A Dollar's Worth

"I knew from the start that I was bound to be crucified either way I moved. If I left the woman I really loved-the Great Society-in order to get involved in that bitch of a war on the other side of the world, then I would lose everything at home. All my programs…. But if I left that war and 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 on the entire globe." -- President Lyndon B. Johnson

Strange man, that Lyndon Johnson. He was an extreme mixture of good and bad. Despite his personal flaws, his concepts for a Great Society were progressive. He was also aware that all government programs tended to bloat, and that social programs could only work if the public saw they got "a dollar’s worth for every buck spent."

At the same time, he was able to convince himself that a war he was afraid to stop was actually not only a way of combating the evil threat of communism, but a way to spread the fruits of social progress on a global scale.

By late 1967, LBJ had begun to lose touch with reality. His closest and most loyal advisers were concerned by his behaviors. The rest of the nation experienced an extreme mix of good and bad as 1967 became 1968. If younger folks want to know what 1968 was really like (or if older folks want to refresh foggy memories), the book "An American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968" by Chester, Hodgson, and Page is the single best comprehensive source of information.

There are, of course, valuable lessons to be learned from 1968. Just like then, there are numerous issues that are important to the majority of democrats today. These include ending the wars of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan; repairing the damage the Bush-Cheney administration has done to our reputation on a global scale; restoring the Constitutional balance of federal powers; improving the economy; investing in education; insuring the rights of all US citizens; addressing the environmental crisis; and creating real job opportunities in our communities.

We can see that those who oppose these traditional democratic values seek to divide us. As long as we are divided into small groups, our enemy can break us like individual fingers. Yet when we recognize that we have common interests – and are confronted by a common enemy – we can see the advantages of joining the individual fingers together to create a fist that is powerful enough to confront that common enemy.

We must also see that it will be impossible to deal with the other problems in a meaningful way if we continue down the administration’s path in the Middle East. The PNAC/neoconservative policies of violence are not going to spread the fruits of social progress in Iraq. It is a policy that can only lead to an expanded level of violence involving Syria, Iran, and eventually other interests in that area of the world.

The war budget will make it impossible to deal in any meaningful way with the other urgent problems we face in this country. There isn’t enough money for butter and bombs. That was true in 1967, and it’s true in 2007. It isn’t just the lower economic class that is suffering from the economic crunch the Bush-Cheney policies have caused: it’s the shrinking middle class, as well. The war is taking money that should be being invested in the communities across this nation. As we become poorer, a tiny minority becomes richer. They are the common enemy looking to break your fingers and steal what is good about America from you.

When we talk about the democratic party being a big tent, that’s fine -- just as long as we don’t allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking it includes those who would continue the current war of occupation in Iraq.

A pleasure to recommend it for the Greatest listing.

for you!

And the ones who should be in leadership are labeled as far left by these very same psuedo-Dems. The party needs to crack down on that kind of intra-party attacks and get everyone on the same agenda. Any Dem caught spouting a RW talking point should be penalized.

tends to call those with traditional democratic values "the far left." Even on a progressive forum like DU, we have moderate/conservative democrats parroting the line that with this new leadership, we will win elections. The truth is that we have lost two elections to the least competent person to ever "win" the presidency. We need to return to our traditional democratic values.

People who tend to call those with traditional democratic values "the far left" are either out of touch or never understood what those values were in the first place.

As a matter of fact, I grew up equating "American values" as the traditional democratic ones. You know, those values where the value is placed with our children, elderly, neighbors, co-workers, community and country. Whether they admit it or not, Americans benefited from those democratic values. They aren't necessary indicative of the Democratic party - but the old Democratic party afforded us with much of what we have enjoyed as staples in this country, and the Republicans and now many of the Democratic leaders are finding ways to diminish and remove those staples.

You hit on something vitally important by saying there isn't enough money for butter and bombs. You wrote: "The war is taking money that should be being invested in the communities across this nation. As we become poorer, a tiny minority becomes richer. They are the common enemy looking to break your fingers and steal what is good about America from you."

