 |
 |
 July 10, 2007
GET OVER IT, FOLKS....It's astonishing, really, that conservatives are still exercised about FDR and the New Deal 70 years after the fact. Not just in a historical sense, mind you, but in the same kind of immediate, visceral sense that you and I might be outraged by the war in Iraq or yet another tax cut for the rich. Pejman Yousefzadeh, for example, reports that a passage in George Will's column today "made me spring out of my chair and pace around in abject disbelief and not a little anger." Here it is:
Dude: That was 74 years ago. What's more, there was even a reason for it. Roosevelt scholars should feel free to jump in and correct me if I get this wrong, but my recollection is that FDR wanted to raise the price of gold as a way of inducing inflation — a policy that, correct or not in hindsight, was certainly defensible given the farm crisis he was dealing with at the time — but that he wanted the price to rise gradually and erratically so that speculators couldn't take advantage of predictable movements. Lots of people were appalled by Roosevelt's apparent casualness about the gold price, but as usual, there was method to his madness. I, for one, am glad that he was president in 1933 and not George Will. —Kevin Drum 12:08 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (189)Comments
on the other hand, if Will had been prez in '33 he would not now be spouting nonsense. Posted by: supersaurus on July 10, 2007 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINKRenewing the Upper Class Jihad against Roosevelt seems like a real vote winner for them. Then again anything to distract from the miserable failures of the current face of conservatism, George W Bush. Posted by: AJ on July 10, 2007 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINKYeah. For one thing, they'd stopped making George's brand of bowtie by 1933. Posted by: shortstop on July 10, 2007 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK"I, for one, am glad that he was president in 1933 and not George Will." Amen, Actually that column ran a couple of days ago and, surprisingly, was largely ignored by the blogosphere, though there were pages of richly deserved attacks in the WAPO comments section. The column must really be read to be believed. Aside from the still fresh anger at FDR that you cite, and the utter nastiness directed at FDR (as per the snippet you quoted), the sheer smugness of this wealthy, underemployed popinjay in attacking the social reforms of the New Deal (which are still pretty small beer compared to all other western industrialized nations) is nauseating. Posted by: Marlowe on July 10, 2007 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINKOh, that silly FDR. He should've consulted a bunch of witch-doctor economists who would've come up with some utterly bullshit "calculations" that would be substantively indistinguishable from FDR's ballpark guess. One of FDR's biggest mistakes ever was when he listened to his own Treasury Secretary & cut federal expenditures. So much for the experts. Posted by: Anderson on July 10, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKWhat makes me spring out of my chair and pace around in abject disbelief is the notion that conservatives still believe the progressive, compassionate and fair government instituted by FDR is an abomination that must be eradicated. They have learned nothing in the last seven years. Or the last 74 years, for that matter. Posted by: PTate in FR on July 10, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKKevin, you definitely shouldn't move to Georgia. Some people here are still upset about Lincoln. Posted by: absent observer on July 10, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINKWhat is needed here is a pundit database. Imagine an internet database listing all predictions, suggestions made by mass media pundits and the actual outcome of the event or a factcheck of the comment. Pundits would be ranked by accuracy using a no-bullshit method operated by a non-partisan organization. Posted by: richard on July 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINKIn 2074 my grandchildren will have to hear Returdlicans whine about how Clinton abused the White House X-Mas card list in 1996? Better GOP spin doctors, please. Posted by: RP on July 10, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINKI understand the Sunnis and Shia are still pissed over a 1200 year old murder. Some people just can't move on. George Will is one of them. Posted by: corpus juris on July 10, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINKThe entertainment value of Will as president should not be discounted. First throne in the Oval Office, first president to wear ermine-trimmed robes, media admitted to press conferences by competitive examination only . . . the mind just reels. Posted by: penalcolony on July 10, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINKThat George Will is still exercised by FDR's seventy-year-old policies I can dismiss as idiosyncrasy. What bothers me more is his habit of presenting without justification some dubious notion as undisputed fact and then blithely building on it for the rest of the article. Bush's aide might have articulated the non-reality based world view of this administration, but they aren't the only conservatives enamored of it. Posted by: Partha Neogy on July 10, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKRelated Topic: David Corn fisks David Brooks and Michael Kinsley regarding Scooter Libby. At least it's not over three-quarters of a century old. Posted by: grape_crush on July 10, 2007 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINKOne should always check the link. I am unfamiliar with Yousefzadeh and assumed he rose in anger (as did I) at the gratuitous meanness of Will stating that FDR made the decision before getting into his wheelchair. But no, he turns out to be a wingnut shivering with rage at that old Bolshevik, Franklin D. Rosenfelt. Posted by: Marlowe on July 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINKThis is unsubstantiated trash talk, so I'll pass it on. The dish around DC about 13 or 14 years ago was that old George had an affair--I know the concept of his getting two women to sleep with him beggars belief--and that Mrs. Will was much dismayed about it. As the story goes, she threw all his clothes into the street, richly embarrassing him in front of the neighbors and thus, the whole town. I always wish I could have seen all those smug seersucker suits lying there forlornly as cars with diplomatic plates zoomed over them. Posted by: shortstop on July 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINKWas that the old Mrs. Will or the new Mrs. Will? Posted by: MaxGowan on July 10, 2007 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINKThat story was reported in the Washingtonian as directly observed fact at the time, shortstop, and I didn't see Will or Mrs. Will suing them, so I assume it was true. Posted by: tavella on July 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINKMy favorite part of the column was Wendell Willkie, who would be Roosevelt's opponent in a 1940 election overshadowed by war, called upon Roosevelt to "give up this vested interest you have in depression" And we know how well that played to the American public. So Willkie, like Will, would just have had the Depression solved by the Free Marketplace. Which is exactly what got us into the depression in the first place. Posted by: tomeck on July 10, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINKOh, that silly FDR. He should've consulted a bunch of witch-doctor economists who would've come up with some utterly bullshit "calculations" that would be substantively indistinguishable from FDR's ballpark guess. If Hoover had done the same thing as FDR, but used a graph on a cocktail napkin (drawing the y axis in increments of seven), he'd now be hailed by the right as one of the greatest economists ever. Posted by: latts on July 10, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKOnce again demonstrating he was born with a silver spoon stuck up his ass, George Will's latest piece of drivel reminds me of the definitive put-down by John Kenneth Galbraith: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of mankind's oldest exercises in moral philosophy, that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise that involves a certain number of internal contradictions and even a few absurdities. The conspicuously wealthy turn up urging the character-building value of privation for the poor." Posted by: MaxGowan on July 10, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINKI just shake my head at the Monday Morning Quarterbacking of conservatives today over FDR's handling of the Depression. There's virtually a cottage industry of folks who claim with the certainty of God that FDR really screwed things up with the New Deal. Of course they forget that FDR didn't have the luxury of time, when he took office the country was on the edge of collapse, and there was a great chance of America tipping into some type of authoritarian hell (thank God Cheney wasn't around then). It took time to dig out of the Depression, and perhaps FDR's policies weren't the best way out, but who really knows, and the bottomline is the scoreboard: America survived and became the strongest nation on Earth by a considerable margin. Works for me. Posted by: Jim on July 10, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINKTomeck refers to a very good point. FDR began enacting his New Deal policies in 1933, and yet was reelected 3 more times. So George Will is saying that the public was duped? Maybe they were about the pricing of gold, but obviously they were pretty satisfied with the job FDR was doing. No wonder conservatards hate populists. Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on July 10, 2007 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINKUm, OK. Right after African-Americans "get over" slavery, which ended about twice as far back in history as occurred the New Deal. Posted by: coyote on July 10, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINKtavella, how delightful. Thank you for confirming that for at least a few moments, something really did wipe that self-satisfied smirk off Strawhead's face. Posted by: shortstop on July 10, 2007 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINKUh, no, the "Free Marketplace" did not get us into the Depression, unless you consider a Central Bank's restriction on money supply and trade legislation by Congress to be aspects of a "Free Marketplace". Kevin, dude, are we to take from this post that historical evaluation of, or comment on, FDR's policies is are not to be undertaken (or at least not if it isn't mere haigiography), because, like, it happened many decades ago? In the column to appear next week, George Will comapares and contrasts FDR's absurd and chaotic decision making process with the intellectually superior, measured, and deliberate methodology of the Bush administration that is so apparent in the decisions that GWB made to send our kids to die in Iraq. Posted by: gregor on July 10, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINKApologies for the typos. Surfer-speak does that to me. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINKm, OK. Right after African-Americans "get over" slavery, which ended about twice as far back in history as occurred the New Deal. There's no relationship. Whereas African-Americans are still trying to "get over" the lingering effects of slavery, we seem to have recovered quite nicely from the Depression back in the 40's. And anyway, I don't see African-Americans raging about Will's column anyway, so there isn't even a tenuous connection. Better arguments please. Posted by: Xanthippas on July 10, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKCoyote Slavery ended in 1865. Jim Crow, lynchings, and exclusion from economic and political life continued well into the 1960s. Discrimination continues today, as your comment proves. And somehow, I have to think that the effects of slavery and segregation were several orders of magnitude tougher on African Americans than the effects of Social Security are on you and George Will. Posted by: tomeck on July 10, 2007 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK"I understand the Sunnis and Shia are still pissed over a 1200 year old murder." So unlike the their Christian brothers who "celibrate" a 2000 year old murder. Of course there are more than a few who use it as a reason to hate Jews. Didn't St. Ronny Reagan's wife consult the Zodiac before letting him schedule any important meetings or making any substantive decissions? How does G. Will feel about that I wonder? Posted by: henk on July 10, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINKAh, Kevin. The Free Market did not cause the Great Depression, Kevin. It was clumsiness at the Federal Reserve coupled with the Kellogg-Briande Tariff. Also, did you know that the New Deal did nothing to solve the Depression, but merely made it worse? The only thing that pulled us out of the Depression was WWII. By the way, Kevin, for the record I would be very frightened at the way monetary policy was whimsically determined by FDR, some elitist from NY who could have cared less how his liberal theories impacted the poor. Posted by: egbert on July 10, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINKActually, an intellectually honest person, would acknowledge how extremely critical Will as been of George W. Bush for many years now, and that Will has, on the whole, been favorably disposed regarding FDR's presidency. FDR was a well-above average President, but Democrats are as pathetically committed to mindless FDR-worship as Republicans are to to mindless Reagan-worship. Makes me wish that Bush II had proposed adding two more seats to the Supreme Court back when the Republicans controlled the Senate, just to see the hoops Democrats would have jumped through. For all the yelping they do about Bush II's disregard for the law, it is strange that you rarely hear a Democrat, when discussing FDR, talk about FDR's treatment of the Neutrality Act, or quietly telling the Supreme Court that he was going to see a U.S. citizen executed no matter how the Court ruled on the citizen's appeal, so the Court should consider it's future legitimacy when ruling on the appeal. The U.S. could have done far, far, worse than FDR from 1932 to 1945, but that doesn't obviate the fact that FDR had a substantial thuggish, despotic, aspect to him. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKTo those conservatives out there who like to claim that it was governnment action that triggered the Great Depression, do you people realize that America was rocked roughly every 20 years by a serious economic downturn from the founding of the Republic until the Great Depression with the Depression merely being the worst of these downturns? While we've certainly experienced downturns since then, none of them have approached the Panics of 1873 or 1893 much less the Great Depression. I don't think it's any accident that New Deal reforms have made downturns far less painful than they used to be. And critics who point out that the New Deal didn't end the Great Depression are right, World War II did. But, World War II ushered in a federal work program that dwarfed anything FDR contemplated during the 1930's while the massive government programs instituted right after the war also massively helped the recovery. Of course, the same conservatives who believe that Reagan's speeche and Star Wars program brought down the Soviet menace don't think any of FDR's programs had any positive impact on the Depression or subsequent economic development in this country. Please... Posted by: Guscat on July 10, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK"Well above average?" Actually, an intellectually honest person, Will, would acknowlege that for decades now FDR has been ranked by historians as second only to Lincoln in greatness. You know, stuff like saving American from collapse of the Great Depression, saving the world from the Nazis. Even Reagan loved FDR. Posted by: MaxGowan on July 10, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINKGeorge F. Will has repeatedly breached journalistic ethics in ways far more serious than those resulted in termination for anyone else. For example, R. Foster Winans was fired from the Wall Street Journal (and served a year in the slammer) for using his WSJ column “Heard on the Street” to prematurely disclose an investment deal in exchange for some cash. But this breach of ethics is peanuts compared to the theft of our very democracy by George F. Will, who coached Reagan using stolen Carter briefing papers and then used his “journalist” credentials to pontificate about Reagan's “thoroughbred performance” that Will had just assisted in prepping Reagan for. Possession of stolen property is a criminal offense. It is amazing that any respectable media outlet publishes the words of this unethical and criminal “journalist.” Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on July 10, 2007 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINKGuscat, if you wish to argue that the Fed's monetary policy primarily, with Congress' trade legislation as a contributing factor, were not the the major reasons that the Great Depression was the worst economic dowturn in the nation's history by an extremely wide margin, there's a Nobel in it for you if you can build a convincing case. Have at it. Yes, you are correct, putting 16 million citizens in the military, out of a total population far smaller than today's, will reduce unemployment just a wee bit. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINKFDR was a great Commander-in-Chief. He saved the world. For that, we can readily forgive his many domestic failures and even his failure to allow the Army to bomb the rail lines leading to the death camps. Posted by: DBL on July 10, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINKMaxGowan, ranking Presidents with faux-precision like college football teams is a stupid exercise that historians who should know better engage in to entertain the dim-witted among the general public. One can make useful general historical assessments, but the numbering nonsense is strictly for frauds and fools. I do sometimes shudder at the thought of what may have happened if Washington had shared FDR's thirst for power, however. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINKgregor: In the column to appear next week, George Will comapares and contrasts FDR's absurd and chaotic decision making process with the intellectually superior, measured, and deliberate methodology of the Bush administration that is so apparent in the decisions that GWB made to send our kids to die in Iraq. And inserts a few heavyhanded baseball references to boot, the tool. Will Allen's Theme Song: For all the yelping they do about Bush II's disregard for the law, it is strange that you rarely hear a Democrat, when discussing FDR, talk about FDR's treatment of the Neutrality Act, or quietly telling the Supreme Court that he was going to see a U.S. citizen executed no matter how the Court ruled on the citizen's appeal, so the Court should consider it's future legitimacy when ruling on the appeal. Why should we need to? Every time your OC disorder flares up, which is about every other week, you haul it out as "evidence" of Democratic "hypocrisy" regarding torture, habeas corpus, foreign policy, milk prices, iPods, ballot formats, RICO, the Hudson River Valley and Waco. When it's pointed out to you that your "reasoning" is more than a bit, well, tortured, you fly into a hysterical rage worthy of a 13-year-old girl who just got grounded and repeat the same post for about 14 hours. Let's take that as already having happened here, too, shall we? Oh, and we'll also agree that I've been very, very uncivil to you. That should save you about 47 posts. Posted by: shortstop on July 10, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKWill, that line of thinking went out with the end of the 19th Century; your obfuscation of the points made say much about you. Posted by: MaxGowan on July 10, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINKIt's astonishing, really, that conservatives are still exercised about FDR and the New Deal 70 years after the fact. It's hardly astonishing; our own conservative trolls here routinely display their ridiculous obsession with Communism. Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK'It is better to light one candle, than to curse the darkness.' MaxGowan, the "point" you made mostly referred to a silly exercise that historians engage in to appear in the popular media. Why is pointing that out an obsfuscation? Yes, shortstop, you have established many times that your opposition to lawlessnes does not extend to lawlessness in pursuit of goals you favor, as long as it works. Thanks for the reminder. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINKbut Democrats are as pathetically committed to mindless FDR-worship No, just committed to skewering mindless FDR-bashing from mendacious shitbags like George Will. Posted by: ckelly on July 10, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINKAnderson >"...witch-doctor economists..." That phrasing is soooo redundant and even G.H.W. Bush believed such Remember the phrase "Voodoo Economics" ? George Will is a dinosaur as is anyone that pays any serious attention to anything he writes "To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov Posted by: daCascadian on July 10, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINKYeah, Gregory, how ridiculous it is to engage in a historical examination of the murder of well more than 100 million people, and the endless misery that even more people were subjected to, all in service to an ideology that many people in our current political culture minimized, in terms of it's horrors, when they did not lend outright support to. Ridiculous! Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK... FDR had a substantial thuggish, despotic, aspect to him... Will Allen at 1:18 PM It was you, Will ("You disagree with my opinion, therfore you are wrong") Allen who opened the door with your "FDR was a well above average president"; and of course, no historian could possibly know as much as you. Enough feeding angry trolls who don't have lives. Move out of your parents' basement! Posted by: MaxGowan on July 10, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINKYeah, that George Will, who mendaciously has generally been favorably disposed to FDR as a historical figure. Geez, do you really think Will's piece amounts to harsh criticism? Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINKWill Can you say "Herbert Hoover?" You take Roosevelt to task about the Depression, yet you don't seem to be able to say anything about the guy who was in charge during it's first 3 or so years. It's the "Central Bank" and congressional trade laws. What, we didn't have a president in 1930? I don't know how old you are, but I talked to a lot of guys some years ago about how the CCC was one of the best things that ever happened to them. Yes, WWII did a lot to end the depression, but things like minimum wage and social security helped us maintain that prosperity when those 16 million men came back into the workforce. Posted by: tomeck on July 10, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINKUh, Max, I specifically wrote that general historical assessments were useful exercises. This does not contradict the assertion that ranking Presidents with faux-precision like college football teams is silly. Why on earth someone favorably disposed to FDR's record would take exception to the description of him as being well-above average is really quite puzzling. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINKYes, shortstop, you have established many times that your opposition to lawlessnes does not extend to lawlessness in pursuit of goals you favor, as long as it works. Come now, Will. This constant projection is unseemly. It was only a couple of weeks ago that you proved yourself utterly incapable of giving an unqualified condemnation of Bush's torture policies, while I was kind enough to show you the way by unequivocally denouncing the prison rape you preferred as a topic. In fact, your multiple failed attempts in this area provided mucho entertainment for all of us. You simply couldn't do it. A cursory review of both our comments on this site will find numerous examples of my completely unqualified criticisms of lawless acts and actors ranging from Clinton's perjury and (if proven in a court of law) alleged crimes of William Jefferson to the general MOs of Richard M. Daley and Rod Blagojevich, among other Democratic politicians. Unqualified, Will. You on the other hand, have not to my knowledge made a single criticism of Republican wrongdoing that was not accompanied by a "but the Dems are worse!" or "but Joe Dem did it too!" statement. Not a one, Will. You are simply incapable of that kind of accountability. Your wiring is too far off. Posted by: shortstop on July 10, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINKtomeck, I made no reference to FDR and the cause of the Depression. I simply stated that it was ridiculous to say the devotion to the free market principles caused the Depression, unless one was maintaining that having a central bank restrict money supply, and Congress inhibit trade via legislation, constituted devotion to free market principles. If you really believe that minimum wage legislation, and the small percentage of the people receiving S.S, checks in the immediate post-War period, were significant factors in maintaining American prosperity in a world where nearly every other economically significant nation's industrial base had been destroyed, well, I suppose you also think the rooster caused the sun to rise this morning. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKthe murder of well more than 100 million people, and the endless misery that even more people were subjected to, all in service to an ideology that many people in our current political culture minimized, in terms of it's horrors, when they did not lend outright support to. Um, let's see, you're talking about Nixon going to China, right? Drinking champagne with Mao? Or was it when he overthrew a democratically elected government in Chile? Or are you thinking of the way GHW Bush smiled and waved to the dying Shiites whom he had just encouraged to rise up against Saddam, knowing they couldn't win on their own and not even offering them a no fly zone. Posted by: tomeck on July 10, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKIrony alert: Will Allen complains about an ideology that many people in our current political culture minimized, in terms of it's horrors, when they did not lend outright support to. What an ass you are, Will. Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINKFDR was a great Commander-in-Chief. He saved the world. For that, we can readily forgive his many domestic failures and even his failure to allow the Army to bomb the rail lines leading to the death camps. Posted by: DBL on July 10, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK Oh, you mean, shortstop, when I failed to write that the Libby commutation was undeniably wrong, and that torture should be prohibited, period? Lying as usual, aren't you? Meanwhile, rather mild and qualified criticism of FDR is made, and Democrats here get hysterical in response. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK"The Free Market did not cause the Great Depression, Kevin. It was clumsiness at the Federal Reserve coupled with the Kellogg-Briande [sic] Tariff. Also, did you know that the New Deal did nothing to solve the Depression, but merely made it worse? The only thing that pulled us out of the Depression was WWII." US GDP shrank by a quarter under Hoover; from 1933 to 1940 [when the war stimulus really began to make itself felt] GDP grew by 7 percent a year [notwithstanding the downturn of 1937-1938]. Unemployment stood at 23 percent of the total civilian work force in 1933, but was down to 9 1/2 percent by 1940 [Stats from Historical Statistics of the United States, Millennium Edition]. Yes, the New Deal "failed to get the US out of the Depression"; it was a big hole to climb out of. Seven percent GDP growth, though, wasn't chicken feed; voters noted it, and rewarded accordingly. It's certainly claptrap to say that the ND "made it worse." It needs to be noted here that Will didn't come up with this stuff on his own; it's coming from Amity Shlaes's heavily-promoted-by-the-right-wing-publicity-machine book The Forgotten Man. Posted by: David on July 10, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK"Hence Social Security, which had the added purpose of encouraging workers to retire, thereby opening jobs to younger people. Notice the assumptions of permanent scarcity, and that the government has a duty to distribute scarce things, such as work." Oh the horrors of ensuring a non-miserable retirement! Posted by: dave on July 10, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINKI made no reference to FDR and the cause of the Depression. Of course you didn't. What you did is talk about the Central Bank and Congress, avoiding the name of Herbert Hoover. Then you gave a few specifics about the brutal thug FDR. That's what you wingnuts always do. Bad things that happen on your guy's watch is the fault of Congress or the Fed or liberals. Things that happen during a Democratic administration are the fault of brutal thugs in the White House. Posted by: tomeck on July 10, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINKYes, Gregory, I'm an ass for pointing out that you think it is ridiculous to have a historical examination of the minimization, and sometimes outright support of, by people still part of our political culture, an ideology which resulted in well more than 100 million murders. Right. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINKIn 1919, Herbert Hoover proposed abolishing the Patent Office, since all of the great inventions already had been made. This may be on par with Bill Gates believing early on that 486K is all we'd need. Still, it shows a habit of mind that would not have the flexibility to deal with the Great Depression. Posted by: MaxGowan on July 10, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK...and anyway, how the hell would you know what "an intellectually honest person would do, Will? Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINKOh, you mean, shortstop, when I failed to write that the Libby commutation was undeniably wrong, and that torture should be prohibited, period? Where was that, Will? I missed the former (traveling last week) and I quite clearly recall that you were patently unable to complete the second statement without adding a "but...but...the Dems!" remark. We all remember, Will. It's all here. I'll stop short of accusing you of outright lying, because I really do suspect that your missing accountability gene/ethical wiring gone terribly wrong help you to believe that what you just said is true. Posted by: shortstop on July 10, 2007 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINKAmity Shlaes' cherry-picking of statistics to back up her claims has been well documented, both here and in the American Prospect. So can we stop pretending that the book is anything but the usual vanity-press right-wing smear job that David Brock used to write before he became disgusted with himself and came clean (and out)? Leon Wieseltier once commented about his refusal to debate a Holocaust denier by saying, "This isn't a debate between two 'points of view', this would be a debate between fact and mental illness." Posted by: jprichva on July 10, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINKNo, Will, you're an ass for characterizing the wingnuts' ridiculous obsession with Communism as "a historical examination." And for constantly declaring, dishonestly, what other posters "think" and "believe" while constantly whining when your own statements are criticized for their unmistakable implications (for example, your constant -- not to mention hysterical -- changing of the subject to Democrats whenever Republicans are criticized). And, well, for being the pompous ass that your every post proves you are. Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINKIt's astonishing, really, that conservatives are still exercised about FDR and the New Deal 70 years after the fact. Every now and then they get bored of blaming everything on Clinton. The economist blogs had a lot on this issue about six months ago. Seems George Will failed to follow any of it. But we put up a few notes and a reminder (with a link) over at Angrybear. Posted by: pgl on July 10, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINKNo, tomeck, I was more thinking of the 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate saying, in 1975, that the Khmer Rouge was a positive force for Cambodian society, and then voting in a manner which removed any obstacle to the Khmer Rouge instituting it's policies. I was also thinking of those who referred to Mao as a mere "agrarian reformer" while he was murdering tens of millions. At least Nixon waited until most of the corpses were cold before kissing Mao's ass. I was mostly thinking of the dolts who, to this day, continue to speak highly of Fidel Castro. Since he's gone to his grave, I won't say much about the NYT reporter who won a Pulitizer for covering up Stalin's murder of meillions upon millions Regarding Hoover, to the degree he supported the Fed policy, and there is no doubt he did, he contributed to the Depression. You Uh, david, if you really want the most widely recognized work regarding the cause of the Great Depression, that would be Friedman and Schwarz' "A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960" which ya' know, is hailed by such right wing nuts as Democratic icon Paul Krugman. I ahve no opinion of Shlae's book. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINKWho cares what Will Allen says? Why so much attention to him? Posted by: gregor on July 10, 2007 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINKIf we can thank any Americans for the "success" of the Khmer Rouge, we can thank Nixon and Kissinger. Thanks to their secret bombing campaign in 1969 (Remember the Fourth Article of Impeachment?), and the overthrow of Sihanouk and the installation of Lon Nol, the Khmer Rouge went from a rag-tag group to the full-blown malignancy that came to power. That's blood on our hands. Incidentally, as long as we are citing war crimes, that secret bombing in '69 (where we dropped more bombs on Cambodia than were dropped in all of WWII) murdered an estimated three-quarters of a million Cambodian civilians. Then you can add the 1.7 million murdered by our creation, Pol Pot. Posted by: MaxGowan on July 10, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINKYes, gregory, to you a historical examination of a phenomena which resulted in a murder of more than a 100 million people constitutes an obsession. Shortstop, the fact that I refused to copy your paragraph is not proof of that I have not written in this forum previously that torture should be prohibited, period. Now, if you'll make a $50 dollar donation to Ron Paul's campaign, I will find the relevant previous posts from me. In the meantime stop writing things which are not true. Look, you are with the people here who constantly proclaim not just your greater insight as to the better political policies, but also your moral superiority to those in the major political party you oppose. Nearly every thread in this forum is filled with proclamations regarding how morally awful Republicans are. Thus, the hysteria when it is pointed out that the politicians you support or speak highly of engage in the very same wrongful acts which you find so indicative of moral failings of Republicans, given the politicians they support. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINKWill Allen complaining about others writing things that are untrue. Hello? Posted by: MaxGowan on July 10, 2007 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINKMaxGown, yep, Kissinger and Nixon engaged in a terrible, terrible act regarding the Cambodian people. Too bad their they were helped out by the 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate's full throated support of Pol Pot. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINKThe Kellogg-Briand pact was an international treaty outlawing war. It was signed before Roosevelt took office. It would be interesting to have Will Allen say who he thinks the best US president was. Posted by: Tom S on July 10, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINKSoutherners still feel that way about the War Between the States/Civil War and considering they run the GOP I guess it doesn't surprise me that they hold on to FDR. Posted by: ET on July 10, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINKNeither the New Deal, nor the war, ended The Great Depression. The New Deal, and the actions of Hoover before it, deepened and extended the misery in a way not seen in any other earlier economic downturn in the United States before the 1930s. The war only put people to work by essential nationalization of the economy to war production, and such an economy was not only completely unsustainable, but was mostly producing goods and services that are only useful for war, nothing else. The depression ended after the war ended, along with almost all of the worst aspects of governmental regulations of prices and investments (however, one major interference remains-see below) erected before and during WWII. To believe that the war ended The Great Depression, one would have believe that the path to economic growth is to build 20 aircraft carriers a year. Panics before 1913 quickly passed because no one was standing in the way of price adjustments and capital reallocation/liquidation that is always required in the cresting and collapse of a boom. However, as the federal government grew in power in the early 20th century (the federal reserve act, the income tax, etc.), it's power to interfere in these economic adjustments also grew, along with politicians' willingness to use them, both to foment booms, and to attempt to ameliorate the subsequent recessions. Have recessions become less severe? I doubt it. The recession of 1981-82 was bad by any historic account, but one could argue that we are simply in one large economic boom facilitated by better management of the Federal Reserve since the 1940s, but all booms end, and the subsequent retrenchments are usually proportional in severity and length to the booms that proceeded them. Looking at the structure of our debts and debt-backed currencies, I, for one, am just a bit nervous, though I feel the current economic upswing will likely outlive me. Posted by: Yancey Ward on July 10, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINKWill, McGovern never supported Pol Pot, you liar. Posted by: MaxGowan on July 10, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINKWhat I can't understand is what conservatives are so upset about. Hasn't America done pretty well the last 70 years? Aren't we fabulously wealthy and powerful? These are the same people who argue that under Bush, unemployment is virtually nonexistent and the economy is strong. What do they think the USA would be like if it weren't for FDR? How much more prosperous can we be? Especially considering none of that prosperity would be shared among the less fortunate, presumably about the same percentage of those who need help in the post-FDR America. Posted by: Jason on July 10, 2007 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINKToo bad their they were helped out by the 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate's full throated support of Pol Pot. Yeah, Nixon never made a move on anything until he had McGovern's support. By the way, I haven't heard anybody speak highly of Castro for years. What kind of people do you hang around with, anyway? Posted by: tomeck on July 10, 2007 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINKMaxGowan, when you say that the Khmer Rouge is likely to be a positive force for Cambodian society, and Pol Pot is the unquestioned leader of the Khmer Rouge, you are then giving full throated support to Pol Pot. McGovern did. Stop denying the historical record. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINKI also think it's terrible that the liberal MSM completely suppressed the fact that McGovern OKed the Watergate Operation, not to mention the hush money for the burglars. Only, unlike Nixon, McGovern didn't say "... but it would be wrong." I saved you the trouble, Will. Posted by: tomeck on July 10, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINKWill, since when is the wingnuts' ridiculous obsession with Communism a "historical examination"? Your repeated assertion of this point, as ever, doesn't make it true. You also err in attributing the "phenomena which resulted in a murder of more than a 100 million people" to Communism as opposed to plain and simple authoritarianism. And there we come full circle, Will, because as shortstop pointed out, your proclivity to change the subject from the authoritarian Republicans to the Democrats, if we were to apply your own dishonest standards, would certainly equate to your own support of an authoritarian ideology that has resulted in untold death and mistery. Your moral fig leaf is quite tattered, Will ,and it's most unbecoming. But I found this truly insightful: Nearly every thread in this forum is filled with proclamations regarding how morally awful Republicans are. That's what really gets your goat, isn't it, Will? You can't stand it when they party you align with is criticized on moral grounds, which is why you make such an ass of yourself. Sad, really. We wouldn't be a bit defensive about the moral worth of the party you seem to prefer -- at least on grounds on relative lack of criticism -- to the Democrats, would we, Will my boy? (Of course, your assertion that there's "hysteria" from anyone else in this thread but you is just laughable. Projecting much, Will?) Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINKDid somebody suggest making a $50 donation to Dr. Paul's campaign? Hear, hear! Glad to have you as a fellow traveler, Brother Allen! Posted by: Klingon #57 on July 10, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINKIn Will's world, "likely to be a positive force" is equivalent to "full throated support"? I always knew your grasp of rehtoric was, ah, unique, Will, but that one's a humdinger. But hold on: Accepting your assertions is, of course, a mug's game. I'm sure you wouldn't dream of taking McGovern out of context, of course, but if you're going to cite the historical record, let's cite the historical record. Full quote and link, if you please. Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK
the national savings rate in 2005 and 2006 was negative... that hasn't been done since the depression... Posted by: mr. irony on July 10, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINKTomeck, I haven't see it yet, but I heard that Michael Moore portrays life under Castro in a very positive manner. Jimmy Carter has made positive comments regarding Castro. Tom S., yes, whomever identified Kellogg as a trade law was wrong; it was Smoot-Hawley. Regarding other Presidents, like I said, I am loathe to rank them precisely. As to generalizations, and regarding those that we have had, in my view, the 100 years needed to really see them more clearly, I'd rank Washington and Lincoln as the most clearly outstanding, more than a couple as the worst; and, to me, the most interesting category, the most underrated, I'd award to Grant. If Grant's reconstruction policies had been continued, I think much of the racial strife which persists even today could have receded far earlier. Regarding roughly the past 100 years, and the more recent the Presidency the more tentative the judgement, I'd rank the two Roosevelts and perhaps Reagan quite well, along with probably Eisenhower and Truman. Nixon and LBJ were horrible, albeit for different reasons. Wilson was pretty bad, as was Hoover. The current Bush will look awful, depending on what the political situation in the Persian Gulf is like in 10-20 years. I'd be hesitant to call Carter underrated, because he really wasn't very good, but I think his bad luck exceeded his bad performance by some margin. Coolidge might be underrated, although I can't remember what his stance was on monetary policy in 1929, or if he ever expressed an opinion on the topic, and anybody who, in 1929, was in support of a tight monetary policy (which, to be fair, included narly everyone of note) was making a monumental and tragic error. .... the 1972 Democratic Presidential Candidate's full throated support of Pol Pot. Will Allen at 3:24 PM 22 Apr (NYT) President Jimmy Carter calls Cambodia "world's worst 22 Aug (NYT) Senator George McGovern calls for international force 87 COMMENTS?!!? Apparently it's not just right-wingers who get ramped up when FDR's the topic. I just think it's funny that a strong proponent of W's "war planning" would object so strongly to the idea that a president would make it up on the fly when it comes to a policy decision. Never mind that FDR's decision in this case was pretty damn marginal in its importance, and that the modeling & analytical tools didn't exist in that era to inform an economic decision so miniscule as a one-day change in the price of gold. In contrast, the big decisions W has decided based on his gut have determined the lives & deaths of thousands; and a great deal has been knowable, or at least available to modeling & analysis, about those problems. Posted by: TW on July 10, 2007 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINKWill Allen - Psychic Movie Critic. Just one question Will, did Moore vote for Castro and thus confirm his disregard for Castro? (For those needing context, Will has famously claimed that he has no regard for Bush, in spite of voting twice for the man. Some might think that stepping twice into a voting booth with the express intent of voting for a candidate was a greater expression of regard than saying someone might have been mostly honest in a reveiw of a film. But those people wouldn't have Will Allen's ability to discern malign motives in anyone not kowtowing to Will's brilliance.) Posted by: noel on July 10, 2007 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINKThis is what George McGovern said, as the Senate debated whether to cut off all aid to the Lon Nol government, and the only other political entitity poised to rule Cambodia was the Khmer Rouge.... "The growing hysteria of the administration's posture on Cambodia,'' declared Senator George McGovern, ``seems to me to reflect a determined refusal to consider what the fall of the existing government in Phnom Penh would actually mean. . . . We should be able to see that the kind of government which would succeed Lon Nol's forces would most likely be a government . . . run by some of the best-educated, most able intellectuals in Cambodia." Those "able intllectuals" then proceeded to stack the corpses to the horizon. In the context of a civil war, saying that one side consists of "the best-educated, most able, intellectuals" can be reasonably be construed as full-throated support for that side's leader. Before you complain about the ellipsis, Gregory, I'm sorry that I can't make the Congressional record prior to 1994 available on-line, because I believe the remarks were made from the well of the Senate. No, I don't care if Republicans are criticized on moral grounds. I simply find it notable when it is done by people who support the same behavior, or at least fail to condemn it nearly as strongly, when engaged in by members of the party they support. I challenge you to reprint one post from me where I've stated that Republicans are morally superior to Democrats. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINKIn the context of a civil war, saying that one side consists of "the best-educated, most able, intellectuals" can be reasonably be construed as full-throated support for that side's leader. No, Will, it can't. Thanks for proving that you misrepresented McGover's statements, though. Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINKMike, McGovern supported for the cut off of aid to the government of Lon Nol in Cambodia during Ford's administration. It was not known for a certainty at the time, that the Khmer Rouge would be so murderous, but there was a lot of evidence of what would happen if they came to power, so it can't be claimed that there was no way of knowing what could happen. All you have shown is that McGovern was smart enough to realize that the Khmer Rouge were worse than the previous government, a point of which I know, for a fact, that Will Allen understands. Posted by: Yancey Ward on July 10, 2007 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINKMike, it apprently escpapes your penetrating intellect that McGovern could have supported the Khmer Rouge coming to power, and then, well into the genocide, realized the error of his ways, and thus supported the military intervention that he once voted against, a vote which allowed Pol Pot to gain power. If you think that mitigates McGovern's behavior substantially, that says something about you which is not positive. I'll give McGovern this much; he was better than people like Noam Chomsky or Anthony Lewis of the NYT, but talk about damning with faint praise! Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINKFine, Will. When the German General Staff takes responsibility for Communist Russia (which they supported the creation of to a much greater degree than simply making a speech in the Senate) then we can get around to blaming McGovern for Pol Pot. Who, by the way, was aided in his cause by the American intervention in Cambodia led by Nixon and Kissinger far more than by anything McGovern said in the Senate. Posted by: tomeck on July 10, 2007 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINKI don't care if Republicans are criticized on moral grounds. No, of course not, Will. Obviously. [/sarcasm] I challenge you to reprint one post from me where I've stated that Republicans are morally superior to Democrats. Pay attention, Will. As shortstop and I point out -- and as you tacitly conced as valid with your own reference to "at least fail to condemn it nearly as strongly," -- you simply and contantly attempt to change the subject from criticism of the Republicans to your preferred criticism, tendentious as it may be, of those nasty, nasty Democrats. Simply put, Will, you lavish more of your hypocritical moral outrage on Democrats by far. You seek to portray Democrats as morally inferior, so the Republicans must be, in your view, superior. QED. But you know what your biggest sin -- on top of your pomposity, your intellectual dishonesty and your vastly overinflated opinion of your own intellectual capabilities -- is, Will? You're boring. Witness your own return, without a shred of irony, to your tired, unconvincing and thoroughly old hat "I simply find it notable when it is done by people who support the same behavior, or at least fail to condemn it nearly as strongly, when engaged in by members of the party they support" false equivalence. It won't do, Will. Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINKAmity Shlaes was interviewed by KLo over at the Corner (NRO). Her references do not include ANY of the great work from various economists that have written on the Great Depression. Seems her main source was FDR's Folly by James Powell. That says it all about her new book. Wingnuts will love it. The rest of us should save our time and money. Posted by: pgl on July 10, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINKOh no, gregory, saying that one side in a civil war is composed of the best educated most able intellectuals does not constitute full throated support for that side achieving victory. Not at all. Really. One normally describes the side one opposes, or is neutral about, as "most able". Really, really, really. Happens all the time. Well, the Khmer Rouge was certainly the "most able" caving people's skulls in, that's for sure. Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINKMcGovern supported for the cut off of aid to the government of Lon Nol in Cambodia during Ford's administration... Yancey Ward at 4:34 PMActually, that is just another McCarthyist talking point dear to the heart of crackpots like Jeff Jacoby. In fact, McGovern understood better than others Nixon's folly ...Still, although My War is very obviously a book with an agenda, there are times when Sihanouk's comments seem precisely on-target, as when he discusses Richard Nixon's comments on the invasion of Cambodia: Neither the New Deal, nor the war, ended The Great Depression. The New Deal, and the actions of Hoover before it, deepened and extended the misery.... Yancey Ward at 3:36 PM That's a pantload of the silliest historical revisionism any Republican can muster, but it doesn't pass. I suggest you read a serious history of the Great Depression, such as The Great Depression America 1929 - 1941 by Robert S. McElvaine. You will learn that New Deal programs did help the American people immensely and alleviated their misery. Programs like the WPA and CCC were critical for keeping Americans alive and giving them hope during the darkest days of capitalism. The War did end the Depression. There is no doubt about that and no serious person disputes it. The reason the war ended the Depression was that finally, the government went into deficit spending and that the defense and military put millions to work, millions that balanced budget and incomplete actions could not. The only thing keeping this pathetic Bush economy going are the huge deficits that Bush is passing off to future Americans, deficits in excess of 500 billion per year. Posted by: Mike on July 10, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINKWill, your lame attempt at sarcasm can't conceal your dishonest representation of McGovern's remarks -- a point I noticed escaped our ruggedly individualitic friend Yancey -- nor can it support your rather strained use of the term "full throated." It's always interesting to see your pathological inability to ever admit you're wrong lead you to cling ever tighter to your dishonesty, though. It's a reminder that you don't need my help to diminish your credibility -- you save me the trouble. Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINKGosh, gregory, I'm so boring that you respond to my posts on a nearly unfailing basis. I must inquire once again; are you mentally ill? Do you normally repond with great frequency to that which bores you? If so, you should seek medical advice. It may have escaped your powers of observation, but criticism of Republicans is not in short supply in this forum. What possible reason would there be to add to that volume here? I thought you disliked excessive repetition, yet you seem to be saying that is what my posts should consist of. Again, your mental processes are quite bizarre. Yes, Tomeck, the Germans did have quite a bit to do with the rise of Stalinism, and they should be held responsible for conspiring with Stalin to divide up Poland. You find this notable somehow? Posted by: Will Allen on July 10, 2007 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINKIt's also worth mentioning that Will Allen fails to note that the Khmer Rouge "side" in the Cambodian Civil War was also that of deposed Prince Sihanouk, the legitimate head of state deposed by Lon Nol, who allied with the Khmer Rouge and other factions. Nor does Will Allen acknowledge the role of the US bombing of Cambodia -- undertaken by the party he favors over the Democrats -- in increasing the people's support for the khmer rough. I don't know whether it's ignorance or dishonesty, Will, but your misrepresentations do you no credit. Shame on you. Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINKWill Allen: I challenge you to reprint one post from me where I've stated that Republicans are morally superior to Democrats. First donate fitty dolla to your boyfriend Klingon's man Ron's campaign--sorry, but the thought of you making a campaign donation to anyone cracks me up. Will, don't be dumber than you absolutely have to be. Your thing isn't a candid and frank defense of your boys the Repubs. Your schtick, which you think creates an impenetrable enigma around your politics but is really just a worn-out and unsubtle trick, is pretending to be an insouciant old cynic. There's nothing in this world to feel passionate about. Morality is for simps and the mere act of seeking a moral path or making value judgments is self-righteous. All parties are equally self-serving, all politicians equally corrupt, all true believers equally naive and distastefully zealous. And yet somehow, just somehow, with all that parity of heinousness, you still manage to come down on the side of Republican policies every damn time. Danged if we can figure out how that happens. Posted by: shortstop on July 10, 2007 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINKIrony alert: Will Allen asks I must inquire once again; are you mentally ill? criticism of Republicans is not in short supply in this forum. Ford knows they give us enough reason. What possible reason would there be to add to that volume here? To demonstrate a little intellectual honesty? Oh, wait... Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKI must inquire once again; are you mentally ill? Projection again? Why so predictable, Will? Something tells me a comparison of Will's and Gregory's charts would be highly edifying, and not the least bit to Will's advantage. Posted by: shortstop on July 10, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINKYour thing isn't a candid and frank defense of your boys the Repubs. Your schtick, which you think creates an impenetrable enigma around your politics but is really just a worn-out and unsubtle trick, is pretending to be an insouciant old cynic. Beautifully done, shortstop. Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINKCareful there, Gregory. You're assigning a higher value to my thoughts than to Will's. That makes you a hypocrite, not to mention smugly self-congratulatory. Remember, all people and philosophies and actions are equally bad, so you might as well be a Republican (TM Disputo). Posted by: shortstop on July 10, 2007 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINKIt's also worth mentioning that Will Allen fails to note that the Khmer Rouge "side" in the Cambodian Civil War was also that of deposed Prince Sihanouk Looking back, I realize that I was too generous to Will. This is what he wrote (emphasis mine): This is what George McGovern said, as the Senate debated whether to cut off all aid to the Lon Nol government, and the only other political entitity poised to rule Cambodia was the Khmer Rouge In fact, the "only other political entitity poised to rule Cambodia" was Sihanouk, who would later be deposed (again!) by the Khmer Rouge, which represented a powerful, if not the most powerful, faction in his government. So no, McGovern's alleged "full throated support" of the Pol Pot's thugs is nothing of the kind, and Will is either demonstrating amazing ignorance or scurrilous dishonesty. Either way, shame on you, Will. Posted by: Gregory on July 10, 2007 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINKA lot of conservative flatulence on the thread. The late Friedman suffers from the same problem as the late Hayek; they became seduced by the larger political conservative movement into saying things that were not true for the cause of political victory. Posted by: Northern Observer on July 10, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINKHoly f@#K!!!! I'm hopping mad. We had a flaming liberal cripple President who held economic sausage fests on his bed? No wonder the Japs attacked us. Posted by: B on July 10, 2007 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINKWow I just read what all that Pol Pot nonsense was about with Mr Allen. That is very dishonest. Especially since in hindsight we now know that the Cambodians are a fervrently monarchical people and it was the American insistance on deposing prince Sihanouk that paved the way for Pol Pot. In short America legitimized Pol Pot as a valid political choice among the Cambodian population by removing the legitimate choice of the king from the political stage. You know it is not unlike what happened in Iran, except with different players. The CIA removed the socialist prime minister from office and installed the reactionary Shah who liquidated the Iranian left. This cleared the terrain for the ayatollas as an acceptable political choice for Iranians. Conservatives don't know how to interact with the world without making it worse for everyone. Well, except defense contractors. Voter beware. Posted by: Northern Observer on July 10, 2007 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK.... but I heard that Michael Moore portrays life under Castro in a very positive manner. Jimmy Carter has made positive comments regarding Castro. ....Will Allen at 4:04 PMNo, Moore presents health care in the US as it is, third rate. He merely points out that a third world dictatorship subjected to 50+ years of American sanctions is able to do almost as much for all of its people. It is interesting how the worst of the bad American president are overwhelmingly Republican: Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Nixon, Reagan, Bush. It is clear that their ranking is based on their contempt for the rule of law and their devotion to the wealthiest. ...it apprently escpapes your penetrating intellect that McGovern could have supported the Khmer Rouge coming to power....Will Allen at 4:37 PM That's another bit of dishonest historical revisionism. Voting to end the Nixon Doctrine and the Vietnam war do not, in any way, make that person responsible for the consequences, no more than voting to end the Iraq debacle will make anyone guilty of the situation that follows. The guilty party are the ones undertaking the initial actions: launching the Vietnam War, expanding that war to neighboring nations, launching the Iraq war. Those are the deeds of men that deserve opprobrium. Posted by: Mike on July 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK Mike, I don't doubt for a second that some of the work programs of Roosevelt helped some people, however, as a whole, The New Deal did not end the Depression. Why is that? What was different in 1929-1949 that was not true before? What was different was that government took an active role in trying to end the economic downturn, and failed. Yes, the war put millions to work, but it did so in an economically unsustainable way-people don't work to consume bullets, they don't save to produce tanks and other weapons-, so it also cannot be claimed to end the depression. As I wrote, if you really believe the war ended the Depression, then you believe that economic growth can be attained sustainably by building aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, or tanks, or paying people to dig holes and then fill them up, etc. Such a belief is nonsense. As for the Khmer Rouge, it is a matter of record that McGovern supported the discontinuation of support for the Cambodian government and that this, at the very least, hastened the fall of that government and the ascent of the Khmer Rouge to power. It is also a matter of record that McGovern did not see the Khmer Rouge for what they were to become. Was McGovern responsible for the Khmer Rouge? Of course not, but then that is not the claim that Will Allen was making, now was it? Posted by: Yancey Ward on July 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINKOh, yes Gregory, McGovern wasn't referring to the people who actually had, ya' know, the power to rule, as being "most able". He referring to a Shortstop, you are lying again. I've never once supported any domestic policy of this Administration. Not one. Stop lying, please. I also never said that seeking a moral path is self-righteous. I said it is when people like you do so, because you lack any ability whatsoever to honestly engage in an examination of the party you support. You really, truly, | |