labor Day.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Just like Dumbya wanted the "tough on terror" PR in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)himself get bullied into single payer hc, or even a public option.
randys1
(16,286 posts)But yes, I am happy we have Obamacare instead of nothing, very happy, but I want universal.
And yes I am angry that he pays any attention to fox or oreilly as if they matter, but he does and I know why, because he knows they hate him for being Black and if he ignores them it will fuel their hate and screaming and so on and so on
You dont think Warren or Sanders would be bullied or pressured to do things they didnt want to do?
We can argue about whether or not Obama wanted single payer in the first place, but you have to understand that anyone elected prez is going to be compromised...
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)corporate-friendly ACA (far, far worse than nothing, BTW. It set the path toward UHC back at least 25 years). And if if he is afraid of standing up for his principles because he's black, he should probably resign and let someone who isn't scared take over. He should also mention that in his abdication speech - "I can't adhere to my principles because then Bill O'Reilly will call me an angry black".
IMO he stands up for corporatist initiatives like Heritage Care and TPP and Race To The Bottom and "Clean Coal" and fracking, but hides and caves in on things like gun control and Don Siegelman and Public Option and gay rights ("I'll let the courts decide" and so forth. LBJ got Medicare and Medicaid and the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act passed, againt the wishes of the southern racists in his own party, because he believed it was the just thing to do. Please don't compare him to the president.
Finally, stop blaming all of Obama's problems on his race. If it were that big of a deal , 80 million people wouldn't have voted for him in 2008.
randys1
(16,286 posts)stop pretending it isnt a big deal
more obstruction than anytime in history
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)if you really think he isn't up to it. If you actually believe that if Biden were president, all of the republican obstruction would suddenly stop and a real Dem agenda would sweep the land, then the president should step aside and let the good times roll.
I personally think you're really insulting the president by blaming his susceptibility to bullying on his race. Like I said 70 million voters showed up for him in 2008.