Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
2010: The Big Con Continues
Despite the end-of-the-year upturn with Congressional ratification of the START Treaty and repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the United States remains stuck in a quagmire that has paralyzed our politics for 30 years. While the Republican party holds our government hostage, Democrats typically collaborate in public policies that don't have a prayer of resolving the deeply serious problem we face.
Though Americans younger than about 40 have never experienced it, there was a time when government was seen as a vehicle the American people could use to resolve pressing societal problems. When government failed to address the needs of relatively powerless groups, it was possible for them to mobilize around their grievances and place them on the public's agenda.
No longer. Today, protest has become routinized and all-but-impotent. Or, like the Tea Party, it has been coopted by the agenda of wealthy conservatives.
The dominant political message beamed at younger Americans for the past 30 years is that government is the problem, the market is the solution, and the United States must rely on aggressive military intervention to defend "our" interests.
And so, when the Democrats pledge to end the tax cuts enjoyed by the wealthiest Americans, the Republicans cry "class warfare," and the Democrats cave. With former Senator Alan Simpson gleefully anticipating the budgetary "blood bath" this coming spring when Congress has to raise the ceiling on national debt, we'll see more of the same. Social Security looms as perhaps the likely next target.
If we are to escape this quagmire, it is important to understand how we got into this mess and why we have lost the sense that we as a people can solve our problems and determine our future.
The crucial turning point occurred with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan's policies were anticipated in earlier pronouncements by then corporate attorney Lewis Powell and the Trilateral Commission who blamed America's economic woes of the 1970s on the "democratic excess" of the 1960s -most notably the entry of new populations -racial minorities, women, and the young- into an increasingly agitated political process. Both Powell in 1971 and the Trilateralists in 1975 called for a concerted effort to shift American public opinion to the Right, while turning politics over to the market.
Reagan's electoral success stemmed from his ability to appeal through folksy rhetoric to voting majorities while simultaneously producing the market friendly policies corporate America desired. Thus he appealed to time-honored "family values" that allegedly prevailed in a simpler, if mythical, United States before the era of "riots, assassinations, and domestic strife over the Vietnam war," as he characterized the 1960s.
By tapping into the very real grievances of Americans who felt they were losing ground in the 1970s, Reagan created the key to the Right's electoral success ever since: a pseudo-populism that blamed the "strife" of the 1960s on an allegedly liberal elite: liberal Big Government, liberal university administrators, and the "liberal" media who paid attention to the strife. Pseudo populism drew crucial populations who felt aggrieved by 60s era movements -notably the white South and the white working class-away from the Democratic Party. The Democrats' response was telling: a new Democratic Leadership Council was organized to move the party into the corporate-friendly center.
The political backlash against the 60s was greatly aided by the commercial media -by a narrowed range of political discourse produced by an increasingly subservient news media, and by a wide range of films (think Big Chill or Forrest Gump), television sit-coms (Reagan's favorite: Family Ties), and advertisements that either reinforced the 60s imagery played up in the conservative backlash or converted 60s social movements to stereotypes that robbed them of their political meanings relevant to today.
It would take pages to explain adequately, but I argue that during the 1960s era the very same forces -a narrow range of media interpretation and the commercial emphasis on dramatic imagery, conflict and personalities- provided an open invitation to the kinds of "strife" backlash types love to equate with something they call the "Sixties." The mass media did not consider the more system-challenging meanings and arguments of 60s-era social movements worthy of serious consideration. But they were attracted to the behavioral expressions of what they too glibly saw as a generation in revolt.
These are the same images, behaviors, and personalities -and generational frame for understanding them- that continue to provoke unending media treatments and "hip" sales pitches designed to encourage our consumption of material goods and entertainment. We are stuck with a discourse that loves to use media images to blame some "Other" for our problems.
As for the now-distant 1960s era, it has been relegated to an alleged "generational debate" between those who continue to blame the 60s for our contemporary problems and those who are, perhaps, wistfully nostalgic for a more vital and hopeful time. What we have lost as a people is, first, a history whose central meaning was that even relatively powerless people can organize and achieve historic change, and second, the ability to carry on a democratic conversation with each other across the boundaries that have long been rigidified in what passes for political discourse in our mass media.
Left to its own devices, a capitalist economy extracts enormous wealth from the labor of employees and reliable access to cheap resources. The inequality capitalism produces is supposedly balanced by the one-person-one-vote equality of a political democracy. The "people" are thus empowered to rein in the excesses of capitalism through the political process. Under the neo-liberal regime, we the people have lost that power.
80 Comments so far
Show AllThe "Big Con" is the 'Global War on Terror' that the US initiated with its own attack on its own civilians with 9/11. Everything has followed from that without any accountability for any massive crime or coverup. Indeed, the "Big Con" has worked so effectively, they got away with anthrax attacks and two wars, the Patriot Act (written before 9/11), and the creation of a Surveillance State that would be the envy of any dictatorship. We have, in fact, a dictatorship of corporations, a form of fascism where the media clearly serves the interests of government and corporations which work together in a corrupt and symbiotic, corrosive attack on all ordinary people, in defense of the extremely wealthy ruling elite.
Did you actually read the article before typing a response that has absolutely nothing to do with anything in the article?
Actually the article supports what Stiv is saying.
This article does a good job of taking back the language of our national discourse.
You're absolutely right, Stiv. We are now living in a dictatorship of corporations and our millionaire President is part of that!
It's crystal clear where his loyalties lie and we "lesser "americans" are completely left to "fend for ourselves."
Obama will never get another vote from me!
FrankS
But there are many Americans who thinks differently from you. According to CNN/Opinion Research today, 61% of Americans surveyed said they hope Obama’s policies succeed. Your vote is in material. He will get reelected and many here will return in about two years time and continue the whine and bitch. No offence intended, but to show you this broken system need to change, for real change. I am beginning to sound just like Obama?
I can't beleive you are citing that stupid poll. What is amazing isn't that 60% want his policies to suceed. What is amazing is that 40% want them to fail.
Who wants the policies in place to fail? Only nihlists who'd rather see the country go down in flames than their rival suceed.
I WANT them to suceed. Do I expect them to? NO. Did I want them implemented. NO. Do I support Obama? NO.
But do I want his health insurance "reform" to actually suceed and bring more affordable health care to all? Of course I do. I just know it won't.
The same thing with his financial reform or the latest tax deal. Do I want financial reform to reign in the predators on Wall Street. Of course. Do I want the tax deal to stimulate the economy and put us back to work. Of course. Do I expect either to do that. No. But I *want* them to.
What do you expect if you ask people if they *want* the President's policies to suceeed? This stupid poll doesn't say ANYTHING about whether the public agrees with what he's doing or will support him in 2012.
I expected such nonsense in HufPo comments. But not at Common Dreams. Oh well.
I want his policies to fail. Where we differ is perhaps in our perceptions regarding the meaning of 'success'. From your comment I take it that you accept that Obama's health care reform is an attempt to make health care more affordable rather than an attempt to preserve a profit generating health insurance system that increases its profit by taking premiums and then stiff-arming people trying to see a doctor.
I want his Afpak policy to fail also because success there strengthens US imperialism... a tragic result for my fellow human beings.
etc.
I agree everything but your last paragraph. I am for America first, but be considerate and think of others... I go by the Golden rule. "Do unto others as you would want other do to you." We are not the World Policeman.
I want Bummers policies to fail, and I want to see him in front of a war crimes tribunal, for waging unprovoked war against the Afgan, Pakistani, and Iraqi peoples. also for holding the individules at Gitmo hostage, and for allowing torture.
I also want to see a massive anti-trust raised against the banks, and the too big to fail auto comglomerates!
>^^<
Happy Thoughts for a gloomy season
For the sake of the rest of the world and the planet, I hope Barry, his corporations and the war machine fail miserably.
He will never face trial for war crimes.
The best we can hope for is that he continues to smoke cigarettes. Let's urge him to smoke, convince him that tobacco will calm his nerves, keep his weight down and has many health benefits, maybe even send him a carton of Marlboros.
The Golden Rule, does it apply to a masochist as well? A sadist? A sado-masochist?
Yea, I suppose so if you are one? Never expect such questions. My intention was doing no harm to anyone. Be nice, be kind, be fair and be generous....blah, blah.. whenever possible.
Hey, I actually agree with you on what the real intent of these policies are. From that perspective I want them to fail to.
But I think the poll and the folk responding to it are relating to the *stated* intent. It's in that sense that I would have to say I want them to succeed.
My main point, though, was that just because someone says they want the policies to succeed does NOT mean they will support Obama in the next election.
"I WANT them to suceed. Do I expect them to? NO. Did I want them implemented. NO. Do I support Obama? NO."
I said the same thing about Reagan and the Bushes. We fall for the conservative discourse every time we let our opinion be swayed by a poll taken by a corporation regarding the corporate political agenda. If we can conceive of elections being swayed by paperless voting machines spewing out fixed numbers, then why would we believe ANY figure that came out of any corporate poll. Independent polls often differ from the CNN/Zogby type cited polls, but of course are belittled and pooh-pooh by the corporate media, and the American people obediently give them less credence.
And the sheeple will probably stream in to re-elect the scumbag in chief!
>^^<
America, too stupid to live, to big to die!
LibWingofLibWing
The stupid poll from a stupid MSM, I appreciate your honestly. Regarding the Healthcare plan will never work so long it's for profit, even if it's a single payer and that includes student loans. I believe Healthcare and Education should be the responsibility of States and Federal Gov. Education is what rest of the world admires us, for our advancement in many fields. Asians mainly China seeks to surpass us, spend heavily to educate their brightest scholars including sending them to our best universities. Healthcare is just too expensive for any individually to bear. I need to clear here, I don't mean basic cares, like minor fall, cut and etc., but exclude major illness. FYI, I am a senior. I just couldn't afford Medicare Part D and F, due to compound problems not of my own doing like the Subprime and cancer. If a serious event occurs, I am finished, just like many millions Americans.
The tax reform will not bring jobs that were outsourced to China or elsewhere. We need to undo many of Bill Clinton's signature Legislation. I am stepping into a very dangerous ground, if I said, we cannot have "Free Trades.” It has to be American first than the rest of the World. There are many of Obama's signature legislation or laws will not work either but set the foundations for Healthcare industries and Wall Streets to further enrich themselves.
Lastly I may be the minority here. I will vote Republicans in 20012, may be Green Party to make sure Obama will never have a 2nd term, even if it hurt me most.
Please criticize me for my views but not my English. Thanks.
I agree with "LibWingofLibWing." I don't understand the meaning of the Poll either. The article attempts to explain the very difficult subject of how Americans (the disenfranchised working poor and middle class) are constantly being duped. On the whole Americans, though we have many legal and even material resources at our disposal, we have little knowledge of what to do with them to ensure a fair, just and sustainable future. We rely far too much on others to do it for us.
I had a Republican friend, god bless her heart, who told me on the eve of the Iraq war, "Don't you think they [George Bush] know more than us?" Implying that those in power knew best, while both her and her husband, both university grads, were in debt, and on food stamps.
Our friendship didn't last long, and I don't know what became of her and her husband, but this is a common problem in America. Nothing makes any sense under the current framing of the discourse.
An article on CD by Simon Johnson unknowingly let the cat out of the bag about Obama. He's been approached,threatened really, by the ECONOMIC HIT MEN that John Perkins writes about in his books, Apology of an Economic Hitman and The Anatomy of an Economic Hitman. Johnson was a IMF economic hit man and endorses IMF policies for the USG for the purpose of keeping defense spending in tact at the expense of the rest of society, like food, health care, housing, transport. Johnson endorses this for the USA. Those whom don't know about Perkins his job was to go to foreign countries and attempt to bribe those in power to take his bribe for the purpose of letting the corporations exploit the resources of the country with no benefit to those whom live there. His message, take the bribe or take a bullet. Those who didn't take the bribes.Allende, Trujillo just to name a few didn't take the bribes and were killed by the Jackals, the IMF ASSASSINS. It appears that Obama has been targeted by the Economic Hitmen to implement their policies for the USG or face the consequences of being assassinated.The conduct of ObomberBush seems to indicate he has been targeted by the international banksters for corruption. It only makes sense.
The "Big Con" was the official story of the events of 9/11. Yes, Reaagon got us on the path of neo liberalism, but the coup de gra was the controlled demolition of those buildings in New York City. At this point, due to constant media pressure that we had been attacked by some foreign "terrorists", we have seen our Constitution flushed down the toilet. Hey, it's only a piece of paper.
We no longer have the right to a trial if we are 'suspected' (by some unknown person) to be a terrorist. We see the contination and expansion of immoral wars. The top 1% of our citizens, as measured by income, have increased their wealth while the middle class has fallen into poverty. We have lost our homes, our jobs and most of our domestic programs to help people live a decent life.
The Federal government is under the control of the banking 'industry' (all they produce is debt for the working people and greater wealth for the rich). Look at the actions of the Congress this last week. Tax breaks for the wealthy and higher taxes for the poor. Now they want to give more tax breaks to corporations that move offshore to avoid paying decent wages and following environmental regulations.
In Europe people are protesting the austerity programs. Here we hunker down in despair and accept the punishment we receive because we are not in the top 1%. Hell, we are the TOP 99%! Why are we so inert? Isn't it time for us to STAND UP?
The author was not addressing what the Big Con is--it's all of these things--he's saying it got started with the Clown President Reagan who fooled a nation into believing he believed what he was saying and didn't dye his hair. He explained very well how the over-sized "foot in the door" morphed into a takeover of the entire system which allowed for the implementation of the Legend of the Twin Towers which resulted in Shock and Awe, Homeland Security and all the other scams the government is running to fleece us of our money, our dignity, and our pride.
The "Global War on Terror" is one Big Con, but not the only one. The U.S. populace has been so conditioned to buy into b.s. that almost anything can be sold to them -- oil slick cleanup, snake-oil medications, our brave men and women fighting for our freedom, the communism of Islam, the sanctity of our personal privacy, the safety of our banking system, the impossibility of full coverage national health care, the certainty that 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination happened just as the thorough and honest investigative commissions said they did, your opinions matter "we're in touch so you be in touch" or "weigh in on our website," polling accurate reflects the opinions of the American public, publicly losing weight and being done over by a Hollywood stylist can "change your life," minorities have no good reason to want to hurt decent good hearted progressives and that their doing so proves they're as bad as "everyone" says, Public Television is noncommercial, the fact that rich people are rich proves they deserve to be and that they are the "best" people, sexually charged sitcoms accurately depict the workaday world of work that young people will (if very lucky) be moving into, carrying a gun will keep you safe from criminals and will enable you to "defend yourself" just the way our country does, "cap and trade" and a few other adjustments that don't demand lifestyle downsizing will quickly end the climate change crisis, anyone can win a lottery or some other prize and become part of the rich upper class.
It's almost impossible to find something widely believed today that DOESN'T reflect part of the Big Con.
Nicely done PP.
It's all an illusion (con/lie) and always has been.
Hunger is very real.
That's a good summary of the success of the rightwing propaganda machine, now operating 24/7 in every last corner of the continent, set in motion since 1980, as Morgan so well portrays. His book would be worth reading. We've been so thoroughly conned all these years (30 +) by the idiot wind of commercialism and rightwing memes dominating our failed political discourse, that it's a wonder we can even recognize a truthful narrative about how this has happened, as Morgan supplies. At least a few of us still can, and Paranoid Pessimist sees it more clearly than most.
good summary PP. we are living in a matrix and forcefed sh*t to keep us docile, confused and easily manipulated.
Thanks, Paranoid Pessimist.
Great list of things that draw blank stares, disbelief, or downright anger when I mention them to many folks.
I only got as far as the mention of the stupidest president the USA ever had- Ronald Reagen. I have read that he was the one, who signed off the enabling laws of "Continuity of Government".
USAers ought to inform themselves of that act.
Once they do so, hordes of people will be pissing on his grave daily.
Sophie Scholl-The Final Days
Hey Pessimist, you forgot "Change you can believe in".
Change we can Bereave in?
The only change I believe in now is what I find between my couch coushins.
LOL! Love it mt
>^^<
While Mr. Morgan makes an interesting analysis of the brainwashing which has flourished since the 1960's, there are three aspects of this article wherein he is lagging.
1. The insidious growth of the imperial "security state" of un-ending war, as has been pretty well defined in "Washington Rules" by Andrew Bacevich.
2. The attack on Social Security is well underway. The just-passed cutting of payroll taxes is the most recent stab in the back.
3. Both of the above are ARDENTLY supported by the majority of democrats and republicans because both of these "parties" are proudly participating in the debauchery. The democrats no longer "cave" in. As a matter of fact, the democrats are often in the forefront of insuring the disembowelment of beneficial social programs.
Thank goodness we have a terrible economy so that people will line up to join the armed forces -
If not we'd have to implement a draft - which would lead to protests - can't have that now can we!
forget the WAR - it's the protests that are bad.......
