I didn't read it closely enough. It actually says who did the survey. The whole survey was sponsored by a liberal blog, "Daily Kos." This is not the type of publicity the left needs. I love the headline, "Republican's believe...." It just happens to be a couple of specially selected Republicans.
The Daily Kos paid for the poll, but it was conducted by an independent research company "Research 2000," a reputable top-tier polling operation. The caveat here is that only about a quarter of all registered voters are registered Republicans, so we're talking about a pretty small group. But the polling is accurate and has been recently confirmed by a Harris poll. Among other findings was the following:
67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist.
57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"
38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"
24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."
The GOP is definitely the party of the crazies.
"There is a good deal too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened." Thomas Hardy
I pray that he is a socialist, as for the rest...please...somehow they got the crazy results they wanted. Why would an organization even ask those questions unless they wanted to vilify the other side? It's what we always complain that the Republicans do. Perhaps they honestly think they made a legitimate poll, but I've seen it too many times in too many places--you get the results you want--whether it is the way you ask the questions or the personality of the person doing the asking or a variety of other things.
Unfortunately, Obama is hardly a socialist. Would a socialist spend all that TARP money to help out the wall-street capitalists?
And sure, the pollsters asked the crazy questions. How else do you know if the person you are polling is crazy? (By the way, they polled on other issues.) But, the results are the results. And, knowing a few uber conservatives in my office -- theoretically very bright lawyers -- none of these results surprise me in the least. There's this whole party out there made up people with a lot of loose screws.
Are you kidding? Haven't you seen the signs at the tea party gathering? By the way Jim, have you heard our own elected official leaders response to the healthcare bill, from "baby killer" to McCain pledging to no longer work with the Democrats on solving the nation's problems. Do you honestly think that no Republican voted for the bill because they thought it was bad for the people or that they instead hoped it would undermine Democrat's power? What party, in their right mind, would shout "kill the bill" that provides healthcare for all its citizens unless the party was crazy? I didn't hear them shout that during Bush's Plan D push.
O.K. I'm backing away from the keyboard. I thought it was a great post--very funny. Apparently there is a group that feels that way, however: • The poll was of "self-identified Republicans, who typically trend much more conservative than voters who “lean” Republican" • I don't know if it is legitimate or not, but it was sponsored by a left leaning organization. That typically puts up a red flag. (pun intended) • I could be wrong, but if I was President Obama, the chairman of the Democratic Party, or the chairman of the Republican Party, I would not be making strategy based on this poll. • Not too long ago we were a nation of issues. I wish we would concentrate more on real issues than on party characterizations. * As to voting for or against the healthcare bill because it is good for the nation or because the Republicans in congress are crazy? I'm not sure I would have voted for the bill, and I don't have healthcare. I really don't know enough about the bill, but it seems to be a cop out. As Myk would probably say, it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. In that I would agree, but only if it leads to something much, much better.
Finally, I go back to Biden's V-P debate speech when he said, "Never question the intentions." I thought that was the best line in all the debates. It rarely helps to vilify the opposition. (I would love to know who came up with the "anti-christ" question. That was the best one.)
Sorry, that comment under TMH was done my me, I didn't re-login. I understand the Democrat's similar tactics when not in power but it is a little crazy that Republicans' that pride themselves on fiscal responsible then go use taxpayers' dollars taking the healthcare law to court which every expert says will fail. I have also never seen a Party crazy enough to pick someone so inadequate as Palin for VP.
As for the polls on republican people (probable more of the fringe element), I know crazy liberals had posters of Bush as a baby killer etc. But from the tea party movement, to racial epithet shouted at the senators, to Palin supporters, death panels, hitler joker sign, townhall meetings, to Glenn, Rush. The senator who shouted baby killer said his coffers have filled with tea party donations. It seems that the fringe element of the Republican party is play a larger role in the direction and the make-up of what it is to be Republican, since Republicans seem to no longer be the party of sound fiscal and small government.
Last healthcare reform attempt was under democrats' power, Clinton, it failed. For 12 years the Republicans in power passed no major reform. Without Obama's law you would still be without insurance. This bill is better than the status quo.
I agree, there are some crazy thinking people out there, and the suit is a silly move. As far as the bill, yes, it is a landmark, history making event that I thought would be nigh impossible to achieve. I still don't get health insurance with the bill (until 2014 and by that time I will be dead or have medicare). Of course I would hate to judge a bill by just how it affects me.
I agree that we shouldn't be vilifying the other side (after all, it's what they like to do). And I also agree that the poll is flawed (and what poll isn't?). But, on the other hand, I think that the poll should serve as a wake up call (if we weren't awake already) to the disturbing increase of totally delusional people in this country. See New York Magazine's "The Ten Most Alarming Things in This Poll of Republican Values and Beliefs." http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/there_are_so_many_alarming_thi.html#comments#ixzz0j6VLan1L
As for the health care bill, with my understanding informed by Otto von Bismarck, that politics is the art of the possible, it has my unqualified support. We have at last joined the community of civilized nations.