So very true. This reminds me about something that occurred here in northern Michigan (the article snippit follows). I think about this many times each day because it bothers me so. I also fear that this may become the norm in many municipalities, and though, this relates to a police department, it can happen to other areas of of service.

Wage, benefits cuts also made to save department
By Melissa Domsic
mdomsic@record-eagle.com
Published: November 21, 2007
http://www.record-eagle.com/archivesearch/local_story_325093057.html
SUTTONS BAY -- Village police cut a position and accepted wage and benefit cuts to save the department from closing amid tough financial times.

"There will be some reductions in hours and visibility," police Chief Del Moore said. "Our schedules will be somewhat sporadic, (but) we'll continue to provide the best service we can."

- snip -

That left Moore's proposal, which lowered expenses to about $98,000 or $99,000. Officers won't receive retirement benefits, health care, life or disability insurance. Wages were reduced by $1 to $3 an hour.

- More at link -


There was a time something like this was not only unheard of, but would have been considered unconscionable.

America is slowly falling apart, and the above article is just one of many examples. I'm ready to form that fist.

I wish sometimes we - as in - we, the people, could or would form our own lobbying group. Sad to think that our votes are not enough to sway our elected officials to act as an advocate of the people. However - some areas did manage to oust some undesirables from office a year ago. That does give me some solace. Just some, though.

Anyway, thank you for saying "We need to return to our traditional democratic values."

so necessary. Great OP, and well worth a K & R.

From THIS independent liberal's perspective, the Democratic Party loses when it sidetracks (or muzzles) those with strong liberal values and tries to 'chase' the GOP to the right. There's really no ideological space between the two parties' leadership rhetoric to accommodate many voters, while the traditional base has been abandoned like the spouse whose partner rolled over and took all the bedcovers. It'd be amazing to me that the Green Party didn't get more support if it weren't for my understanding of the partisan oligopoly. I think there's a real limit to how much longer the working class liberal base will play along.

hate breeds hate and hate is the seeds the pnac'er/neoCON's are sowing. I feel so helpless but never confused as to what we need to do, stop this coup

on so many levels. Your post reminded me of something that Rubin Carter wrote in 1974, when he was briefly in the position of the head of the Rahway Inmates' Council, and was working for jail reform. I remember him saying that the prison administration too often used violence to try to curb inmate violence, and impatience to curb inmate impatience.

Recently, my son worked in a facility that housed young men who were incarcerated for serious violations at home, in school, and in the community. Both of our sons have looked for jobs in the social work field, although not in agencies/institutions where my wife or I have been employed. And I will admit that I had some questions about the institutional setting he went to work at.

To paraphrase both you and Rubin, the institution uses impatience, anger, and violence to impose "rules." Our system is way out of whack. The young men in that facility are not being served -- they are in a prep school preparing them for prison. The tax-payers are not being served, for they bear the burden of an incarceration-economy that releases impatience, anger and violence on an unsuspecting community.

We need to make a coordinated effort to effect change at every level. It will be impossible to make changes at the federal level, without making changes at the local and state level; yet we also know that it is difficult to make changes at the local and state level, with a corrupt federal government.

In order to work in the coordinated manner that is required to make meaningful changes, we have to take an approach that is in many ways the exact opposite of the "institution" -- we must be patient, but firm; we need to be willing and able to give up our sense of anger and outrage if we are going to change the outrageously vicious and violent behaviors of the institution. For as Rubin said, to do more, we must become more.

since FDR.

Johnson did the rarest of all things in politics: He did the right thing knowing full well that it would cost him and his beloved Democratic Party dearly.

I love Truman, Kennedy, Carter, and Clinton, but Kennedy did not rule long enough to make any decisions as morally true and politically devastating as those which LBJ made, and Carter never wielded the political force to accomplish the great legislative agenda that LBJ accomplished, and neither Truman nor Clinton made the same connection between their morality and their domestic legislative agenda that LBJ made.

Remind me: Why did Hillary Clinton lead a youth campaign in favor of LBJ's Republican opponents? I know it is old history, and I would forgive her for this error just as I forgive the past transgressions of so many politicians who have evolved over time, but I have still never heard why it was that Hillary was an activist against LBJ and in favor of his Republican opponents.

one of the most fascinating case studies in US political history. His understanding of the way congress worked is the stuff of legends. He also had, as you note, great insight into what difficult steps the nation needed to take. But he had limited experience and ability when it came to foreign affairs. While he understood how to exercise control over others by using their pride and insecurities, he was unable to take the difficult steps needed to end the war in Vietnam, because of his own pride and insecurities.

Regarding Senator Clinton: my own opinion is that it isn't as important what she did in 1964, as what she does today. People have the capacity to change. I am aware that Malcolm X was once a hoodlum, but it is his change that he should be remembered for. Senator Clinton was once a "Goldwater Girl," but that isn't important in and of itsef. Has she changed? How much? And how does that translate into the primary contest? Those are the question that I enjoy seeing people debate on DU. I think that there are a lot of important points being raised by DUers who support and oppose her. As a person who has not decided on any one candidate, I enjoy reading the good discussions/debates on her and the other candidates.

politicians who have evolved over time."

I'm just curious WHAT drove her to Goldwater's policies.

I'm a huge Kucinich fan (although I'm troubled by the talk of Ron Paul as a potential running mate), and he's changed his views on reproductive rights 180 degrees over the past decade. I don't want a leader whose views remain rigid no matter what the evolving evidence suggests -- we already have one of those.

that she was raised in a conservative home. That would be the most likely explanation for her Goldwater phase. (Recently, I watched a film about him on HBO, and found myself wishing that some of the current republicans in the congress had some of his honesty. He wasn't that bright, but he at least tried to be honest part of the time.)

The part of Senator Clinton's history that I wonder a bit more about was when she was on the staff looking at Watergate. She knew all about the Constitution in 1974. Has she changed her mind about impeachment? Why?

think that Ron Paul is the reincarnation of Senator Goldwater, I did like that he provided John Dean with some of the information about neoconservatives that was included in "Worse Than Watergate."

And why are all of them running like scared little bunnies? My own rep., Nadler, who used to be so good is an absolute no on this issue. They (he and rep. Weiner) as good as said the other night they knew impeachable offenses had been committed but they still weren't going to do anything about it. The outrage that type of thinking engenders is not to be believed.

Excellent piece, btw.

you have to believe in something before you can be anything or something to that effect. I pride myself in the fact I am changing as I learn new things, there's been many 180's in my life and I expect there to be more up the road. I love change and new Ideas. I say it is good that Sen. Clinton can keep an open mind to learn and make changes as she does.

If a person is exactly the same today as they were a decade ago, I suspect that they've wasted a decade of their life.

Wow! How my view of him has changed! :wow:

I lived through the 1960s and had definite ideas instilled early on about right and wrong, left and right. But as I have aged and tried to put historical events in perspective, and square the decisions made with those events, I find less solid ground for previously held opinions and have reluctantly concluded that the most astute observations are those that acknowledge 'we just do not know why people acted the way they did, or how events came to pass.'

There is no substitute for honesty in evaluating history. And one ounce of historical documentation is worth tons of political opinion interpreting what the individual thought or what his real motives were. That is why the secreting of Presidential papers and unlawful classifying of government documents is so damaging to our democracy.

I must admit I cannot reconcile the obvious inconsistencies I find in trying to evaluate LBJ. The best I can do is determine that he was conflicted in his beliefs and actions, inconsistent in applying policies to advance his stated agendas, and only partially successful in resolving the most pressing issues of his time.

Even as this point, we do not have a clear picture of who LBJ really was and what influenced him to make the decisions he made. We have only theories, which may or may not pan out as historians continue to research the man and the records of his time.