And prior to reagan being governor of California tghere was free tuition at the state colleges - reagan said Why am I paying for these people to protest me and my war loving proft seeking buddies? Screw them - i'll charge them for tuition and then they'll be broke and will have to work and won't be able to have time to protest -
Problem solved!
Notice that the WAR wasn't the problem - but only the protesters AGAINST the war......
these evil son's of bitches drive me absolutely nuts!
AND I still say June 5th (the day reagan died) should be a National Holiday!
the dirty fuckin hippies were right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4
Very concise good points mtdon!
Excellent comments.The fact that Reagan had Alzheimer's for at least his last term in office is never mentioned and is lionized in the Texas text books, replacing Jefferson. The only difference between Reagan and the ill people he kicked out of health care onto the streets is that Reagan could have someone change his diapers, otherwise there was no difference between Reagan and those he choose to neglect and abuse. The fact that the USG had a President with Alzheimer's should serve as a message to the world, is lionized as a great President, a warning really of just how incompetent and emotionally unbalanced the USG is.
This is an aside topic off the main topic, of the big lie that confuses issues of class war:
Words and how they are used:
"CONSERVative" works opposed to CONSERVation --
"PROGRESSive" works to conserve nature and is opposed to industrialization of nature on behalf of profit interests of the few (what some shrug and call "progress")
Go figure.
Conservatives work to conserve wealth in the regressive status quo. Progressives need to speak in clearer language so that simplicity is not made complex.
I remember the 60's. I remember the hope, the conviction that people could organize and make changes. That an expensive, destructive war could be ended. It was a wonderful, active, transforming era that has been represented by the neocons as just wildcating by 'dirty fuckin hippies.'
Then the neocons worked very very hard to make sure it could never happen again.
Dmadrone,
Luckily for us, the LOVE POWER of the 60's could never be destroyed. :)
Dmadrone,
You are quite correct. I, too, remember the 60's. It was a fundamentally different time, when people's minds were not completely dominated by the propaganda machine. There was real hope, and there were real possibilities for change. I try to tell the young kids today what it was like back then, and they just look at me with blank stares. There is nothing they can relate to about my remarks, nothing at all, because everything has been co-opted.
The neo-conservatives learned a tremendous amount during the 60's and 70's about how to pacify a nation, and they have put that evil knowledge to work ever since. Now, we essentially live in a cultural prison, hoping at best for good entertainment to distract us for a short while. But in one way or another, we all feel the loss deep inside--whether we are conscious of it or not. Our future was literally stolen from us, and replaced by this cacophonic but spiritually dead world.
If only I could take people back to that era and let them experience how it felt to believe in ourselves, and have some leaders we could actually trust!
Ah, me! I have to stop thinking about this now. It is so very, very sad.
When I first read this headline, I thought that the big con continues, was about Obama.
"...I thought that the big con continues, was about Obama."
That is exactly what it was about, but giving us the background on how it could possibly happen that a rich mulatto could run on a left-of-center Hope and Change platform and then dash our hopes by changing direction; and the center not only supports him, it doesn't even notice the subterfuge.
"Pseudo populism drew crucial populations who felt aggrieved by 60s era movements -notably the white South and the white working class-away from the Democratic Party. The Democrats' response was telling: a new Democratic Leadership Council was organized to move the party into the corporate-friendly center."
Mr. Morgan leaves out an important element that led to the creation of the DLC: the declining power of unions. There had been a systematic attack on unions from the National Association of Manufacturers since the 1970s, and the result was significant decline in unionization. That meant the Democratic Party was also losing much of its funding base. Had the Democratic Party truly been a Labor party it would have pushed back against the wholesale attack on labor, but instead it created the DLC and its phony populism. I'm not sure, but I believe the DLC was formed around'89 - '91, after the Dems had lost three elections in a row.
The first question Cliton asked when becoming President was how would he be able to get the Democrapic Party funding from Wall St.The reply, get rid of the New Deal and replace it with the Bad Deal. Cliton did as instructed by Wall St.
Mr Morgan is correct in his analysis of the effect of relentless anti-government propaganda. As has been pointed out many times government is the only check we the people have against the depredations of the rich. In feudal times...to which we are now returning...the rich were the government...remember droit de seigneur?
I'd like to make one maybe minor point. Since Reagan's time the media meme has been that all those hippies got bored or something and than became stockbrokers...pursuing the golden rabbit. This is nonsense.
I was one of those people. The upheavals of the 60's were based on the idea that the conventional, consumer-based lifestyle and value system was hollow and unsatisfying...that we needed to come up with something better, more meaningful.
I have lived a radically different life from the people who were ten years ahead of me in the 50's. So did all my friends. The communes were naive and unsuccessful but no one I knew said...lets try to make as much money as we can now. We tried many different paths...some to the arts, many to crafts, others to alternative medicines.
We knew we didn't have the answers but we were damn sure the "adults" didn't either. We were willing to experiment...try different things looking for a more meaningful life.
Once someone leads you off the treadmill and into the sunshine there's no going back...no matter how many times the New York Times says so.
Kudos to you and yours for staying on a road less traveled. Unfortunately, many didn't and are resting on their laurels as comfortably numb bricks in a wall.
There were many weekend hippies back then--in it for the fashion, drugs and free love. Those of us who actually turned on, tuned in and dropped out rarely drop back in and are then very uncomfortable bricks.
Modern antidepressants are helpful, in that regard.
>^^<
I should know
Criminal defense attorneys in Michigan usually are permitted some leeway in questioning prospective jurors about their attitudes and general beliefs. One of the most telling litmus test questions is to seek out reactions to the statement "Many of the problems we as a society face today are a result of the turmoil of the 1960's." Potential jurors who agree, or who strongly agree, with that simple statement tend to be pro-prosecution and tend to be bad news for most people who are about to stand trial accused of antisocial illegal wrongdoing.
Professor Morgan is not exaggerating the significance of the orchestrated, decades long effort to write a revisionist history of the peace and civil rights movements of the Vietnam era. As governor of California, Ronald Reagan was a major demagogue when it came to depicting antiwar activism, race, and social class divisions as an issue about restoring law and order in the streets and traditional family values to Main Street's homes. Nixon, Agnew, George Wallace, and other prominent partisan politicians delighted stirring the pot and playing the wedge issues that were so vividly displayed on live television during the 1968 Democratic national convention in Chicago. Look what happened (we are collectively told by the conventional wisdom pundits) when antiwar protest activity was turned against the McGovern candidacy in 1972 with devastaging impact, and later against Michael Dukakis and his alleged flag burning wife.
Jimmy Carter's presidency gave a short respite, before Reagan and the Bushes resumed the revisionist crusade with avengence. America needed wars - Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Persian Gulf I - and violent black ops paramilitarism (Libya, Afghan freedom fighters) in order for America to get its macho mojo back and end the Vietnam malaise once and for good. Yearning for peace and simple social justice had been successfully redefined as a form of wimpish mental disease by the time Bill Clinton and Albert Gore were in the White House.
John Kerry had tailor made personal biographical credentials to address the right wing and mainstream media's campaign to demonize the 1960's. As the loyal opposition candidate against George W. Bush's reelection effort in 2004, Kerry ran away in abject horror from any and all mention of his role in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the massive (eventually majoritarian) US peace movement he had taken part in. The Senator got Swift Boated in response.
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama, running against ex-fighter pilot and Hanoi Hilton POW John McCain, insisted that his campaign rise above the tumult and poisonous partisanship and divisions of the Vietnam yesteryear. Look forward only, never back. Thus the revisionist narrative maintained its hold in US mainstream popular culture, thank you very much.
Morgan is entirely correct to label the systematic, sustained and thorough rewriting of this tumultuous but grassroots progressive period of recent American history "the Big Con." Maybe when Barack goes the way of LBJ in 2012 the pendulum will start its swing back towards reality.
Better late than never.
Bill from Saginaw
"and end the Vietnam malaise once and for good."
pappie bush declared the Vietnam Syndrome dead and buried in the sands of Iraq.
his idiot kid had to go and dig it up again to see if it was really that bad.
the sore festers on.
I just couldn't bear to read beyond the following sentence.
"While the Republican party holds our government hostage, Democrats typically collaborate in public policies that don't have a prayer of resolving the deeply serious problem we face."
Either Ted is "framing" for the current corporate-corrupted Democratic leadership, or he is just poor sap.
"The crucial turning point occurred with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980."
Uuhh no. The crucial turning point occurred on November 22, 1963, and was reinforced by several more "executive actions" during the 1960's that swept the mob into power, the mob that controls *both* parties. Following that, the Clinton Administration and George W. may have actually done a lot more damage than Reagan. But Johnson and Nixon started the long slide ...