If everyone would just indulge me for one more comment here: Bruce Bartlett is a columnist for Forbes.com, the online version of Forbes, the financial magazine, hardly a bastion of liberalism. Among other jobs, he has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department during the George H.W. Bush Administration, and as a senior policy analyst in the White House for Ronald Reagan.
He writes of the Daily Kos poll in his blog "Capital Gains and Games": "I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1467/why-i-am-not-republican
After reading these posts, I remembered reading an article recently comparing the tea party movement with the new left movement in the 1960s. Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05brooks.html
Interesting article about the tea party movement and the new left. I obviously didn't grow-up in the 60s and lack knowledge but The Times article seemed to leave out the surrounding circumstances.
The new left movement reached its apex during the reinstatement of the draft and casualties mounting to over 300,000 Americans: radicalism understood through the lens of self-preservation (protesting didn't really start until the draft, 6 years after the start of the conflict: people don't mind war as long as they aren't forced to go).
Tea party movement is based more on their hatred of Obama and the democrats. The tea partiers were nonexistent when the economy collapsed and Bush created and signed stimulus bills (they are anti-stimulus). Yet began protesting as soon as Obama gained power and signed Bush's following stimulus bills. Tea movement is anti-tax but never praised (not even aware of) Obama for his tax cut for 95% of Americans. They blame government for the economy, yet it was deregulated wall street that caused it while it was the Federal reserve that prevented the complete collapse of our economic system.
The new left movement was bolstered on the fear of going to war. Tea partiers on misinformation. The radicalism in the one of the eras seems a more understandable reaction to the circumstances of their time.
Right. I guess my point was that as loud as the anti-war movement was in the 60s, it failed in ending the war, failed in electing an anti-war president and broke the Democratic party. The point I guess is that, as boisterous as the tea party is, there is a good deal of hope that the movement may have little influence on upcoming elections(or more likely, they will siphon away conservative votes if they put up their own candidates). Also, while Obama may have infuriated the right (again), he seems to have lifted the spirits of the left. The latest Rasmussen poll shows a 7% bump in Obama's approval rating (all democrats, but still) http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
I read the Brooks piece and, yes, at one level I agree with him. There was this conspiratorial view of the world which believed in a coherent "power structure" that was oppressing everyone and ultimately needed to be dismantled. Even it my impressionable age, I thought that this kind of thinking was not helpful. And, at the time, the crazy people were all on the left. Timothy McVey was unthinkable. The bomb throwers were groups like the weathermen and the Symbionese Liberation Front. They definitely shared the tea-party view that dark forces were at work in the corridors of power.
But, having said that, the actual agendas were totally different and so was much of the style. There is no way a 60's radical would have publicly taunted someone with Parkinson’s disease. 60's radicals were not racists, or bigots. They didn't hate foreigners and immigrants. They held no contempt for the poor. (although they had almost no interest in the rights of either women or gays.)
And Pete's right: they actually had a real issue, namely the war in Vietnam. (although the draft did not start in the 60's. Except for one year -- 1947 -- the draft was in effect from 1940 to 1973.) I honestly have no idea what the tea-party people want, unless it's to return to an idyllic age that never existed.
I always liked what Abby Hoffman said about the 60's:
The lesson of the 60's is that people who cared enough to do right could change history. We didn't end racism but we ended legal segregation. We ended the idea that you could send half-a-million soldiers around the world to fight a war that people do not support. We ended the idea that women are second-class citizens. We made the environment an issue that couldn't be avoided. The big battles that we won cannot be reversed. We were young, self-righteous, reckless, hypocritical, brave, silly, headstrong and scared half to death. And we were right.
Nicely said. As Myk says, the war was the central issue, but the movement (there were actually a number of different movements somewhat intertwined but often desiring separation--like the peace movement from the drug movement) embraced many areas.
Also, like you say, the draft was not a major factor in the origin or sustenance of the peace movement. I think history has been fabricated here. It may be hard to believe (especially since the Me-80's), but here is how I remember it.
People really did have strong moral convictions. Pretty much anyone in the peace movement, i.e. predominantly the educated upper middle class, could get out of the draft. Clinton did, Abby Hoffman did, even Bush did. I remember only one classmate at college who was obsessed about being drafted and we used to unmercifully taunt him about it. It definitely was a concern, and people took appropriate action to avoid it, but it definitely was not a major reason behind the peace movement. What was an issue was that we recognized and protested that the poor, as always, were the ones drafted and made to bear the consequences.
Just a small quibble about the draft and war approval, I know that the draft was on going from the 1940s to 1973, however it was a draft based on military needs ('65-73 saw draftees triple). I understand that "people really did have strong moral convictions", just like people today (yes even the me-generation). I think that those convictions are stronger still when you or your child are endangered by war.
The new left movement reached its apex (in size and militant in'69-73) mainly in response to the escalation of the war ('69 grad students no longer exempt). The Vietnam war had an 80% approval rating in '65 when the troop level was around 23,000 in vietnam after which it was bumped up to 184,000, the next year 300,000 (approval rating 61%, continued to fall over the months). As bodies rolled in approval ratings dropped and new left grew in numbers.
Thus, I still contend that the peace movement was bolstered by the increasing quotas of draftees and body bags.
So "the draft was not a major factor in the origin or sustenance of the peace movement." by the numbers appear to be incorrect, especially since the new left ended after the war: no real continuation of the peace movement. As a me-80s person though I guess anecdotal college experiences must trump statistics.
No, no. I will readily admit that my experience was not everyone's experience and that the body count DEFINITELY spurred the peace movement. That's what was being protested--the useless waste of life on both sides. Also you are right in that practically the only 'adults' who opposed the war were those with children in the war. But statistical correlation in no way means cause. Tobacco use or auto purchases probably increased during the war, but had little cause for the protests.
Now that is not to say that people weren't as concerned about their own well being as they are today. We were at least as self centered, more so perhaps because we had this new found identity and power. I'm just saying that the draft was not as big as factor as you would suspect because the protesters, while every bit as self-centered, were generally not the ones being drafted.
Let me give another anecdotal but also statistical occurrence. I joined the Peace Corps in 1968, immediately after graduation. Despite what some think it had nothing to do with the war although 2 of the 3 reasons were quite selfish. The reasons were: 1. My older brother had applied to the Peace Corps and that made me interested. 2. After 21 years of 'being taken care of' by home and school, I want to see what I could accomplish on my own. 3. I wanted an adventure and applied to the most exotic places I could find.
Now during this time the Peace Corp had its highest number of participants, so you would naturally conclude that a lot of those people were trying to get out of the draft. Well, it definitely was not the case in the huge group that was going to Micronesia. In fact of the 90+ people that came with me to Palua, over 60 or 2/3's left before the 2 years were up. This was just when the draft was expanding. I believe this was true for the entire Peace Corps--more people left before their term of duty than at any other time in the history of the Peace Corps. Why would they LEAVE to face the draft? It was because they were there not because of the draft, but because of idealism, and when idealism ran up against reality, they went home.
The draft was a factor but not as big a one as you might suspect because generally it was the poor who were being drafted. For the most part the rich, as always, could work their way out.
To really beat a dead horse I'll add one more thing. History may very well record that the draft was a major reason for the protests. It seems like a logical conclusion in hindsight. But that may obstruct a lesson that history could teach us about that time. People were giddy with ideals. Plus there was this huge confraternity of like-minded youth. There was an element of mob rule (although for a good purpose). As with the article Ted pointed out, in that sense there could be comparisons to the Tea Party Movement. When you are caught up in an ideal and a movement, in hindsight, sometimes you may not act in your own best self-interest. (I mean that in both a good and a bad way.)
As an aside, for all their sense of self-importance and annoying behavior, never has a political position been more vindicated by history than the opposition to the war in Vietnam. Vietnam makes our war in Irag seem like a a humanitarian mission and makes Bush look positively brilliant.
The horror we inflicted on Vietnam is pretty staggering. The total U.S. bomb tonnage dropped on North Vietnam was over 7 million tons, almost four times what we dropped anywhere during World War II (about 2 million tons). The bomb tonnage dropped during the Vietnam War amounted to 1,000 lbs. for every man, woman and child in Vietnam. North Vietnamese civilian death estimates range from 1 million to 5 million, although I read the 2 million estimate may be the most realistic. Compare that to the approximately 400,000 deaths suffered by Americans in all of World War II.
And what was accomplished by this onslaught? Exactly nothing. After 11 years of war, we withdrew in 1973. Saigan fell in 1975, and the country was re-united under communist rule.
The entire rationale for fighting the war was the domino theory: that if Vietnam fell to the communists, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore would soon follow. Well, we got to test the theory and, like discovering no WMD's in Iraq, there were no dominoes in Southeat Asia. In fact, the fall of Vietnam had zero effect on American interests in the world.
So, this would be a comedy routine, if it hadn't caused so much suffering: We go into a country, kill two million people, and then leave. And it turns out that there was no good reason on God's earth to be there in the first place.
And 30 years later, well, let's let George Bush explain it:
Mr. President, and Madam Chi, the reason I'm smiling is because I'm really happy to be here. And so is Laura. ... Vietnam is a remarkable country. For decades you had been torn apart by war. Today the Vietnamese people are at peace and seeing the benefits of reform. The Vietnamese own their own businesses, and today the Vietnamese economy is the fastest growing in Southeast Asia.
"the body count DEFINITELY spurred the peace movement"
Yes, More draftees=more dead=more people affected=more people protest
I agree activism huge during the 60s (said that from the beginning) but mostly because people were inconvenienced by the draft and killed by it. People don't protest when times are good. Thats why the left movement died with the end of the war and we haven't seen its reemergence during the Iraq War because it is an all volunteer army thus no draft .
"The draft was a factor but not as big a one as you might suspect because generally it was the poor who were being drafted. For the most part the rich, as always, could work their way out."
This comment is a myth. 79% of vietnam personnel had a high school diploma or higher education. The well-off college graduates had more to fear from the war as they had a slightly elevated death rate (officers and air pilots died at a higher rate ). Since blacks were disportionate poor compared to the country's population than it would make sense that Blacks would be disportionate represented in the killed. Not the case, Blacks were 12.5% of the population and 12% of the dead. In fact the average age of the killed was 23.1 years old, age older than undergrad exemption. Finally, student protest grew especially large when the US gov removed the graduate exempt.
Also, agree with Ted, though fearfully congress member and public figures getting donation and actually talking at tea party rallies.
I just listened to an interview with Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now, and for what it's worth, he insists that the anti-war movement is much stronger now than it was during the sixties.
He based this on the fact that large scale protests against the Vietnam war didn't start until years into it, while hundreds of thousands marched against the Iraq war before it even started.
Regarding the Chomsky interview, that may be true, but current anti-war movement and increased number of protesters certainly has not had a proportionate effect on preventing or ending the Iraq/Afghanistan war.
Not prevented or ended the war, true, but Chomsky believes the anti-war movement accomplished tangible goals. As he says, the differences between Iraq and Vietnam are vast:
AMY GOODMAN: What about the antiwar movement in the United States?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, you know, there—actually, my view, which is not the standard one, is that the antiwar movement is far stronger now than it was in the ’60s. In the 1960s, there was a point, 1968, ’69, when there was a very strong antiwar movement against the war in Vietnam. But it’s worth remembering that the war in Vietnam started—an outright war started in 1962. By then, maybe 70,000 or 80,000 people had already been killed under the US client regime. But in 1962, Kennedy really opened an outright war, you know, sent the American Air Force to start bombing South Vietnam—under South Vietnamese markings, but everybody knew, it was even reported—authorized napalm, authorized chemical warfare to destroy crops and ground cover, started open—started the programs which drove ultimately millions of people from the countryside into what amounted to concentration camps, to try to—the words were “to protect them from the guerrillas,” who the government knew perfectly well they were supporting. Same kind of things you read now in Afghanistan, if you bother to read the fine print about the conquest of Marjah. But we had to drive them into concentration camps to protect them from the people, the guerrillas, they were supporting. That’s a war. You know, it’s a serious war. Protest was zero, literally. I mean, it was years before you could get any sign of protest. I mean, those of you who are old enough may remember that in Boston, liberal city, in October 1965—that’s three years after that, hundreds of thousands of American troops rampaging the country, you know, war spread to North Vietnam and so on—we tried to have our first public demonstration against the war on the Boston Common, usual demonstration place. This is October 1965. I was supposed to be one of the speakers. I couldn’t say a word. It was broken up, you know, violently. A lot of students marched over trying to break it up, hundreds of state police there. The next day, the Boston Globe, most liberal paper in the country, you know, devoted its whole front page to denouncing the demonstrators, not the ones who were breaking it up. You know, a picture of a wounded soldier in the middle, that sort of thing. Well, that was October 1965, you know, hundreds of thousands of troops there, war escalating beyond. Well, finally, after years, in 1968, you got a substantial antiwar movement, ’67, ’68. By then, South Vietnam was gone. It was virtually destroyed. And the same was true of much of the rest of Indochina. Well, the war did go on for a long time, with horrible effects, and we were unwilling to face the fact, even to report the fact. But nevertheless, the antiwar movement did have an effect very late. Well, compare Iraq. There were huge protests before the war was officially launched. I mean, we now know that Blair and Bush were simply lying when they said that they were trying to work for a diplomatic settlement. They had already started the war. OK, that came out in the famous Downing Street memos in England, but it hadn’t been officially announced, so—but there were huge demonstrations. And I think they had an effect. The US war in Iraq was horrible enough, probably killed about a million people, drove a couple of million out of the country, devastated the country, destroyed it, horrible cultural destruction and so on. It was pretty awful. Could have been a lot worse. It’s not what the US did in South Vietnam. Nothing like it. You know, no saturation bombing with B-52s, chemical warfare and so on. And I think it was retarded by the antiwar movement. The population here had just become more civilized. That’s one of those grim effects of the 1960s.
There is a lot of truth there. Chomsky often surprises with facts and ideas that for some reason never get exposure. I like Chomsky despite what others say.
I'm a fan of his. I think he should be required reading for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. While I disagree with him on many, many things, he is a thinker who should be listened to and taken seriously.
I still vividly remember reading his book about the cynical, stupid attack on the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan authorized by Clinton. At that very moment, the naive view of American exceptionalism was knocked out from under me.
28 comments:
Ha Ha. The article looks like it was put together by Democrat Rush Limbaugh.