Haudenosaunee culture, there is a belief which is very similar to the Chinese concept of yin and yang ..... and that views all people as being combinations of good and bad. Some people are strong in some areas and weak in others. In general, it is a good thing, for if we were all strong and weak in the same areas, communities would suffer, and the larger culture would degenerate. By finding a balance with others, we have the ability to improve as individuals, and as the human family. It is only when people confuse weakness for strength -- and that is the very definition of people like George W. Bush -- that their aggressive behaviors need to be confronted by the others in order to protect the common good. It was sad that good and decent men around LBJ, such as Bill Moyers, were afraid to speak honestly to the president. Schlesinger's wonderful book on RFK contains examples of the rage and delusional thought processes that were LBJ's response to individuals who tried to reason with him. It remains an interesting question what might have happened if they spoke to him as a group.

.... a man who could be shockingly crude, show compassion for those in need of help, and stubborn when it came to changing a policy that was not working... all in the same conversation.

I must admit I gave up some time ago trying to piece together a complete picture of LBJ. His relationship to JFK was always problematic to me, and the conspiracy theories regarding JFK's death, always colored my perception of LBJ.

think the theories that he was involved are at all accurate.

... make it difficult to find and evaluate serious analytical contributions.

Maybe I am giving too much credit to the background noise, but the first thing I do is try to determine if the writer has an agenda ... and that is why I mentioned the swirling conspiracy theories.

provides accurate information that debunks theories that LBJ or Nixon were involved in his book "JFK."

The big tent discussion is an interesting one, but if we end up sacrificing basic Democratic Party principles just to win, we lose.

The Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, secret torture planes, hired mercenaries, the occupation of Iraq, our national debt, the trade imbalance, loss of our manufacturing base, obscenely high prison population, broken foster care system and the (continuing) aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the cost of running for office are all examples of what can happen when a party loses its way.

Color me Librul, but I think we should be out on the streets demanding an end to all this madness.

Maybe LBJ knew that it was a lie. Maybe he believed that communism really was a threat. Maybe he knew that so many other people believed the lie, it might just as well be true. Whatever LBJ knew or believed, the truth of the lie brought him down. It was an inconvenient truth, as Al Gore might say. The inconvenient truth about lies that take us to war is that wars based on lies can't succeed.

The war against communism, like the war against terrorism, was created by those who saw an opportunity to enrich themselves through the industry of war. A few become very wealthy. The rest of us die. We die in so many ways.

We must wake up from the lies and reject the demands of the liars. We must stop the war.

He was all about cashing in on Bell Helicopter.

That Rothschild's family profits from war, ideological war or not, profit is made, plunder returned, taxes are paid, PROFIT IS MADE and MADE and MADE.

(BTW, Karl Rove looks like a Rothschild's family member, oddly enough.)

Sure the CIA assassins trained for Fidel would be mad if JFK decided to can the CIA. But, the central banks would rile their madness should JFK have decided to remove US from Vietnam.

And, LBJ had an inkling as to who put him in office, AND HOW THEY PUT HIM THERE. And that he could be next.

So, he fought the war on the back burner, pushed his legacy, and extricated himself into a quiet retirement. He had finally reached the top, but, there was still someone else on top of him. Dang!

Call it touched, concerning behaviors, complexity of character, ... it's all the same. He had two masters. One silent.

We have the same today.

"JFK," L. Fletcher Prouty writes about LBJ hearing the echoes from Dallas throughout his presidency.

I think that school children believe that the president of the United States is the most powerful man in the world, but that adults come to recognize that the president answers to the board of directors. Every presidency from LBJ's on has shown this to be the case.

DING!

K & R

With a bouncer at the door. No war mongers allowed.

K&R

No room for those who'd rather pay for guns than butter.

Fancy us meeting in one of H2O Man's threads. :hi:

:rofl:

And, it's always nice to revisit history to be reminded of lessons that were once learned, juxtaposed against a backdrop of current mistakes made.

in the garbage to make a few corporations and the oligarchs who own them happy

bhn:thumbsup:

both John Lennon and Groucho Marx.

Q: What do you get when you cross an insomniac, an agnostic, and a dyslexic?
A: Someone who stays up all night wondering if there is a Dog.

the Beatles broke up. I think he said they were more popular than Karl.

And how chagrined I was as a 16 year old who foresaw (correctly) the ugliness
that would pervade the government if Nixon won.

The book "The Selling of the President 1968" by Joe McGuinniss was a revealing
of the handbook used by the Nixon campaign to win. The Dirty Tricks team was born
in that campaign, and one of its alumni, Roger Ailes, now heads Fox "News." The
tactics of the 1968 Nixon campaign might seem tame by today's standards, but they
were the seed from which the poison tree sprang.

The Republican party saw that it snatched victory from the more noble but less
colorful Humphrey, and has embraced the use of such tactics ever since, getting
bolder and more sophisticated as time went on. The use of pre-programmed Diebold
machines and partisans in sensitive positions, such as Katherine Harris and Kenneth
Blackwell, is simply a further outgrowth of the success of the Dirty Tricks team of
1968. As Rep. Peter King, R-NY, put it on election day, 2004: "it's all over but the
counting, and we'll take care of the counting." The media laughed it off as bravado.
I took it quite literally, and I still think I'm right to have done so.

As long as we stand for them doing the counting, we will have an uphill battle even
if we get 70% of the votes cast. Why? Because the Republicans are students of Stalin:
"They who cast the votes decide nothing. They who count the votes decide everything."

Until that is corrected, the ghosts of 1968 will continue to haunt us.

The Nixon "dirty tricks" from 1968 became a big part of the series of criminal activities that are collectively known as "Watergate."

In 1968, a young US Army captain named Thomas Charles Huston ended working for the DIA covert operations (at least officially), and became an aide to the Nixon campaign. He would come up with a 43-page plan for domestic spying, which included what he recognized as unconstitutional "black ops," which would coordinate local, state, and national police agencies -- in other words, the first "patriot act." The Ervin Committee's Watergate Report notes that the Huston Plan was central to Watergate.

from the foggy ocean days of yore.

America needed 600,000 trops to win in Iraq, We didnt and we lost both wars. There is no cheap invasion wars, ask Hitler. and the Romans the Russians and Japanese.

1,000,000 huh
I'm getting sick

Yeah he was a despicable warmongering bastard.

Of course we also would have "won" an unending occupation, international scorn and it probably would have torn our own nation apart.

:thumbsup:

That is why the Vietnam War caused him so much anguish. Contrast LBJ's anguish over the war with Bush's indifference.

On those tapes played in the "Fog of War". Not! Johnson was a war profiteer, lining the pockets of his buds in the defense and aviation industries.

"At the same time, he was able to convince himself that a war he was afraid to stop was actually not only a way of combating the evil threat of communism, but a way to spread the fruits of social progress on a global scale."

Please!!!!!:puke:

That piece of shit was a war profiteer!

He and his friends made a shitload off of Bell Helicopter, and that was why he had such a hard on to stay in Vietnam. He didn't believe that crap he spouted about the "commies" coming to get us and spreading democracy anymore than Bush believes the "Islamofacists" are really coming to get us and the need to spread democracy in the Middle East.

I think Johnson was great on social issues, but it doesn't lessen the horrible fact he was a war mongering whore for the military industrial complex!!

:puke:

Very true.

This is always the way of war it almost seems to exist as a means to transfer wealth and resources from the many poor and working class to Wall Street. After all we are actually paying someone to carry out this conflict and it damn sure isn't the poor men in uniform forced to put themselves on the front line for it.

couldn't have said it better

'When we talk about the democratic party being a big tent, that’s fine -- just as long as we don’t allow ourselves to be fooled into thinking it includes those who would continue the current war of occupation in Iraq.'

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours - DAMMIT!

:applause: