History HubΒ permalink
The Tea Party movement
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Monday, 17th January 2011
Does the US Tea Party movement have any credibility in re arranging the facts of US history?
Is this procedure of revision acceptable to a professional historian?
Does the attempted murder of a US Tea Party congresswoman and others in Tucson do anything to strengthen the cause of what would amount to a revolutionary act in a European country, and even in the USA.
Can ideas be dispelled from the human memory by an act of murder of one of its principal protagonists?
Can the truths of history be changed by Myth and legend?
gar -
Message 2
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Monday, 17th January 2011
Well to begin with she was anti-Tea Party.....as in the Tea Party were targetting her as she was a Democrat.
-
Message 3
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Monday, 17th January 2011
-
Message 4
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 17th January 2011
Although the US history gives the Tea party as protest against taxes, it was of course a case of the victors changing the facts to fit in. According to other accounts, the tax on tea was being lifted, and the ones throwing the tea into Boston harbour were smugglers who were seeing (To quote A certain Mr. daily)a nice little earner going out of the window.
-
Message 5
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
TEA is also an acronym for Taxed Enough Already. The shooting in Tucson had noting to do with the Tea Party movement as the alleged perpetrator was not affiliated to any political party and did not vote in the last elections (or any elections so far as we know as he only became eligible to vote in 2006). His main concern seems to be about a world currency which is not a Tea Party issue. On his Facebook site he gave his favourite books as, among others, "Mein Kampf" and "The Communist Manifesto", which hardly advocate smaller government. His attack on Congresswoman Giffords may have been motivated by anti-semitism as she is Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel.
-
Message 6
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
The interest in Mein Kampf would be a complete contradiction in all that, but he may well have been fairly close to an effective analysis of world politics then?
Communism might advocate NO government at all, in its anarchist manifestations, not just smaller government.
It was surprising how G bush associated Radicalism with Communism.
Without delving too far in to political meaning on History board, to me radicalism means drastic analysis of any given situation, whether political or historical or Scientific as well.
That acronym for Tea is coincidental, and avoiding taxation by smuggling was the first purpose in days of old. -
Message 7
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
The interest in Mein Kampf would be a complete contradiction in all thatΒ
Not really, fascism and communism are simply two sides of the same totalitarian coin and had the same modus operandi throughout much of the 20th century as this makes amply clear:
-
Message 8
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
Communism might advocate NO government at all, in its anarchist manifestations, not just smaller government.
It was surprising how G bush associated Radicalism with Communism.
Without delving too far in to political meaning on History board, to me radicalism means drastic analysis of any given situation, whether political or historical or Scientific as well.
That acronym for Tea is coincidental, and avoiding taxation by smuggling was the first purpose in days of old.Β
I don't know about you, Alan, but this post is pushing for the best ever in my time on these boards. You probably know what I mean by "the best". Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ History should be really proud of it. And I'd just leave it at that. -
Message 9
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 18th January 2011
I know Comrade Ulyanov coined a phrase about "useful idiots" but even he might have jibbed at its use in this case as a contradiction in terms.
-
Message 10
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
The guardian article was a good one, on Saturday.
The subject is an important one apparently in contemporary US politics, and purports to be rooted in history.
I should like to know more; perhaps these backhanded experts can tell me. -
Message 11
Posted by Mr_Edwards (U3815709) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
While there is indeed such a thing as Anarcho-Communism, Marx and Engels' "The Communist Manifesto" has nothing to do with that kind of communism. Indeed, on several occasions, Marx attempted to get Anarchists expelled from the First (socialist) International.
Similarly, Lenin dismissed Anarchists and other "left wing communists" as "infantile".
There is, however, a clear difference between fascism and Communism (the Marxist version). Marx saw communism resulting from "the withering away of the state" and clearly saw the big state as a "necessary evil". Fascists on the other hand, see big government as an end in itself, because to them the government IS the fatherland and vice versa. -
Message 12
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Wednesday, 19th January 2011
There is, however, a clear difference between fascism and Communism (the Marxist version). Marx saw communism resulting from "the withering away of the state" and clearly saw the big state as a "necessary evil". Fascists on the other hand, see big government as an end in itself, because to them the government IS the fatherland and vice versa.Β
The difference is about as clear as that between the price of a pair of pants sold at a department store and that of the same pair of pants sold at a second hand store. -
Message 13
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
suvorevetz obviously has an opinion in his pants.
-
Message 14
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
Or perhaps he’s just happy to see you...
-
Message 15
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
Coming from "bandick" that may be a fair comment.
I am sorry that there is no sensible comment about the Tea Party Movement, about which I should have liked to learn more, historically.
It is the question of History and Memory of its adherents, that is in question. -
Message 16
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 20th January 2011
I am sorry that there is no sensible comment about the Tea Party Movement, about which I should have liked to learn more, historically.Β
If anybody here truly believes that you're looking for a sensible comment, they should be looking for some sense. -
Message 17
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Friday, 21st January 2011
Members of this movement are all mad and Sarah Palin is their leader. She has done much for women who wear glasses and tatooed make-up.
On the negative side if she thinks it is a "trick question" to ask what book she is reading - Tea Party members do not like or read books - or where Russia is (apart from outside her Alaskin kitchen window) then all I can say is why do people, even Americans, take her seriously?
We should all be afraid! Very, very, very, very afraid that some people believe she should become the President of the USA. It's scary to think she is a local council member.
What I don't get is why she is there! In a Puritan country her unmarried daughter has become pregnant, (lots of mum daughter chats there!) She's sacked someone who was nasty to her sister in "government office" she shoots and tries to kill anything which may be considered "wild-life" and adores guns and is still considered a warm and cosey "soccer/football mum".
In brief she's thick, has no ethics, and is a danger to society. Having been to the USA twice I bet she can't even make tea - unless it is on ice with an umbrella stuck in it. She's a very dangerous joke. -
Message 18
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 21st January 2011
We should all be afraid! Very, very, very, very afraid that some people believe she should become the President of the USA. It's scary to think she is a local council member. Β
Actually, she's been a successful governor of a state. "Afraid!" is a foregone conclusion for a country having elected a community organizer, an Alinskyite socialist, who, among many other ingenius things, said the following:
"The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries." --Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010
"The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system." --in remarks after a health care roundtable with physicians, nurses and health care providers, Washington, D.C., July 20, 2009
"It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There's a lot of -- I don't know what the term is in Austrian, wheeling and dealing." --confusing German for "Austrian," a language which does not exist, Strasbourg, France, April 6, 2009
-
Message 19
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Friday, 21st January 2011
I thought I was being nice! "Hidden" always makes it sound wicked! I said she has done good things for glasses and tatooed make-up! I simply wish that she would read, books and things like that! Can I lower the tone anymore?
I don't like guns or those who love them. What's wrong with that? The right to "bear arms" was when the young America did not have a standing army - only a militia. It is out dated today and simply dangerous.
Let people have guns and riffles simply charge them Β£2,000 for every bullet! Simple really! -
Message 20
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Wednesday, 26th January 2011
shes a conservative democrat -Giffords is
shes a gun owner
she debated which party she wanted to join
someone said she and gunman both belonged to the same synagogue
verify this if you can ,im curious -
Message 21
Posted by NormanRHood (U14656514) on Sunday, 24th April 2011
Why do you think she was of the tea party?id say democrats are more violent
-
Message 22
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Sunday, 24th April 2011
The good news is that Giffords has survived and is recovering, although from the medical story it seems unlikely that she will make a full recovery. Still, there is hope, as the body sometimes shows an amazing ability to compensate for damage.
Responding to the original question, the version of US history "adopted" by the Tea Party has little to do with historical reality. It is characteristic for US politics that both sides seek to use history as a rethorical weapon, which of course leads to distortions. This leads to especially strange logical jumps from radical conservatives, who somehow need to "overlook" the inconvenient reality that the American Revolution was perhaps the most significant Liberal event in world history -- a true game-changer, and the pattern for a long series of revolutions and constitutions with a strong liberal bent. It's impact has been remarkably far-reaching, as for enlightenment intellectuals everywhere the American success was an inspiration. But American conservatives are still struggling to come to terms with a state that (with all its consequences good and bad) is THE quintessential liberal project in modern history. That doen't in itself invalidate conservative ideology, but it's an inconvenience that leads to particularly strident rethoric, as if sheer volume and stubborn conviction are enough to change the historical record.
That said, the American tradition of violent political rhetoric (and political violence) long predates the Tea Party. (Of course even today's foullest mouths were active before the Tea Party existed.) In Jules Verne's "Around the World in 80 days" there is a scene set in the USA in which the heroes get caught in a violent riot and extract themselves only with difficulty -- afterwards it is explained to them that it was only an election, no not of a general of the army, but of a judge of peace... Coming from a Frenchman, that was a little rich, but it illustrates the reputation that US politics already had more than a century ago. US presidents used to be shot almost routinely: IIRC it was a common superstition, before Reagan survived the attempt on his life, that every fourth US president would be murdered. -
Message 23
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Sunday, 24th April 2011
Responding to the original question, the version of US history "adopted" by the Tea Party has little to do with historical reality. ... This leads to especially strange logical jumps from radical conservatives, who somehow need to "overlook" the inconvenient reality that the American Revolution was perhaps the most significant Liberal event in world history -- a true game-changer, and the pattern for a long series of revolutions and constitutions with a strong liberal bent. ... But American conservatives are still struggling to come to terms with a state that (with all its consequences good and bad) is THE quintessential liberal project in modern history. That doen't in itself invalidate conservative ideology, but it's an inconvenience that leads to particularly strident rethoric, as if sheer volume and stubborn conviction are enough to change the historical record.Β
The product of American Revolution is the American Constitution. The American Constitution evolved based on philosophy developed by Lock and Co, i.e., natural law and natural rights philosophy. It is deliberately designed to limit the power of the Federal government to the handful of enumerated powers. This system has been seriously eroded over the course of the 20th century by statists - the Hegelian followers, who chipped away from the Constitution at every turn and managed to expand the Federal Government well beyond the intended by the Founders limits. It is not coincidental that the Founders themselves are constantly being accused of being "slave owners," "racist" and [fill in the blank]. Of course, nobody really cares about how many women Jefferson had slept with. It IS about the Constitution. As Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer himself, brilliantly noted in his book "Liberty and Tyranny," the statist's slogan about the Constitution being a "living and breathing" document means only one thing: the Constitution is as good as dead to them. -
Message 24
Posted by Mr_Edwards (U3815709) on Tuesday, 26th April 2011
The Constitution is NOT the product of the Revolution. It was by no means certain what (if any) Constitution would be adopted before the Constitutional Convention was called.
From the very beginning there were conflicts between Federalists like Hamilton who believed the United States should become a Federation with states subordinate to the Federal Government and those like Jefferson who believed in State's rights with the Federal government only claiming that degree of sovereignty from the states that was necessary for coherence and protection.
The Constitution itself is a compromise between the two sides but it never resolved the conflict between the two views. However, the checks and balances built into it to prevent tyranny or anarchy have, with the exception of the unpleasantness of the 1860s and a minor "war" about who gets the Upper Peninsular in Michigan, worked well to prevent the conflict boiling over.
There have been constant attempts to influence the political makeup of the judiciary by judges choosing to retire during the tenure of a President whose politics they share, but this has not always been successful as the Reaper also take a hand in the timing of new judges' appointments. -
Message 25
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 26th April 2011
The Constitution is NOT the product of the Revolution. It was by no means certain what (if any) Constitution would be adopted before the Constitutional Convention was called. Β
Very well. The Constitution IS the product of the Constitutional Convention, which would probably never take place without American Revolution. The only reason the states even agreed to integrate beyond the Article of Confederation was the recognition that they needed Federal Government to provide for the adequate defence - hence the enumerated powers. The intent of the Constitution was undoubtedly to create a limited Federal Government. This intent has been long corrupted via - yes- judicial fiats and outright power abuses, such as notorious WPA, NRA and a dozen of other acronyms created by FDR's glorious crew, for example. -
Message 26
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 27th April 2011
Yes, see here how a recession, caused not by a collapse in stock market values in 1929 (they had largely recovered by the following year) but by a collapse in the banking system and credit which had originated in Europe in 1931 (the reverse of 2008), which should have lasted two years at the most, was turned into a decade-long depression by Roosevelt's misguided policies:
-
Message 27
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
Allan,
Any idiot can write a book and other idiots will go to purchase it. When there is not a deep recession but a depression, no one is hiring anyone, there are soup kitchens to take care of the workers, even writers and actors are on the dole, the only way to get the economy out of the dumps is by public spending; this is the message of John Maynard Keynes, and that is what FDR did to get us out of the depression.
The American Far-Right, now personified by the racist Tea-Party, always finds some way to fight the dirtiest of fights at election time. In the election of George H.W. Bush, they released the Willy Horton ad to create an atmosphere of race hatred in America. They tried to get Bill Clinton on Impeachment; arguably one of the best presidents in recent history, who left the treasury full for George W. Bush to squander in two wars, general tax cuts, for John Kerry, they created the boat people and wrote a book about it; always trying to get their way by character assassination. Now they are asking Obama to produce his birth certificate; and when he produces that, accepted by Hawaii as the authentic certificate of Birth, they want his long certificate from the archives of the State of Hawaii. They did not even accept a clear Statement form the Person in charge of Births in Hawaii, a bona-fide Republican. Now the certificate has been produced I wonder what they will concoct next.
China is breathing down our neck; if it would only revalue their currency they may be the number one economic power by 2016. If they stop lending us money to subsidize our extravagant life-style. We should be thinking of important things, we should be working our way to reduce our deficit, and not on the backs of our senior citizens, instead we are wasting our time in these bizarre items, like requiring a President , elected by a vast majority of Americans, to prove that he is in fact an American and not a Muslim. It is the height of infantile behavior; we must be becoming th laughing stock of the World.
Tas -
Message 28
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
Rather confusing message. The book is far from idiotic and Powell is a highly praised author, who has written many books from a libertarian perspective including one on the abolition of slavery. If you don't wish to buy it I suggest you at least try and read it before criticising it.
John Maynard Keynes was one of the most trenchant critics of the New Deal. Indeed he compared it to "employing men to dig holes and then fill them up again" and Powell's book quotes many of Keynes' criticisms which he expressed in both articles in US periodicals and newspapers and in personal letters to Roosevelt.
I don't know if you have ever heard of the "Roosevelt Recession" which occurred in the winter of 1937-8 when unemployment returned to the level (about 28%) that he had inherited from the Hoover Administration five years earlier because of his Administration's and the Federal Reserve's ignorance of the effect of a tight monetary policy (which had caused the Depression in the first place) resulting from Roosevelt's attempt to fiddle the gold price. Even by the start of 1940 the US unemployment rate still stood at almost 19%.
Unlike Obama Roosevelt did not believe in deficit financing (although deficits did occur) and his attempts to boost the economy through public works schemes and greater public spending were more than outweighed by greater taxation, higher prices, and greater regulations that were imposed on business.
At a time when many were on or near the breadline thousands of farm animals and millions of tons of crops were deliberately destroyed in order to push up farm prices. Those states outside the TVA scheme actually had cheaper electricity than those within it. Blacks were kept out of jobs as the Federal Government enforced union-only contracts with predominantly white unions. Public works schemes were directed not to the states with the highest unemployment (usually in the South) but to "swing states" whose votes Roosevelt needed to remain President.
In the final analysis it was not John Maynard Keynes or Roosevelt who ended the inter-war depression but Adolf Hitler and General Tojo. -
Message 29
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
I don't understand how the Tea Party are supposed to be re-writing history....
Can anyone elaborate for me, please? -
Message 30
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
When there is not a deep recession but a depression, no one is hiring anyone, there are soup kitchens to take care of the workers, even writers and actors are on the dole, the only way to get the economy out of the dumps is by public spending; this is the message of John Maynard Keynes, and that is what FDR did to get us out of the depression.Β
Even Maynard himself and FDR's Treasury Secretary Morgenthau essentially acknowledged the failure of FDR's policy to address the depression. The only question is exactly who is the real idiot? One school of thought - Anthony Sutton - believes that FDR was a figure head for the Wall Street moguls. The other - monetary and economic policy guru Selgin - says that FDR and his crew were merely economically illiterate. Perhaps, it's both.
The American Far-Right, now personified by the racist Tea-Party, always finds some way to fight the dirtiest of fights at election time.Β
Of course. This here is the vivid example of that:
-
Message 31
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
Allan, Suovoretz,
You folks are so libertarian that history means nothing to you. It was your libertarian government, without any attempt to regulate the violators of the rules of the open market that brought about the Deprssion of 1929. At that time even economists did not know what to do. Keynes' theories had not yet been developed and accepted. It was the SEC, introduced by FDR, that instituted any control over robbery in the Capital markets. Ronald Reagan, with his cry of "Goverment is not the solution; it is the problem" brought about an era of lack of regulation in the era of George Bush. This lack of any regulation brought about this second near depression.
If anyone believes in Capitalism, he should thank people, like FDR, who regulate it from crooks like Bernie Maddoff and people of his ilk. When major banks like Bear and Sterns and Lehman Brothers are collecting junk mortgage securities, knowing that they are junk, and then promoting them for people to purchase, and rating agencies, whose customers trust them, are in collusion with the banks, are rating those junk securities AAA. This kind of unregulated crap shoot will destroy Capitalism.
It is typically the Extreme Right who want to deregulate everything, banks airlines, everything. Airlines in the US are charging $25 for checking each suitcase. Soon we will be in the era when there is an emergency in the air, the oxygen mask falls, with a sign on it, please insert $10 to use it.
I agree at least on one thing with Allan; the great depression finally ended because of WW2.
Tas -
Message 32
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
You folks are so libertarian that history means nothing to you. It was your libertarian government, without any attempt to regulate the violators of the rules of the open market that brought about the Deprssion of 1929.Β
It depends on what you mean by "history." It's pretty obvious that you aren't an economics major - and if you are, God help us all. I don't know about Allan, but I take time to read some of Von Mises Institute papers, for example. Just to know what I'm talking about, when it comes to it. And - to be perfectly blunt, if I may, - no person unfamiliar with Friedman's Monetary History of the United States should be giving a pass on bloviating about this at all. My hunch is that you haven't really done so. -
Message 33
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
Suvorovetz,
And - to be perfectly blunt, if I may, - no person unfamiliar with Friedman's Monetary History of the United States should be giving a pass on bloviating about this at all. My hunch is that you haven't really done so.Β
I am not going to be bound by any one book, as you seem to be. I have read so much that I have an understanding, in a general way, of many things. I doubt if you have any understanding of anything at all.
Tas -
Message 34
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
Tas
I'm glad we agree that it was WWII not the New Deal that ended the Depression in the US (as well as elsewhere, including Britain, where unemployment also fell at a similar rate during the 1930s, without an intervening spike, despite, or perhaps because of, a lack of similar aggressive government intervention).
Far from being non-interventionist FDR's predecessor, Herbert Hoover, both as President and as Secretary of Commerce, was one of the most interventionist administrators in US history. He developed the idea "associationalism" which meant private firms forming associations within their respective industries and then doing deals with government to ensure price floors and ceilings. These were effectively government-protected cartels which did not benefit the consumer and undermined the whole notion of consumer sovereignty but became the basis of the New Deal.
Hoover, far from doing nothing in the wake of the Wall Street Crash, drew up plans for a whole series of public works schemes, some of which such as the Boulder (later renamed the Hoover) Dam were started during his period of office and the rest were implemented by the Roosevelt Administration (which is why they could embark on them so quickly after entering office).
Contrary to popular myth Hoover was not opposed to social security schemes for those unemployed but he thought such schemes needed to be implemented by the States (if necessary with federal support) rather than the federal government as different economic conditions and different wage levels prevailed across the different states and thus an unemployment benefit rate might be too high in one state (and have the effect of discouraging those looking for work thereby increasing the levels of unemployment) and too low in another providing an insufficient means of subsistence.
When federal unemployment benefits were introduced in 1934 these proved to be, in many cases, less generous than the state unemployment schemes they replaced, notably in Roosevelt's own state of New York.
As far as the SEC is concerned it was only introduced in 1935, 6 years after the Wall Street Crash when stock market prices had long stabilised. Regulation of the stock market was not FDR's first order of priorities. He appointed as its first head one of his biggest political contributors, Joseph P.Kennedy, who had made his fortune from what we would call today 'insider trading' which the SEC was designed to outlaw, before withdrawing his investments on the eve of the Crash and placing them in the burgeoning Hollywood film industry, which along with automobiles, radio and the liquor trade (which Kennedy also played a part in promoting during the Prohibition era), were the great growth industries of inter-war America.
When this was pointed out to Roosevelt he merely laughed and replied with one of the familiar boyhood cliches of which he was so fond that you needed
"to set a thief to catch a thief". The SEC's record as a regulator has been pretty poor. It failed to prevent major stock market falls in 1954, 1987 and 2000 that were in their way almost as significant as 1929, the difference being that the Federal Reserve loosened rather than tightened monetary policy preventing a recession turning into an all-out depression.
The SEC failed to prevent market abuses such as the Enron accounting scandal nor did it adequately deal with the formation and ultimate deflation of the "dot.com" bubble in the 1990s. Its major impact was to exclude the small investor from the market and change the corporate structure of US business. Now the stock of most public companies in the US, like those in Britain, are
owned not by a myriad of small investors but by other corporate entities such as pension and insurance funds.
The effect of government regulation has been to reward the large at the expense of the small, the corporate at the expense of the individual, to create corporate capitalism at the expense of a genuinely free market. The concept of "too big to fail" has its genesis in the New Deal. -
Message 35
Posted by freda (U14854920) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
I was very interested in your message board letter on the American Tea Party.
But I realise I have a complete lack of knowledge with regards to American Historical facts, although the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ covers some history from time to time, I think that there is a total gap in coverage of US History. My comment is ;- why isn't there more American documentaries on the American States, how they came to be, what historical structure they have , when they actually became a State, what they produced - there's so much that we don't know here.
In that vein I would love to see a weekly diary programme on America. Thinking of that the perfect person comes to mind to present this, and that is David Soul who presented a daily dairy programme that covered general English history of the British Isles during the eighties. He brought a different and refreshing point of view, with complete charm and interest. Does anyone out there agree with this and would like to see a programme developed along these lines.
FJ -
Message 36
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
I am not going to be bound by any one book, as you seem to be. I have read so much that I have an understanding, in a general way, of many things. I doubt if you have any understanding of anything at all.Β
It looks like you interpreted my previous post this way:
the only book that suvorovetz ever read was Friedman's Monetary History of the United States, and since that moment, his life and his mind has been forever bound by the book. Hence, he does not understand anything at all. But don't forget that he is also racist and extreme.
That's one impressive deliberation. -
Message 37
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
You said it mate. Who am I to contradict?
Tas -
Message 38
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
You said it mate. Who am I to contradict?Β
Just for the record, are you REALLY happy to be seen debating this way? This site is available for worldwide viewing (of course, I don't know what its viewing trends are these days). That's quite bold, I have to give it to you. -
Message 39
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
Hi FJ,
There used to be a great weekly program on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, called "Letter from America," by Alastair Cook. Cook was an Englishman who had a great understanding and liking for America. He also used to be the presenter of a great program on our Public Television, here in America, "Masterpiece Theater". Unfortunately, he is now gone. I used to listen to his letter every week when I lived in London many years ago. He was also reputed to be among the three best broadcasters. The other two were George Bernard Shaw and Malcolm Muggeridge. What a great soul he was !
Tas -
Message 40
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
Hi Allan,
I have a lot of respect for you. However when you say:
The SEC failed to prevent market abuses such as the Enron accounting scandal nor did it adequately deal with the formation and ultimate deflation of the "dot.com" bubble in the 1990s. Its major impact was to exclude the small investor from the market and change the corporate structure of US business. Now the stock of most public companies in the US, like those in Britain, are
owned not by a myriad of small investors but by other corporate entities such as pension and insurance funds.
The effect of government regulation has been to reward the large at the expense of the small, the corporate at the expense of the individual, to create corporate capitalism at the expense of a genuinely free market. The concept of "too big to fail" has its genesis in the New Deal. Β
are you not laying everything that has transpired in America and Britain since 1932 at FDR's feet. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since that period, among that the so called "Reagan Revolution". No one can tell me about Reagan, because I was there and when people talk about Reaganomics, they are talking about a man whom David Stockman, his chief of Budget had to explain simple economic rules on a little board like a game. Reagan used to say Deficits are irrelevant and of no consequence.