I didn't read it closely enough. It actually says who did the survey. The whole survey was sponsored by a liberal blog, "Daily Kos." This is not the type of publicity the left needs. I love the headline, "Republican's believe...." It just happens to be a couple of specially selected Republicans.
The Daily Kos paid for the poll, but it was conducted by an independent research company "Research 2000," a reputable top-tier polling operation. The caveat here is that only about a quarter of all registered voters are registered Republicans, so we're talking about a pretty small group. But the polling is accurate and has been recently confirmed by a Harris poll. Among other findings was the following:
67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist.
57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim
45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president"
38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did"
24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."
The GOP is definitely the party of the crazies.
"There is a good deal too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened." Thomas Hardy
I pray that he is a socialist, as for the rest...please...somehow they got the crazy results they wanted. Why would an organization even ask those questions unless they wanted to vilify the other side? It's what we always complain that the Republicans do. Perhaps they honestly think they made a legitimate poll, but I've seen it too many times in too many places--you get the results you want--whether it is the way you ask the questions or the personality of the person doing the asking or a variety of other things.
I guess they never talked to grandma.
Unfortunately, Obama is hardly a socialist. Would a socialist spend all that TARP money to help out the wall-street capitalists?
And sure, the pollsters asked the crazy questions. How else do you know if the person you are polling is crazy? (By the way, they polled on other issues.) But, the results are the results. And, knowing a few uber conservatives in my office -- theoretically very bright lawyers -- none of these results surprise me in the least. There's this whole party out there made up people with a lot of loose screws.
Are you kidding? Haven't you seen the signs at the tea party gathering? By the way Jim, have you heard our own elected official leaders response to the healthcare bill, from "baby killer" to McCain pledging to no longer work with the Democrats on solving the nation's problems. Do you honestly think that no Republican voted for the bill because they thought it was bad for the people or that they instead hoped it would undermine Democrat's power? What party, in their right mind, would shout "kill the bill" that provides healthcare for all its citizens unless the party was crazy? I didn't hear them shout that during Bush's Plan D push.
Polls are not always skewed.
O.K. I'm backing away from the keyboard. I thought it was a great post--very funny. Apparently there is a group that feels that way, however:
• The poll was of "self-identified Republicans, who typically trend much more conservative than voters who “lean” Republican"
• I don't know if it is legitimate or not, but it was sponsored by a left leaning organization. That typically puts up a red flag. (pun intended)
• I could be wrong, but if I was President Obama, the chairman of the Democratic Party, or the chairman of the Republican Party, I would not be making strategy based on this poll.
• Not too long ago we were a nation of issues. I wish we would concentrate more on real issues than on party characterizations.
* As to voting for or against the healthcare bill because it is good for the nation or because the Republicans in congress are crazy? I'm not sure I would have voted for the bill, and I don't have healthcare. I really don't know enough about the bill, but it seems to be a cop out. As Myk would probably say, it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. In that I would agree, but only if it leads to something much, much better.
Finally, I go back to Biden's V-P debate speech when he said, "Never question the intentions." I thought that was the best line in all the debates. It rarely helps to vilify the opposition. (I would love to know who came up with the "anti-christ" question. That was the best one.)
Sorry, that comment under TMH was done my me, I didn't re-login. I understand the Democrat's similar tactics when not in power but it is a little crazy that Republicans' that pride themselves on fiscal responsible then go use taxpayers' dollars taking the healthcare law to court which every expert says will fail. I have also never seen a Party crazy enough to pick someone so inadequate as Palin for VP.
As for the polls on republican people (probable more of the fringe element), I know crazy liberals had posters of Bush as a baby killer etc. But from the tea party movement, to racial epithet shouted at the senators, to Palin supporters, death panels, hitler joker sign, townhall meetings, to Glenn, Rush. The senator who shouted baby killer said his coffers have filled with tea party donations. It seems that the fringe element of the Republican party is play a larger role in the direction and the make-up of what it is to be Republican, since Republicans seem to no longer be the party of sound fiscal and small government.
Last healthcare reform attempt was under democrats' power, Clinton, it failed. For 12 years the Republicans in power passed no major reform. Without Obama's law you would still be without insurance. This bill is better than the status quo.
I agree, there are some crazy thinking people out there, and the suit is a silly move. As far as the bill, yes, it is a landmark, history making event that I thought would be nigh impossible to achieve. I still don't get health insurance with the bill (until 2014 and by that time I will be dead or have medicare). Of course I would hate to judge a bill by just how it affects me.
I agree that we shouldn't be vilifying the other side (after all, it's what they like to do). And I also agree that the poll is flawed (and what poll isn't?). But, on the other hand, I think that the poll should serve as a wake up call (if we weren't awake already) to the disturbing increase of totally delusional people in this country. See New York Magazine's "The Ten Most Alarming Things in This Poll of Republican Values and Beliefs." http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/there_are_so_many_alarming_thi.html#comments#ixzz0j6VLan1L
As for the health care bill, with my understanding informed by Otto von Bismarck, that politics is the art of the possible, it has my unqualified support. We have at last joined the community of civilized nations.
If everyone would just indulge me for one more comment here: Bruce Bartlett is a columnist for Forbes.com, the online version of Forbes, the financial magazine, hardly a bastion of liberalism. Among other jobs, he has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Treasury Department during the George H.W. Bush Administration, and as a senior policy analyst in the White House for Ronald Reagan.
He writes of the Daily Kos poll in his blog "Capital Gains and Games": "I can only conclude from this new poll of 2003 self-identified Republicans nationwide that between 20% and 50% of the party is either insane or mind-numbingly stupid." http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1467/why-i-am-not-republican
After reading these posts, I remembered reading an article recently comparing the tea party movement with the new left movement in the 1960s. Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/opinion/05brooks.html
Interesting article about the tea party movement and the new left. I obviously didn't grow-up in the 60s and lack knowledge but The Times article seemed to leave out the surrounding circumstances.
The new left movement reached its apex during the reinstatement of the draft and casualties mounting to over 300,000 Americans: radicalism understood through the lens of self-preservation (protesting didn't really start until the draft, 6 years after the start of the conflict: people don't mind war as long as they aren't forced to go).
Tea party movement is based more on their hatred of Obama and the democrats. The tea partiers were nonexistent when the economy collapsed and Bush created and signed stimulus bills (they are anti-stimulus). Yet began protesting as soon as Obama gained power and signed Bush's following stimulus bills. Tea movement is anti-tax but never praised (not even aware of) Obama for his tax cut for 95% of Americans. They blame government for the economy, yet it was deregulated wall street that caused it while it was the Federal reserve that prevented the complete collapse of our economic system.
The new left movement was bolstered on the fear of going to war. Tea partiers on misinformation. The radicalism in the one of the eras seems a more understandable reaction to the circumstances of their time.
Right. I guess my point was that as loud as the anti-war movement was in the 60s, it failed in ending the war, failed in electing an anti-war president and broke the Democratic party. The point I guess is that, as boisterous as the tea party is, there is a good deal of hope that the movement may have little influence on upcoming elections(or more likely, they will siphon away conservative votes if they put up their own candidates). Also, while Obama may have infuriated the right (again), he seems to have lifted the spirits of the left. The latest Rasmussen poll shows a 7% bump in Obama's approval rating (all democrats, but still)
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
I read the Brooks piece and, yes, at one level I agree with him. There was this conspiratorial view of the world which believed in a coherent "power structure" that was oppressing everyone and ultimately needed to be dismantled. Even it my impressionable age, I thought that this kind of thinking was not helpful. And, at the time, the crazy people were all on the left. Timothy McVey was unthinkable. The bomb throwers were groups like the weathermen and the Symbionese Liberation Front. They definitely shared the tea-party view that dark forces were at work in the corridors of power.
But, having said that, the actual agendas were totally different and so was much of the style. There is no way a 60's radical would have publicly taunted someone with Parkinson’s disease. 60's radicals were not racists, or bigots. They didn't hate foreigners and immigrants. They held no contempt for the poor. (although they had almost no interest in the rights of either women or gays.)
And Pete's right: they actually had a real issue, namely the war in Vietnam. (although the draft did not start in the 60's. Except for one year -- 1947 -- the draft was in effect from 1940 to 1973.) I honestly have no idea what the tea-party people want, unless it's to return to an idyllic age that never existed.
I always liked what Abby Hoffman said about the 60's:
The lesson of the 60's is that people who cared enough to do right could change history.
We didn't end racism but we ended legal segregation.
We ended the idea that you could send half-a-million soldiers around the world to fight a war that people do not support.
We ended the idea that women are second-class citizens.
We made the environment an issue that couldn't be avoided.
The big battles that we won cannot be reversed.
We were young, self-righteous, reckless, hypocritical, brave, silly, headstrong and scared half to death.
And we were right.
Nicely said. As Myk says, the war was the central issue, but the movement (there were actually a number of different movements somewhat intertwined but often desiring separation--like the peace movement from the drug movement) embraced many areas.
Also, like you say, the draft was not a major factor in the origin or sustenance of the peace movement. I think history has been fabricated here. It may be hard to believe (especially since the Me-80's), but here is how I remember it.
People really did have strong moral convictions. Pretty much anyone in the peace movement, i.e. predominantly the educated upper middle class, could get out of the draft. Clinton did, Abby Hoffman did, even Bush did. I remember only one classmate at college who was obsessed about being drafted and we used to unmercifully taunt him about it. It definitely was a concern, and people took appropriate action to avoid it, but it definitely was not a major reason behind the peace movement. What was an issue was that we recognized and protested that the poor, as always, were the ones drafted and made to bear the consequences.
Just a small quibble about the draft and war approval, I know that the draft was on going from the 1940s to 1973, however it was a draft based on military needs ('65-73 saw draftees triple). I understand that "people really did have strong moral convictions", just like people today (yes even the me-generation). I think that those convictions are stronger still when you or your child are endangered by war.
The new left movement reached its apex (in size and militant in'69-73) mainly in response to the escalation of the war ('69 grad students no longer exempt). The Vietnam war had an 80% approval rating in '65 when the troop level was around 23,000 in vietnam after which it was bumped up to 184,000, the next year 300,000 (approval rating 61%, continued to fall over the months). As bodies rolled in approval ratings dropped and new left grew in numbers.
Thus, I still contend that the peace movement was bolstered by the increasing quotas of draftees and body bags.
So "the draft was not a major factor in the origin or sustenance of the peace movement."
by the numbers appear to be incorrect, especially since the new left ended after the war: no real continuation of the peace movement. As a me-80s person though I guess anecdotal college experiences must trump statistics.
No, no. I will readily admit that my experience was not everyone's experience and that the body count DEFINITELY spurred the peace movement. That's what was being protested--the useless waste of life on both sides. Also you are right in that practically the only 'adults' who opposed the war were those with children in the war. But statistical correlation in no way means cause. Tobacco use or auto purchases probably increased during the war, but had little cause for the protests.
Now that is not to say that people weren't as concerned about their own well being as they are today. We were at least as self centered, more so perhaps because we had this new found identity and power. I'm just saying that the draft was not as big as factor as you would suspect because the protesters, while every bit as self-centered, were generally not the ones being drafted.
Let me give another anecdotal but also statistical occurrence. I joined the Peace Corps in 1968, immediately after graduation. Despite what some think it had nothing to do with the war although 2 of the 3 reasons were quite selfish. The reasons were:
1. My older brother had applied to the Peace Corps and that made me interested.
2. After 21 years of 'being taken care of' by home and school, I want to see what I could accomplish on my own.
3. I wanted an adventure and applied to the most exotic places I could find.
Now during this time the Peace Corp had its highest number of participants, so you would naturally conclude that a lot of those people were trying to get out of the draft. Well, it definitely was not the case in the huge group that was going to Micronesia. In fact of the 90+ people that came with me to Palua, over 60 or 2/3's left before the 2 years were up. This was just when the draft was expanding. I believe this was true for the entire Peace Corps--more people left before their term of duty than at any other time in the history of the Peace Corps. Why would they LEAVE to face the draft? It was because they were there not because of the draft, but because of idealism, and when idealism ran up against reality, they went home.
The draft was a factor but not as big a one as you might suspect because generally it was the poor who were being drafted. For the most part the rich, as always, could work their way out.
To really beat a dead horse I'll add one more thing. History may very well record that the draft was a major reason for the protests. It seems like a logical conclusion in hindsight. But that may obstruct a lesson that history could teach us about that time. People were giddy with ideals. Plus there was this huge confraternity of like-minded youth. There was an element of mob rule (although for a good purpose). As with the article Ted pointed out, in that sense there could be comparisons to the Tea Party Movement. When you are caught up in an ideal and a movement, in hindsight, sometimes you may not act in your own best self-interest. (I mean that in both a good and a bad way.)
As an aside, for all their sense of self-importance and annoying behavior, never has a political position been more vindicated by history than the opposition to the war in Vietnam. Vietnam makes our war in Irag seem like a a humanitarian mission and makes Bush look positively brilliant.
The horror we inflicted on Vietnam is pretty staggering. The total U.S. bomb tonnage dropped on North Vietnam was over 7 million tons, almost four times what we dropped anywhere during World War II (about 2 million tons). The bomb tonnage dropped during the Vietnam War amounted to 1,000 lbs. for every man, woman and child in Vietnam. North Vietnamese civilian death estimates range from 1 million to 5 million, although I read the 2 million estimate may be the most realistic. Compare that to the approximately 400,000 deaths suffered by Americans in all of World War II.
And what was accomplished by this onslaught? Exactly nothing. After 11 years of war, we withdrew in 1973. Saigan fell in 1975, and the country was re-united under communist rule.
The entire rationale for fighting the war was the domino theory: that if Vietnam fell to the communists, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore would soon follow. Well, we got to test the theory and, like discovering no WMD's in Iraq, there were no dominoes in Southeat Asia. In fact, the fall of Vietnam had zero effect on American interests in the world.
So, this would be a comedy routine, if it hadn't caused so much suffering: We go into a country, kill two million people, and then leave. And it turns out that there was no good reason on God's earth to be there in the first place.
And 30 years later, well, let's let George Bush explain it:
Mr. President, and Madam Chi, the reason I'm smiling is because I'm really happy to be here. And so is Laura. ... Vietnam is a remarkable country. For decades you had been torn apart by war. Today the Vietnamese people are at peace and seeing the benefits of reform. The Vietnamese own their own businesses, and today the Vietnamese economy is the fastest growing in Southeast Asia.
"the body count DEFINITELY spurred the peace movement"
Yes, More draftees=more dead=more people affected=more people protest
I agree activism huge during the 60s (said that from the beginning) but mostly because people were inconvenienced by the draft and killed by it. People don't protest when times are good. Thats why the left movement died with the end of the war and we haven't seen its reemergence during the Iraq War because it is an all volunteer army thus no draft .
