[sixties-l] Fwd: What if Harry Potter doesn't know squat about the jacksonian heritage?

From: drieux (drieux@WETWARE.COM)
Date: Thu Nov 28 2002 - 12:43:03 EST

  • Next message: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu: "[sixties-l] Reliving the Good Old Days (fwd)"

    In case anyone is interested in debating if we
    actually 'learned' anything from 'the sixties'
    and the 'vietnam era' and the current set of
    issues that are in play today.

    I originally sent this to a veteran's group mailing list in
    which there was some 'unresolved' questions about the policies
    of 'dissing the president' - given previous constraints about
    whining about Clinton that the list owner was concerned about
    during the previous administration.

    >> I find the complete lack of respect for the office of the president
    >> shown on
    >> this list to be disgusting. And quite a contrast to the list's policy
    >> during the last administration headed by a man who disgraced his
    >> office and
    >> the White House.
    > You will have to help me out here.
    > In what way is this an issue about 'the office of the president'?
    > From what I have seen so far, the attacks have been
    > on the lack of an actual policy position of any
    > clarity or coherence coming out of the "office". As such
    > this is not about 'attacking the man' as it seems to be
    > about attacking a complete lack of 'moral character' with
    > respect to the policies of the 'government'.
    > I can appreciate that those who hated 'policy by poll numbers'
    > are perchance a bit confused by the current process of having
    > the 'policy debates' conducted in the press by 'insider leaks'
    > so that the administration can send out their trial ballons
    > and see which way the wind blows.
    > Allow me to offer four URL's and we can resolve who is on
    > the side of which:
    > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48812-2002Nov27.html
    >  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/taylor2002-11-26.htm
    > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/opinion/19KRUG.html
    > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43694-2002Nov26.html
    > IF we assume that Ashcroft is actually opposed to the creation
    > of a new special domestic spying organization - is his opposition
    > to the process a part of the clear 'lack of respect' for the
    > 'office of the president'????
    > Or is the fact that the liberal media's coverage of the OBVIOUS
    > part of Karl Rove's Efforts to sell the current president as the
    > next Andrew Jackson, well, a bit stilted, in the fact that they
    > are not addressing the clear problems of
    > Worcester vs. Georgia
    > in which Jackson allowed the US Supreme Court ruling to langish
    > unenforced, so that He could move the Cherokee off of their native
    > lands and hence hand those lands over to the Great Plantation Owners
    > as the true 'pay back' for their loyalty to the Party.
    > I drop this all into play since most americans who 'survived'
    > the 'vietnam era' have still very unresolved open issues with
    > whether or not they openly support the government blindly, since
    > of course the government alone knows... Or is it possible to
    > still sit in opposition to the Government Policies, a tradition
    > that goes back to Davy Crockett who OPPOSED Jackson on his
    > policy of forced internment.
    > Some here of course recall that the american civil service
    > system came into existance to END the Jacksonian policies
    > of Patronage, and were a part of the complications of the
    > vietnam era as to whether or not allowing federal employee's
    > to 'unionize' was merely a 'democratic' effort to return
    > to their sinister roots of Jacksonian Patronage. Others of
    > course would be obliged to wander down the problems of the
    > whole 'revolving door' of the Military-Industrial-InfoTainment
    > Industry and how the PuzzlePalace Wonders were rotating out of
    > their billets as Panderers of the Pentagon to Congress, into
    > the more lucrative jobs as Panderers of "Defense Establishment
    > firms" to the Pentagon...
    > We might likewise discuss the 'cultural crisis' level of the
    > problems that some americans had with the whole 'civil rights'
    > issues of the 'vietnam era' - and the obvious problems of J.Edger
    > Hoover
    > getting a bit out of hand with 'domestic survaillance' that was the
    > very root of the FISA to begin with. Some of course blame Nixon,
    > and his decision to use CIA assets to do the Watergate Break-In
    > and other domestic politcal partisan politicing - but we all of
    > course normally list that under Nixon's DEEP FONDNESS for the
    > wonders of Jacksonianism... All of which also spun out the
    > Church Committee and the rest of the evil encroachment on the
    > power and pomposity of the Executive.
    > But of course since the 2000 campaign season was all about
    > preventing the "manchurian candidate" McCain from getting the
    > GOP nod - we all of course know that the current administration
    > hopes most folks have 'gotten over' the whole "vietnam era"
    > thing, and are ready to get on back down the road to those
    > happier and kinder days of the fifties when everyone so openly
    > trusted the administration.... Because, well, we were in a
    > Cold War with the Forces of Evil, and there were Evil Doers
    > and their Fellow Travelors Everywhere....
    > I would of course love to draw the parrallel's between the
    > economic policies that ran rampant in the vietnam era and
    > the current crisis in the administration, but there is the
    > small problem of developing an argument from silence. All
    > we know so far is that the Current Administration has all
    > but Gutted the SEC, we are now adrift without any form of
    > corporate governance regulation at the federal level - and
    > this could be a policy of 'privatizing' that portion of
    > the government, or hoping that the states will step in
    > and provide the required level of 'consumer protection'
    > if they believe in such things.... But it is not yet
    > clear that this is really an actual 'policy' or merely the
    > fall of the cards and a 'complication' that the current
    > administration has not yet seen the poll numbers as to
    > wether they should have a policy more complicated than
    > the Karl Rove Survay Says Show....
    > Or am I merely pointing out the Obvious bits?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Dec 16 2002 - 22:52:38 EST