American History

» Brian Tubbs - FDR

In response to Historically Speaking That Is. posted by JohnCrandall:

There have been some good arguments made, I think, that FDR blunted much more radical movements in America during the Depression era. The people of that era were DESPERATE and hurting - in a way that today's generation can't really understand. You had communism making inroads into America. You had demagogues like Huey Long becoming increasingly popular. FDR was an activist liberal, but he was a moderate compared to some of the alternatives on the Left.

And, as Pink said, he was also a very effective communicator. He gave America a dose of hope when it needed it.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Better Question

In response to Better Question posted by pink101:

Might be good to set up a different thread to discuss some of our more military-minded Presidents - and how they handled the issue of a "militarized government."

I would say, however, that NO President has "militarized" our government to the extent that Abraham Lincoln did in the Civil War and CONGRESS did during the Reconstruction era.

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Better Question

In response to Better Question posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The Civil War, of a necessity, resulted in the military occupation of the secessionist states.
.
That situation in which several states were at physical war with the nation, was quite different than the one under which we find ourselves today.
.
I have seen it used before; but, don't see how the Lincoln metaphor applies.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Brian Tubbs - Civil War

In response to Better Question posted by pink101:

I agree that drastic times often call for drastic measures. The Civil War is a great example of that. Although I think the Congress went too far with some aspects of Reconstruction. (And not far enough in other aspects).

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» JohnCrandall - militarization

In response to Civil War posted by BrianTubbs:

Reconstruction and Lincoln in the Civil War is a whole different can of worms, and a very complicated one. Lincoln was definitely the first President to militarize the nation since George Mashington (Madison did build some armories and a better navy after 1812, but nothing huge in terms of expense). Lincoln was indeed the first step in getting to the type of executive we have today. His administration also saw the first income tax, although the Civil War taxes were later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

FDR is the first to mobilize the nation for war on a global scale, a footing we have now been on almost without a break for a little over half a century. The surprise today should not be that Bush has us at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather that we have had so much peace with such a large and expensive military establishment in place.

I know its old fashioned, but I liked the small standing military of bygone days, less taxes, less chance of troops spread all over the world getting us into something. But, more of an effort to mobilize should a true emergency arise, but maybe the years of peace and low taxes would make us strong enough economically to be able to convert our industry to war as in WWII (I know there was a depression, but it was immediately proceeded by a long period of strong industrial growth, and caused more by the pressures of mechanization causing unemployment and overproduction than anything else.) It's complicated, but from this point of view I would indict every administration since WWII for keeping up cold war tensions (and WWII taxes), and for keeping the military industrial complex in place. In many ways America after WWII resembles France after WWI, a huge standing army, a huge tax burden, puffed up and generally acknowldged as militarily superior, but with a huge bureaucracy and an economy barely growing, the only thing truly lacking is the internal discord between far left and far right that was a critical factor in France's undoing.

From another point of view with the nuclear option and the nuclear threat perhaps we really didn't have any options to the Cold War. Once again its a question of would what worked so well for our forefathers have worked in a nuclear world/ industrial world/ electronic age etc. etc. etc.

Thats one of the problems with studying history, you learn a lot about what worked then, but what would work now remains open to interpretation. Nonetheless, I think lower taxes would actually be a good thing, and cutting the gravy train to the military sector an excellent thing both for curtailing their voice/funds as a lobbying group and for turning some of our country's greatest minds away from developing destructive military devices and to useful and needed civilian uses such as hydrogen fuel cells and other green power, hybrid vehicles, mag lev trains, and so many more potential technologies and devices that might make our world a better place.

As for bureaucracy, history is full of precedents as to the true value and outcome of such institutions, and they are all bad. Sure, people who go to college and get degrees should make good money, but every single person on the federal payroll has to be paid from the wealth generated by the private sector/working man/producing portion of society, and it is very rare for a bureaucrat to produce anything but piles of paperwork. I know I'm not probably not in the majority some of these views. Just my two cents.

-- posted by JohnCrandall

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - militarization

In response to militarization posted by JohnCrandall:
.
There are some parts to your post that can be picked apart; but, that's not important. Everyone has their inconsistencies. It's part of what makes us human.
.
But, I think you misunderstand my idea of what it means to have a militarized government.
.
I was referencing the fact that putting the nation at war allows the government to be militarized in such a way that it can operate in secret.
.
Does that help you understand my concern and why I asked the original questions?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - Whoops! My Face Is Red.

In response to militarization posted by pink101:
.
Whoops! My face is red.
.
My statement that there were inconsistencies in your post was due to my mistaken assumption that Brian had written that post as I saw some of the statements being made as in disagreement with earlier statements he has made.
.
So, all the part of about inconsistencies should be ignored and I apologize to both of you.
.
That changes the complexion of your post somewhat.
.
But, my concern is that the militarized government is one that acts in secret for the purpose of destroying any political enemy using the unbridled power of government. Gitmo is an example. Who is being held in secret detention by the Bush Administration? Does anyone really know?
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» JohnCrandall - Whoops! My Face Is Red.

In response to Whoops! My Face Is Red. posted by pink101:

No worries. I'm not perfect, and I was discussing some very complex issues, so inconsistencies are possible. Anyway, as far as that aspect of militarized government it seems that you are talking about a secret police power such as Stalin so famously used his KGB for. In that sense, I think Americans should be really worried about the Patriot Act, and the potential domestic powers it gives to the CIA which was originally designed to function only internationally. I don't think it is that serious just yet, but it is no doubt a bad precedent, and should be fought as Thomas Jefferson fought the Alien and Sesition Acts. Like Jefferson knew, the right to habeas corpus (think italics), or not being imprisoned for any significant period without a public trail, is very important, and this Act suspends that Constitutionally guaranteed right for anybody deemed a "terrorist" which is a word dangerously lacking definition in that legislation.

-- posted by JohnCrandall

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» pink101 - In Response To J.C.

In response to Whoops! My Face Is Red. posted by JohnCrandall:

.
Yeah. I am concerned about the Patriot Act for that exact reason as I see history as the evolution of systemic causes rather than the so-called main man theory of society.
.
I watched a live discussion between Walter Mosley and Howard Zinn while I was working out at the club today. I like being exposed to knowledgeable people regarding subjects of importance.
.
After the program there was a call in reaction from the public.
.
It may be on aired PBS web site. It is worth seeing.
.

-- posted by pink101

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» JohnCrandall - In Response To J.C.

In response to In Response To J.C. posted by pink101:

I'll try to catch it. I don't even have a TV set up in my new place yet, but I should be all moved in by the end of the month.

I don't want to get too radical on here,just libertarian, but I really do think things have changed a lot in America in a little over 200 years, and it is true, that an urban landscape requires a very different type of government than a rural one. However, to my mind the basic principles embodied in the Constitution should be re-examined by modern America at some point before Social Security and the whole Federal Government are faced with the question of whether to go totally bankrupt, devalue the currency through more inflation, or raise taxes to 60 or 75% of income.

-- posted by JohnCrandall

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds