Adlai Stevenson posted:

Is this a thing that gets taught in some places or what? It reminds me somewhat of arguments I've heard that try to downplay Jackson's role in the Indian Removal Act and its repercussions by placing more of the blame on Van Buren's shoulders.

Office Pig posted:

Johnson really shouldn't get off for putting us into Vietnam. A lot of his domestic achievements were important, albeit critically incomplete, but there is no getting around the fact he sent us into Vietnam for the express purpose of upholding a colonialist agreement with France that was absolutely, utterly worthless. It's right up there with antagonizing a potential ally in order to 'contain' communism.

Anyway I guess this goes here.

Mister Facetious posted:

It's nothing like that, it's just that my knowledge of US history is stronger after 1980.

Grapplejack posted:

VBs issue was in his relative inability to respond quickly to problems that arose during his tenure, which is why he cops the largest amount of the blame for the panic and the border issues with Canada. He also finalized the trail of tears by having Scott forcibly move the Cherokees out west.

Crowsbeak posted:

I would argue that it was more he was doing as JFK wanted. As well as in a untenable position due to JFK having had tte only semi competent South Vietnamese leader assassinated.

stone cold posted:

and that somehow justifies 3 million+ dead vietnamese people???

Office Pig posted:

Anyway I guess this goes here.

Adlai Stevenson posted:

I read their comment more as a different reading of Johnson's motives and not as an excuse for his decisions.

Crowsbeak posted:

I love how your ignoring that the Democrats actually had a debate about the war. Typical liar Also you never responded about why Mondale had a balanced budget as a central plank. But then that would undermine your whole much mountain of lies neoliberal. Now go join the gop. Sociopath.

stone cold posted:

his motive was containing the threat of chinese communism

i don't think jfk was in his head when he escalated after tonkin

yronic heroism posted:

Probably because Reagan had big budget deficits due to tax cuts and part of running against an incumbent is attacking stuff that they did.

And yeah the democrats had a debate on Vietnam, and the president who some claim ruled over some golden leftist age was firmly pro-war.

Crowsbeak posted:

Yah that was him running to the right of Reagan. You loving liar. Also you can't seem to deny that JafK got America into Vietnam. JFK was the centernof the dems he cut taxes and attacked Ike for lack of militancy against communism.

Crowsbeak posted:

Remind me who increaced troop levels by 1700%? It wasn't Truman it was not Eisinhower. Who had Diem overthrown after Diem looked like he may negotiate independently of the USA with Mihn? Do you really think anyone in America even Eugene Mccarthy would have had America withdraw when it had almost two divisions worth of troops in the South? JFK also who unlike Truman moved to the center ground on medicare and was very happy letting it be turned into a joke like the Ryan plan by congress. It was LBJ who changed that. LBJ was no Sandrrs but he is not some centrist like the sociopath Yronic pretends he is.

Adlai Stevenson posted:

That's fine, but starting with the 80s means you miss a lot of context that goes towards understanding why the Democrats currently are what they are.

stone cold posted:

i mean you can go ahead and play the percentage game all you like but the fact remains that kennedy increased military personnel by 15,000~ while johnson increased it by 509,000~

don't get me wrong johnson did a lot of good poo poo domestically but he was also an imperialist monster bent on containing chinese communism as you can read for yourself in the national archives

it's not a good look to stan for johnson on his foreign policy built on murdering vietnamese people imo, but you keep doing you

Mister Facetious posted:

What does the Vietnam War have to do with the Democratic Party abandoning organized labour and the poor, while still asking for their vote?

Mister Facetious posted:

What does the Vietnam War have to do with the Democratic Party abandoning organized labour and the poor, while still asking for their vote?

Badger of Basra posted:

tbh it would be easier to just say lbj wasn't left wing enough rather than twist yourself into knots defending the vietnam war

Badger of Basra posted:

tbh it would be easier to just say lbj wasn't left wing enough rather than twist yourself into knots defending the vietnam war

Crowsbeak posted:

I can agree with that. I just despise the narrative where he almost singlehandily gets America involved.

Crowsbeak posted:

MLK who really was the voice of the left was neutral on it.

VitalSigns posted:

I showed that this wasn't true, so now the corporate dems are moving the goalposts "but Vietnam was bad!" Of course it was, but Vietnam wasn't why LBJ won and it is why Humphrey lost so it's irrelevant to the discussion.

stone cold posted:

i came in when some dumbass claimed johnson wasn't pro war so

that's where the discussion had shifted to

Badger of Basra posted:

VitalSigns posted:

The original claim was that supporting the Great Society again means you must be suggesting we support Jim Crow because that's the only way 60s Democrats won.

Crowsbeak posted:

Lbj did so because no one would have supported America leaving. MLK who really was the voice of the left was neutral on it. The left wing position if there was one outside of types like Ginsburg was for a negotiated settlement to be attempted. It was not bring the troops home. Also neoliberal( which your constant need to pubch left shows). It was tragic he did that. But unlike you I actually recognise what America was like then

Adlai Stevenson posted:

That's fine, but starting with the 80s means you miss a lot of context that goes towards understanding why the Democrats currently are what they are.

yronic heroism posted:

No I'm saying you can't point to a moment in time and ignore its historical context.

Also what Great Society programs did Obama not support?

VitalSigns posted:

Should you really be posting on a political forum if you're this ignorant of the last 8 years, come on man. Read a book.

yronic heroism posted:

Can't name anything can you?

Majorian posted:

The big problem with Obama wasn't that he dismantled the Great Society; rather, it had already largely been dismantled by his predecessors, and he didn't do enough to put it back together. Read the Atlantic piece that I just posted; it provides some good history.

yronic heroism posted:

Can't name anything can you?

Trabisnikof posted:

That article is interesting in that it argues that we should have been more forgiving of former supporters of segregation and of the Vietnam war so long as they're also economic populists.

Majorian posted:

Where does it argue this? Post a quote.

quote:

Ironically, as chairman of the Banking Committee, Patman had been the first Democrat to investigate the Watergate scandal. But he was vulnerable to the new crowd he had helped usher in. He was old; they were young. He had supported segregation in the past and the war in Vietnam; they were vehemently against both. Patman had never gone to college and had been a crusading economic populist during the Great Depression; the Watergate Babies were weaned on campus politics, television, and affluence.
...
Not all on the left were swayed. Barbara Jordan, the renowned representative from Texas, spoke eloquently in Patman’s defense. Ralph Nader raged at the betrayal of a warrior against corporate power. And California’s Henry Waxman, one of the few populist Watergate Babies, broke with his class, puzzled by all the liberals who opposed Patman’s chairmanship. Still, Patman was crushed. Of the three chairmen who fell, Patman lost by the biggest margin. A week later, the bank-friendly members of the committee completed their takeover. Leonor Sullivan—a Missouri populist, the only woman on the Banking Committee, and the author of the Fair Credit Reporting Act—was removed from her position as the subcommittee chair in revenge for her support of Patman. “A revolution has occurred,” noted The Washington Post.

Indeed, a revolution had occurred. But the contours of that revolution would not be clear for decades. In 1974, young liberals did not perceive financial power as a threat, having grown up in a world where banks and big business were largely kept under control. It was the government—through Vietnam, Nixon, and executive power—that organized the political spectrum. By 1975, liberalism meant, as Carr put it, “where you were on issues like civil rights and the war in Vietnam.” With the exception of a few new members, like Miller and Waxman, suspicion of finance as a part of liberalism had vanished.

Over the next 40 years, this Democratic generation fundamentally altered American politics. They restructured “campaign finance, party nominations, government transparency, and congressional organization.” They took on domestic violence, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled, and sexual harassment. They jettisoned many racially and culturally authoritarian traditions. They produced Bill Clinton’s presidency directly, and in many ways, they shaped President Barack Obama’s.

The result today is a paradox. At the same time that the nation has achieved perhaps the most tolerant culture in U.S. history, the destruction of the anti-monopoly and anti-bank tradition in the Democratic Party has also cleared the way for the greatest concentration of economic power in a century. This is not what the Watergate Babies intended when they dethroned Patman as chairman of the Banking Committee. But it helped lead them down that path. The story of Patman’s ousting is part of the larger story of how the Democratic Party helped to create today’s shockingly disillusioned and sullen public, a large chunk of whom is now marching for Donald Trump.