"The draft was a factor but not as big a one as you might suspect because generally it was the poor who were being drafted. For the most part the rich, as always, could work their way out."
This comment is a myth. 79% of vietnam personnel had a high school diploma or higher education. The well-off college graduates had more to fear from the war as they had a slightly elevated death rate (officers and air pilots died at a higher rate ). Since blacks were disportionate poor compared to the country's population than it would make sense that Blacks would be disportionate represented in the killed. Not the case, Blacks were 12.5% of the population and 12% of the dead. In fact the average age of the killed was 23.1 years old, age older than undergrad exemption. Finally, student protest grew especially large when the US gov removed the graduate exempt.
Also, agree with Ted, though fearfully congress member and public figures getting donation and actually talking at tea party rallies.
I just listened to an interview with Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now, and for what it's worth, he insists that the anti-war movement is much stronger now than it was during the sixties.
He based this on the fact that large scale protests against the Vietnam war didn't start until years into it, while hundreds of thousands marched against the Iraq war before it even started.
Regarding the Chomsky interview, that may be true, but current anti-war movement and increased number of protesters certainly has not had a proportionate effect on preventing or ending the Iraq/Afghanistan war.
Not prevented or ended the war, true, but Chomsky believes the anti-war movement accomplished tangible goals. As he says, the differences between Iraq and Vietnam are vast:
AMY GOODMAN: What about the antiwar movement in the United States?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, you know, there—actually, my view, which is not the standard one, is that the antiwar movement is far stronger now than it was in the ’60s. In the 1960s, there was a point, 1968, ’69, when there was a very strong antiwar movement against the war in Vietnam. But it’s worth remembering that the war in Vietnam started—an outright war started in 1962. By then, maybe 70,000 or 80,000 people had already been killed under the US client regime. But in 1962, Kennedy really opened an outright war, you know, sent the American Air Force to start bombing South Vietnam—under South Vietnamese markings, but everybody knew, it was even reported—authorized napalm, authorized chemical warfare to destroy crops and ground cover, started open—started the programs which drove ultimately millions of people from the countryside into what amounted to concentration camps, to try to—the words were “to protect them from the guerrillas,” who the government knew perfectly well they were supporting. Same kind of things you read now in Afghanistan, if you bother to read the fine print about the conquest of Marjah. But we had to drive them into concentration camps to protect them from the people, the guerrillas, they were supporting. That’s a war. You know, it’s a serious war.
Protest was zero, literally. I mean, it was years before you could get any sign of protest. I mean, those of you who are old enough may remember that in Boston, liberal city, in October 1965—that’s three years after that, hundreds of thousands of American troops rampaging the country, you know, war spread to North Vietnam and so on—we tried to have our first public demonstration against the war on the Boston Common, usual demonstration place. This is October 1965. I was supposed to be one of the speakers. I couldn’t say a word. It was broken up, you know, violently. A lot of students marched over trying to break it up, hundreds of state police there. The next day, the Boston Globe, most liberal paper in the country, you know, devoted its whole front page to denouncing the demonstrators, not the ones who were breaking it up. You know, a picture of a wounded soldier in the middle, that sort of thing. Well, that was October 1965, you know, hundreds of thousands of troops there, war escalating beyond. Well, finally, after years, in 1968, you got a substantial antiwar movement, ’67, ’68. By then, South Vietnam was gone. It was virtually destroyed. And the same was true of much of the rest of Indochina. Well, the war did go on for a long time, with horrible effects, and we were unwilling to face the fact, even to report the fact. But nevertheless, the antiwar movement did have an effect very late.
Well, compare Iraq. There were huge protests before the war was officially launched. I mean, we now know that Blair and Bush were simply lying when they said that they were trying to work for a diplomatic settlement. They had already started the war. OK, that came out in the famous Downing Street memos in England, but it hadn’t been officially announced, so—but there were huge demonstrations. And I think they had an effect. The US war in Iraq was horrible enough, probably killed about a million people, drove a couple of million out of the country, devastated the country, destroyed it, horrible cultural destruction and so on. It was pretty awful. Could have been a lot worse. It’s not what the US did in South Vietnam. Nothing like it. You know, no saturation bombing with B-52s, chemical warfare and so on. And I think it was retarded by the antiwar movement. The population here had just become more civilized. That’s one of those grim effects of the 1960s.
There is a lot of truth there. Chomsky often surprises with facts and ideas that for some reason never get exposure. I like Chomsky despite what others say.
I'm a fan of his. I think he should be required reading for anyone interested in history or foreign policy. While I disagree with him on many, many things, he is a thinker who should be listened to and taken seriously.
I still vividly remember reading his book about the cynical, stupid attack on the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan authorized by Clinton. At that very moment, the naive view of American exceptionalism was knocked out from under me.
Post a Comment