Balkinization: Forty Years Ago

Comments:

And how things have changed in 40 years...

In Afghanistan, the Taliban's offensive is decimated and turned back to Pakistan. Meanwhile, the Pakistani Imams declare the Taliban out of Islam for their barbarity.

In Iraq, al Qaeda's threatened offensive to counter the Surge never starts because they do not have enough surviving fighters left to man it.

The 5th Anniversary of the liberation of Iraq is marked by a few dozen anti war protestors who are vastly outnumbered by increasing numbers of young men and women volunteering for military service.

Criticism from the nattering nabobs of negativism fails to paralyze the President. Having never developed a plan beyond the one used in 1968, the nattering nabobs are themselves paralyzed.

The party of the incumbent hawkish President nominates another hawkish candidate, who leads the two doves in the opposing party.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:16 AM

I'll tell you one thing that hasn't changed since 1968. People still take drugs and hallucinate things. Bart's post is good evidence of that.

# posted by

Dilan : 2:57 AM

Channeling Spiro Agnew after all these years seems inapt, especially considering the circumstances of his resignation. Is this a perversion of the Devil quoting Scriptures?

As to anti-war protestors today few in number, perhaps they would have been in greater numbers as in '68 IF there were a draft putting young men at risk. Politicians enjoy spending other peoples' money and don't seem to mind putting other peoples' lives at risk (but not their own). And consider the recent efforts to maintain an all volunteer military. It's other peoples' money and other peoples' children that pay for it. Consider the recent NYTimes story on the problems of survivors dealing with the $500,000 death benefits awarded them for the death of a loved one.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 6:30 AM

shag:

Agnew was a reprobate and a felon, but nonetheless the phrase was a brilliant alliterative critique of the anti war left.

BTW, I completely agree with your point that the anti-war movement today is tiny compared to the movement back in 1968 because the 1968 movement of the "Me Generation" was mostly about avoiding the dangers of wartime military service.

The current anti war movement has implicitly recognized that draft fueled the last antiwar movement when its Dem representatives perversely call for a return to the draft for the none to veiled purpose of getting folks back out on the streets.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:06 AM

We have a current "Me First" generation much more selfish than its 1968 counterpart that leaves the sacrifices to a few who may be putting their lives on the line sometimes for lack of other (better?) opportunities. For the current "Me First" generation, the price is cheaper (especially because of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy) than the price during the Civil War to pay for replacements for military service obligations.

Yes, Agnew did get caught. So did Nixon. Consider how long it took for Nixon's 1968 Vietnam "plan" to "resolve" that war. Will McCain offer his own plan or will he just escalate Bush's? Yes, mistakes were made, but we can't fix them without losing face; so we have to face more deaths, more injuries to preserve our honor. Besides, we need the oil to balm the current "Me First" generation, with the costs passed on to coming debt-burdened generations.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 10:04 AM

shag:

The entire cost of the war is more than paid for by the increased tax revenues from the economic growth created by the 2003 tax rate reductions. Those taxes are paid primarily by business and the wealthy.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:55 AM

William Safire has been proud to admit authorship of the alliterative nanobs sound bite.

It's curious that no one is owning up to 'smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud'.

The counrty today is in far worse shape than it was in 1968. Those folks knew when they were breaking the law; and they tried to hide it.

These folks tell us there is no law to break.

# posted by

Porcupine_Pal : 10:57 AM

The entire cost of the war is more than paid for by the increased tax revenues from the economic growth created by the 2003 tax rate reductions.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:55 AM

Baghdad, that "increase" in revenue does not appear to be reducing the national debt, which started to increase dramatically with the 2001 tax cut for the wealthy. Methinks you are full of shite.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 11:09 AM

I just don't know what has gotten into Bart this morning. He seems awfully certain of so many things that are either demonstrably false or else clearly beyond his ken.

It's clearly pointless to point out how things in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are not on a clear upward trend. If you read the news, you know that things are hardly rosy. And if you still believe in the "bush boom" (we don't hear that so much anymore, for some reason) -- all I can say is "bless you!"

For a person who was playing with his GI Joe figurines at the time, Bart seems to think he knows a lot about what happened.

Of course, if public protests rose to the level they had during the late sixties and early seventies, Bart would gleefully excoriate the DFH's of today.

Perhaps the reason that the anti-war movement isn't taking to the streets is because they saw how the right-wing used the demonstrations before to perpetuate their power plays. A lot of people in this country seemingly only learn at the conclusion of a reductio ad absurdem demonstration, and, while it's painful, it seems best to let them learn the way fools have to learn.

# posted by

C2H50H : 11:19 AM

porcupine pal:

How anyone can wax nostalgic about losing wars, rioting in the streets, assassinations and cities burning ala 1968 is beyond my understanding. This period is demonstrably one of the low points in our history.

BTW, all the turmoil had nothing to do with alleged violations of law. Rather, the turmoil itself was an enormous challenge to law and order so substantial that it broke the Dem Party apart and compelled 60% of the electorate to vote for the likes of Nixon and Wallace.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:50 AM

c2h50h:

You are free at any time to offer actual evidence to demonstrate that one of my "demonstrably false" assertions are incorrect.

If you want to argue about the status of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, please take it to my blog and respond to any of a couple dozen of my heavily annotated and linked posts reporting on the progress in both wars.

However, this thread is not the place to rehash that issue. Rather, this thread is about nostalgia for rose colored views of the chaos of 1968.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:57 AM

If you want to argue about the status of the Iraq and Afghan Wars, please take it to my blog and respond to any of a couple dozen of my heavily annotated and linked posts reporting on the progress in both wars.

However, this thread is not the place to rehash that issue.

Dumbfuck, if the status of the disaster in Iraq has nothing to do with this thread, why did you bring it up?

# posted by

Bartbuster : 12:05 PM

The plumbers were at work, Chuck Colson was mapping strategy inside the WH, Maurice Stans was busy trading money for influence, John Mitchell was entertaining all of them in the Justice Department - as 1968 unfolded.

But - they at least had Adam and Eve's sense of shame. They knew what they were doing was wrong, and they tried to conceal it.

The lawless bunch whom you defend do not know shame. They pledge allegiance to the power they possess. And you know it. You just try to stir us up.

# posted by

Porcupine_Pal : 12:07 PM

porcupine_pal:

Nixon & Co were not even in office in 1968.

The chaos of 1968 was a totally Dem affair from the politicians running the federal government, the anti war left, the Southern Jim Crow state and local governments, to the African American Dems burning down their own city neighborhoods.

NONE of these folks were GOP. None.

Because none of these folks were GOP, voters properly blamed the Dems for the chaos of 1968, the New Deal coalition broke apart and the result was a conservative realignment under the GOP tent.

It is a complete mystery to me why liberal Dems who were part of this chaos wax nostalgic about this period when in fact they were the ones who destroyed the Dem brand for what is now more than a generation.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:06 PM

We know what happens to those who forget the lessons of history. What happens to those who revise it?

The chaos in 1968 was in no small part also the result of assassination, something Bart conveniently forgets, which created havoc in the Democratic primary process. The public perception that the convention was hijacked by the stooges of Mayor Daly, Humphrey's inability to defend his forced pro-war stance, southern backlash against the Democrats' civil rights legislation, together with Nixon's claim to have a secret plan to end the war with honor, produced the result of 1968.

I should say also that it was an election that illustrated the growing divide between the Democrats and the Republicans: the Democrats were split by the issue of the war, with many unable, in good conscience, to have any enthusiasm for Humphrey because of it, while the GOP candidate simply piled lie upon lie, and it was swallowed wholesale by that part of the electorate which is the GOP's natural prey, who prefer lies to honesty, simplistic jingoism to substantive public soul-searching, and are attracted rather than repelled by thinly-veiled appeals to racism.

# posted by

C2H50H : 2:37 PM

c2h50h said...

The chaos in 1968 was in no small part also the result of assassination, something Bart conveniently forgets, which created havoc in the Democratic primary process.

I included the assassinations in my 11:50 post, but was hardly going to blame the Dems for these assassinations in my later 2:06 post.

In any case, it is unlikely that JFK would have done any better in 1968 with the same platform McGovern lost on in a landslide in 1972 after four further years of war and riot.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:58 PM

I'm sorry, Bart, but I find your piling of didactic assertions as to what the electorate would have done (how can you possibly even pretend to know?) on top of extended hypotheticals to be completely ridiculous.

JFK? In 1968? Possibly, you meant RFK, but that still makes no sense -- the fervor for RFK was, as anybody who was there can tell you, based not upon platform, but upon a somewhat irrational trust based on his reputation and a longing for someone -- anyone, as Nixon's election proved -- to extract us from the nightmare of Vietnam.

I went to hear RFK speak to a huge crowd and saw the fervor first hand. RFK was able to give those who were afraid or unwilling to vote against the war an acceptable anti-war candidate, haloed with the memory of JFK, and he would, in my personal opinion, have stomped Nixon.

# posted by

C2H50H : 3:56 PM

c2h59h:

I am well aware of the Kennedy legend, most of which is myth.

Humphrey had an enormous lead in delegates and McCarthy a lead in popular votes in the few primaries of that day at the time of RFK's assassination. The only way RFK could have even won the Dem nomination was to convince the Party bosses to take the nomination from the leaders and give it to Kennedy on the grounds of electability ala the Clinton argument today. That hardly would have endeared Kennedy to the supporters of the candidates who would have been stiffed in the back room deal.

The fact is that any Dem was attempting to paddle upstream in a waterfall in 1968. The New Deal majority had fractured irrevocably.

Kennedy had no chance in hell of bringing back the Southern Dems who defected to Wallace.

Additionally, an anti-war candidate would have lost the working class as did McGovern in 1972 and Carter in 1980. These are the Scoop Jackson Dems who would later become more well known as the Reagan Dems. BTW, look for these Dems to bolt this fall to McCain.

Kennedy was hardly popular among the GOP base. The GOP base outnumbered what was left of the Dem base after they lost the South.

Even during unpopular wars, Americans have never come close to electing a candidate advocating surrender. Both McClellan and McGovern were rejected decisively. There is no evidence that RFK would have done any better. However, you are allowed your fantasies.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:40 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:06 PM

Even during unpopular wars, Americans have never come close to electing a candidate advocating surrender.

You are forgetting Nixon.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:07 PM

and Eisenhower

# posted by

Bartbuster : 5:10 PM

Bart,

Do point out polling data from the period in question that supports your revisionist history. In case you hadn't noticed, the public does not generally vote based on a careful analysis of the positions of the candidates.

In other words, bring some insight to this blog for a change, instead of a tired repetition of your right-wing cliches.

Election campaigns can operate like tsunamis, where those who will vote for or against a particular candidate can swell or sink out of all proportion to approval of their platforms.

This surely happened in 1972, due to an unfortunate series of mistakes by McGovern and by a campaign of disinformation by Nixon and his operatives, aided by the negative coverage of McGovern by the national press.

Why you think things would have been the same in 1968 with a plausible anti-war candidate like RFK is incomprehensible to me. Since Nixon ran on an anti-war stance, yet won, your argument is nothing but a non sequitur.

# posted by

C2H50H : 5:46 PM

The New Deal coalition broke apart because it was never entirely liberal. Pro-civil rights actions by the Democrats from 1964-1968 pushed the racist voting block out of the Democratic Party (where it had been for 100 years because of anger at the pro-civil rights legacy of Republicans in the Civil War era). That explains most of the difference between the 1964 and 1968 vote totals. In 1968, many of these votes went to George Wallace (but since they left the Democratic column, they cost the Democrats several key states). By 1972, these votes were firmly in the GOP column, and have been ever since.

# posted by

some one : 7:38 PM

sb said...

The New Deal coalition broke apart because it was never entirely liberal.

Until the 60s, the Dems were the party of the South. FDR was able to expand that base to include an alliance with the northern working classes with a shared belief in government social insurance. This belief is liberal, but not nearly as far left as the Euro style entitlements and redistribution programs of the New Left in the 60s.

LBJ's embrace and advancement of the Civil Rights movement with the help of the GOP did indeed drive the Southern Dems out of the party to Wallace in 1968, to Nixon in 1972, back again to Carter in 1976 until they settled in the GOP with Reagan.

The Dem hawks did not start realigning until the Dems nominated McGovern on a platform of surrender in 1972. Watergate halted that realignment long enough to elect Carter with the last majority earned by a Dem. However, Carter's appeasement of the Communists followed by Reagan victory over them realigned the Dem hawks with the GOP. The so called neo-cons came out of this realignment. No Dem presidential candidate has obtained a majority of the vote since Carter.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:54 PM

Agnew was a reprobate and a felon, but nonetheless the phrase was a brilliant alliterative critique of the anti war left.

Too bad that Agnew didn't come up with it. That was Safire.

Why "Bart" thinks that alliteration has the force of powerful argument is beyond me..... Perhaps he also was duly impressed by "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit"?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:06 PM

Wanna hear a total load of cr*p?:

... the 1968 movement of the "Me Generation" was mostly about avoiding the dangers of wartime military service.

OIYAAR. Like Dubya, DeLay, Cheney, et al.....

I know I protested the war, and there was no chance of me getting drafted. I did it because it was wrong. Just as I spoke out about the Iraq war. Once again because it was wrong, and once again, because it is the young who die. Not Jenna and Not-Jenna. Not Cheney's daughters. No. Rich Republicans don't have to fight wars; that's a job for the lower classes.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:12 PM

That Islamofascistophile Ethyl Al-Cajal says:

I just don't know what has gotten into Bart this morning. He seems awfully certain of so many things that are either demonstrably false or else clearly beyond his ken.

As Dilan noted too, he's way out there. Really, it's psychosis setting in. To admit reality at this point would be so damning of his very soul that defence mechanisms set in and lead to a death spiral into hallucinatory schizophrenia. He is literally "making [his] own reality". Pathetic really; I think they'll have a code for it in the DSM-4 fairly shortly.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:20 PM

How anyone can wax nostalgic about losing wars, rioting in the streets, assassinations and cities burning ala 1968 is beyond my understanding.

How anyone can see anyone doing this specific "waxing nostalgic" on this page is beyond my understanding. Mainly because it ... Just. Ain't. There. The psychotic is just having another hallucination, and would be well served by an substantial titration of the Haldol up....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:25 PM

This comment has been removed by the author.

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:29 PM

"Bart", "Bart", "Bart"....:

You don't have a freakin' clue...

Additionally, an anti-war candidate would have lost the working class as did McGovern in 1972 and Carter in 1980.

Nixon was the "anti-war" candidate. He had a "plan to end the war". He ran against Humphrey, who lost.

As for McGovern being "anti-war", you are a typical RW slime-bucket, tossing out crap at those who least deserve it: McGovern was a freakin' WWII hero with a DFC to show for it (and Carter was also a high-ranking military man). Both of which eclipse your REMF duties.

Why you pretend that these people are anti-military is beyond me ... actually, it isn't, the reason is you folks are lying scumbuckets and pretend you have a patent on patriotism and every Democrat hates this country. Sorry, but that sh*te is getting very old and tattered (not to mention it was tawdry work to begin with), and people are more and more starting to see what azos (and bloodthirsty amoral ghouls) you RWer are. It's an ugly sight, and Dubya's 28% psychotics just ain't gonna carry any more elections.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:14 AM

These are the Scoop Jackson Dems who would later become more well known as the Reagan Dems. BTW, look for these Dems to bolt this fall to McCain.

The folks that voted for Dubya?!?!?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:15 AM

The GOP base outnumbered what was left of the Dem base after they lost the South.

And they "lost the South" by ... <*wait for it*> ... pissing off the unreconstructed racists in the South, saying "damn the conseqences, we'll do what's right". Good riddance to the racists, I say.

So the GOP, calculating, immoral, and opportunistic (and making Lincoln turn over in his grave) made a play for the racists (like Strom Thurmond, et al.) and sold their soul for political gain.

Sorry, "Bart", but that deal with the Devil has an expiration clause.

I know you will use every trick you can to stoke racist sentiments and try and get one last "victory" out of this tactic, but I hope and expect that you will fail ... and finally end up with your deal with the Devil coming due.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:24 AM

Our eedjit "Bart":

Until the 60s, the Dems were the party of the South. FDR was ...

... not from the South.

Howzabout them apples?

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 12:28 AM

Bart writes:
The entire cost of the war is more than paid for by the increased tax revenues from the economic growth created by the 2003 tax rate reductions. Those taxes are paid primarily by business and the wealthy.

The cost if the Iraq war to date has been, conservatively, 3 trillion US dollars, according to Joseph Stiglitz. What was the amount of the increased tax revenue from the 2003 tax changes?

# posted by

John : 11:45 AM

Arne writes:
As Dilan noted too, he's way out there. Really, it's psychosis setting in.

I'm beginning to think bart is a social experiment and not a real person, based on the volume and degree of historical and current inaccuracies. I think its possible that someone may be deliberately posting fabricated information to see what kind of response and dialog results.

# posted by

John : 1:28 PM

I have watched that dumbass post this crap for almost 5 years. It would be tough to stay on message for that long without being a true believer.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 2:35 PM

bit:

Before you accuse me of inaccuracies, you may want to get your own house in order.

To start, Stiglitz does not claim that the war has cost $3 Trillion to date. Rather, this figure is largely based on lost production over the lifetimes of the KIA and reduced production by the WIA.

The vast majority of Stiglitz' figure is not a cost to government at all, but rather a series of amazingly questionable assumptions:

1) The cost of oil increased because of the Iraq War. This is patent nonsense. Iraqi oil production is above pre war levels as is world wide production. The reason prices are up is that China and India went capitalist and their economies are booming.

2) The cost of Katrina. We have gone from nonsense to lying. Katrina would have damaged the area regardless of the availability of National Guard, which were not deployed on the orders of the inept and now unemployed Dem governor who refused federalization.

3) The slowdown of the US economy which supposedly has created $1 trillion in additional debt. Perhaps Stiglitz is looking at Zimbabwe because the US economy has boomed and tax revenues have soared since the Iraq War began, thanks to tax rate reductions and not the war.

I could go on and on debunking this nonsense. However, a reasonable person should get the point by now.

However, let us assume for the sake of argument that the Iraq War will cost the government $3 trillion.

Federal tax revenues increased by 35% or $625 billion during just the period between 2003 and 2006. If these additional funds are spread over time, the federal tax revenues created by the Bish tax rate cuts should cover Stiglitz' $3 trillion in 19.2 years, which is shorter than the time span over which the $3 trillion is supposed to accrue.

In reality, the increase in tax revenues has not only paid the actual out of pocket costs of the war, but also more than covered the increased costs of entitlements and reduced the deficit by over half.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:58 PM

In reality, the increase in tax revenues has not only paid the actual out of pocket costs of the war, but also more than covered the increased costs of entitlements and reduced the deficit by over half.

Bart is full of shit.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 3:17 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

I could go on and on debunking this nonsense. However, a reasonable person should get the point by now.

The only point apparent is that you like to assert things as "fact", without any thing to back these assertions up. That kind of "Did sooooo!" 'argumentation' is usually dropped by most people by the age of ten.

Federal tax revenues increased by 35% or $625 billion during just the period between 2003 and 2006.

A read of the letter shows that the vast bulk of the increase is due to increased corporate tax revenue, due to corporations making a profit (note that 2003 was not a very good year, and also note that 2003 is also an end-point right smack dab in the middle of the Dubya regime, so that what it means for Dubya's tax policy is rather muddled, plus it means Dubya's just "improving" over his own worst record).

Another part of the corporate revenue changes, as the letter points out, was due to changes in corporate tax law concerning expensing of equipment investment, which made for one-time write-downs, which can no longer be done (the law expired). And those laws have nothing to do with Dubya's individual income tax cuts.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 10:04 PM

I wrote:
The cost if the Iraq war to date has been, conservatively, 3 trillion US dollars, according to Joseph Stiglitz. What was the amount of the increased tax revenue from the 2003 tax changes?

That does imply the misleading impression that the long term costs of the war should be compared to the increase in tax revenues since 2003. Bart is right to call that out.

Not including the long term costs of the war is rather facetious. At the minimum, long-term care of vets and death benefits are part of the war cost Other problems such as the lack of availability of manpower for Katrina, well, were it not for the war they could have been there but that is one of Stiglitz's assumptions I don't agree with either. However, lost opportunity is something any economist includes in normal cost estimates. Excluding that is misleading.

As for the price of crude being driven by increase demand from China and India, supply has increased as well, according to the Oil Market Report.

Speaking of far out assumptions, assuming that the climb in tax revenues will continue for the next 19 years is beyond questionable. Also the CBO's $620 billion figure looks questionable. Receipts in 2004 were 1,922 billion, up 86 billion from 2003. In 2005, they were 2,135 billion, up 213 billion from 2004. In 2006 receipts were 2,263 billion, up 128 billion from 2005. That's a 427 billion worth of increases from 2003 - 2006. (From whitehoue.gov)
It would be interesting to know how CBO got that figure, actually.

At any rate most of those increases came from the expiration of the accelerated depreciation tax cut in 05, the 05 legislation requiring that year only that corporations bring foreign revenues home for taxation, and a rise in personal taxes from a brief stock market rise. The recent rate of receipts increase isn't sustainable, and the economy isn't exactly 'booming'.

Your original assertion that the increase in tax revenues more than pays for the war is still fairly questionable. Just from the whitehouse budget report alone, the government has been operating at a deficit, which fairly raises the question of whether a rise in receipts is covering the costs of the war. And, leaving out support for returned troops from that figuring is wrong.

# posted by

John : 8:55 AM