It is the habit of Republicans, now for a long time to ruin the economy by piling up deficits and then saying that they can not afford anything that will improve peoples' health or security. They want to get us out of the present deficit by junking our Medicare program and reducing tax rates to a mere 25%, especially for multimillionaires. In fact a lot of American millionaires, the more sensible ones are saying, "Please tax us."
Canada is a country that has managed its economy and its banks exceptionally well, by eliminating its deficit and yet maintaining its superb healthcare system and its system of pensions. Its banks make money, in the words of the Commercial, "in the old -fashioned way; They earn it!"
When Bush was in power, he wanted to privatize Social Security. That would have been catastrophic for all the Senior Citizens who count on it, when the stock market crashed.
The Tea party, and with that the entire Republican Party are moving farther and farther Right, so that David Cameron's Conservatives would appear to be too Liberal in today's America.
Tas -
Message 41
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
It is the habit of Republicans, now for a long time to ruin the economy by piling up deficitsΒ
For those, who can actually count:
in the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.
For reference, one trillion = 1,000,000,000,000 (or, one million million). -
Message 42
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
I'm glad we agree that it was WWII not the New Deal that ended the Depression in the US (as well as elsewhere, including Britain, where unemployment also fell at a similar rate during the 1930s, without an intervening spike, despite, or perhaps because of, a lack of similar aggressive government intervention).Β
The 1930s saw Britain abandon Free Trade and 'laissez-faire' economics. -
Message 43
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Thursday, 28th April 2011
Hi Allan,
I'm glad we agree that it was WWII not the New Deal that ended the Depression in the US (as well as elsewhere, including Britain, where unemployment also fell at a similar rate during the 1930s, without an intervening spike, despite, or perhaps because of, a lack of similar aggressive government intervention).Β
Perhaps the start of WW2 was the very huge intervention that was required to end the Great Depression. You know that in war time one is not thinking of saving any money, You are selling war bonds like crazy and all the patriots of one's country are buying those war bonds and everything is being sacrificed to victory. What bigger stimulus than that?
Tas -
Message 44
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
In the final analysis it was not John Maynard Keynes or Roosevelt who ended the inter-war depression but Adolf Hitler and General Tojo.Β
To qualify what the end of depression really meant, the distinction between the fall of unemployment rate, increase in durable goods production and the rise of living standards is not trivial. The former two, of course, were instantly affected by the US entering the WWII - simply by virtue of transferring a big chunk of able population from kitchen soup lines to military barracks and placing orders for war equipment. The living standards, however, would not begin to recover until after Adolf Hitler, General Tojo and FDR himself would leave the scene. -
Message 45
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
Suvo :
It is not coincidental that the Founders themselves are constantly being accused of being "slave owners," "racist" and [fill in the blank]Β
And quite rightly so, it seems to me.
The US right wing likes to talk of their nation being born to promote certain principles. All well and good.
But then they go on to say, as has been repeated on this thread, that this or that approach, be it biggerr government or higher taxation, or whatever, were inconsistent with the approach of these founding fathers. Well, then, be consistent yourself, is the message to the right wingers.
Slavery and racism were consistent with the approach of these founding fathers (or, at least, some of them). So, be consistent, bring back slavery.
Given that you can't demonstrate that these charges of supporting slavery and racism are wrong, what point are you actually making ?
Racism just might be problematic to define or prove, but some of them most certainly were slave owners, so why put that in speech marks as if it were a made up idea ?
Are you suggesting we simply ignore a fact that makes the heroes of the past look, by modern standards, just a little tarnished ? Hagiography is not history. -
Message 46
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
Given that you can't demonstrate that these charges of supporting slavery and racism are wrong, what point are you actually making ?Β
I don't have to demonstrate that these charges are wrong, although they are wrong in many instances. It is sufficient to demonstrate that these charges are irrelevant and hypocritical. Democrats, who level these charges, are members of the very party with a horrific record in terms of racism and double standards. Just a few posts ago, Alan described a few instances of FDR's New Deal programs outright discriminating against blacks in the South, with complete impunity. Where's the outcry? And, by the way, where's the evidence that Tea Party is racist? In fact, I have quite an evidence of the opposite. I can demonstrate to you how leftist viciously - with obvious racist overtones - denigrate one of the distinguished Tea Party members Congressmen Alan West, who happens to be black. -
Message 47
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
Most of the Founders, including Jefferson, realised that the incompatibility of slavery with the "all men are born equal, with certain inalienable rights" phrase contained within the Declaration of Independence (penned by Jefferson). However this was overridden by the political necessity, both in 1776 and 1787, of incorporating the slaveholding states, principally Virginia, Georgia and the two Carolinas into the Union.
Many of the Founders hoped that slavery would die a natural death as the states using free labour increased their economic lead. Eli Whitney's improvement of the cotton gin in 1796 made this a forlorn hope and from thenceforward, through the Compromises of 1820 and 1850, the attempt was made to restrain the growth of slavery in the new territories. However these two failed until the issue could only be resolved by force.
If you consider that a written constitution can be flouted or ignored, for whatever reason, what is the point of having one? The US Constitution would then become as meaningless as the one Stalin had the Soviet Union adopt in 1935 which promised all sorts of freedoms including the right to worship and to assemble but which was of course a total dead letter from the outset as it was totally unenforceable. -
Message 48
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
Allan The US Constitution would then become as meaningless as the one Stalin had the Soviet Union adopt in 1935 which promised all sorts of freedoms including the right to worship and to assemble but which was of course a total dead letter from the outset as it was totally unenforceable.Β
"unenforceable" is too soft of a term in regard to Stalin and his Constitution. In the Soviet Union - kind of like in the Orwellian Animal Farm - words meant the opposite of their original meaning more often than not. -
Message 49
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
<quote>Democrats, who level these charges
The charges are made by historical research.
You have ignored the point that it is usually the right wing who claim that the US should revert to its revolutionary principles whilst ignoring the inconvenient consequences of doing just that.
In effect they are saying that they insist on all of the principles of a byegone era being revived in the modern day, but are forced to concede that this is impossible when certain things, such as slavery, are mentioned. We can't live now as they did then, it is ridiculous. So their point of principle is shown as flawed.
Institutionalsed racism in the US survived at least until the 1960s. You can defend the principles of FDR's New Deal without even wanting to defend the racism throughout American society at the time. In any event, I think it would be rather more difficult to charge the leaders of the New Deal with racism. The racism was at a lower level. Un-like the 'Founding Fathers', some of whom, at the highest level, most certainly did own slaves.
Further, I think that the ownership of those slaves did affect how things happened, as Allan D indicates. You can argue exactly how, but it you can't argue anything unless you have the facts.
<quote> And, by the way, where's the evidence that Tea Party is racist? </quote>
As I never made that claim, I feel no need to defend it. In my opinion the Tea Party movement is, primarily economic in motivation. This economic self interest is covered in a cloth of ideology, but basically, it is self interest. -
Message 50
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
I think it would be rather more difficult to charge the leaders of the New Deal with racism.Β
Maybe, maybe not but the New Deal was suffused with racism. Unions who were often the biggest beneficiaries of the New Deal in the form of closed-shop contracts were predominantly white and often excluded blacks from membership. New Deal money was directed to the swing-states, mainly white, whilst the states which had thwe highest levels of unemployment and poverty where large numbers of blacks resided were in the South and were solidly Democrat and received comparatively smaller funds.
FDR did nothing for the crop-share farmer in the South who was mainly black and living on the edge of subsistence whilst doing a great deal to support the agricultural cooperatives and large farmers of the Mid-West. FDR relied on his southern base which was profoundly segregationist to pass legislation through Congress. The Senate Majority Leader until his death in 1938 was Joseph Robinson of Arkansas who was an out-and-out segregationist who blocked all attempts to pass an anti-lynch law.
In the end the only way the blacks in the southeastern part of the country could find to improve the lot during the Depression was by internal migration to the industrialised regions of the North-East, the Great Lakes and California and take their chances there. The inter-war depression consequently produced the greatest internal migration in US history.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.