tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post5239093714313830802..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: The Legacy of Ronald Reagan?FDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-71699059682820090942011-02-07T06:44:15.486-08:002011-02-07T06:44:15.486-08:00My contribution to the Chicagoboyz Ronald Reagan R...My contribution to the Chicagoboyz Ronald Reagan Roundtable . . .<br /><br />http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/19960.html#more-19960seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-34861832357806795412011-01-31T14:29:42.154-08:002011-01-31T14:29:42.154-08:00Andy-
Your Data's nice. It does give a good ...Andy-<br /><br />Your Data's nice. It does give a good view of the problem, but not really the cause . . . <br /><br />What exactly have we been spending all this $$$ to achieve since 1992?seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-79435599552097144302011-01-28T14:57:32.256-08:002011-01-28T14:57:32.256-08:00How about some data? I like data!
Defense spendi...How about some data? I like data!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1940_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy10&chart=30-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=t&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s" rel="nofollow">Defense spending based on GDP</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1940_2010&view=1&expand=&units=k&fy=fy10&chart=30-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=t&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s" rel="nofollow">Defense spending in constant dollars</a> (what Bacevich says above).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1940_2010&view=1&expand=&units=d&fy=fy10&chart=30-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=t&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s" rel="nofollow">Defense spending per capita in constant dollars</a>.Andyhttp://organizingentropy.typepad.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-81545859698518648442011-01-28T11:40:25.242-08:002011-01-28T11:40:25.242-08:00Bacevich on US Defense Spending . . .
"The ...Bacevich on US Defense Spending . . . <br /><br />"The Pentagon presently spends more in constant dollars than it did at any time during the Cold War — this despite the absence of anything remotely approximating what national security experts like to call a "peer competitor." Evil Empire? It exists only in the fevered imaginations of those who quiver at the prospect of China adding a rust-bucket Russian aircraft carrier to its fleet or who take seriously the ravings of radical Islamists promising from deep inside their caves to unite the Umma in a new caliphate.<br /><br />What are Americans getting for their money? Sadly, not much. Despite extraordinary expenditures (not to mention exertions and sacrifices by U.S. forces), the return on investment is, to be generous, unimpressive. The chief lesson to emerge from the battlefields of the post-9/11 era is this: the Pentagon possesses next to no ability to translate "military supremacy" into meaningful victory.<br /><br />Washington knows how to start wars and how to prolong them, but is clueless when it comes to ending them. Iraq, the latest addition to the roster of America’s forgotten wars, stands as exhibit A. Each bomb that blows up in Baghdad or some other Iraqi city, splattering blood all over the streets, testifies to the manifest absurdity of judging "the surge" as the epic feat of arms celebrated by the Petraeus lobby.<br /><br />The problems are strategic as well as operational. Old Cold War-era expectations that projecting U.S. power will enhance American clout and standing no longer apply, especially in the Islamic world. There, American military activities are instead fostering instability and inciting anti-Americanism. For Exhibit B, see the deepening morass that Washington refers to as AfPak or the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of operations. . . ."<br /><br />http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2011/01/27/cow-most-sacred/<br /><br />The collapse of strategic thought has led to the current situation of soaring (and self-defeating) defense spending on a force structure with no relation to our strategic situation.<br /><br />Direct connection to RR, part of his legacy? Don't think so, although his influence as a sort of "Totem" remains . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-13128117078466968672011-01-28T06:03:20.548-08:002011-01-28T06:03:20.548-08:00Chief,
So, you're saying that RR was a savvy ...Chief,<br /><br />So, you're saying that RR was a savvy (ie. "evil") politician who understood the political environment in which he operated and was able to exploit that environment for his own political benefit? If so, then I agree! That is, almost by definition, a good (meaning skilled) politician. I would just point out, however, that RR wasn't the only skilled politician in US history. RR wasn't different or unique - what was different was the political environment. RR didn't create that environment which allowed him to avoid most negative consequences for his actions. I think most savvy, skilled politicians would have acted similarly (oh, and look, they have done pretty much done so since).<br /><br />Not to belabor the point, but it's backwards to hold RR responsible for the political environment that allowed him to get away with his shenanigans. He didn't create that environment. That responsibility rests with the people who were not outraged enough by RR's actions to do much about it.<br /><br />Secondly, you misunderstand what I said about patronage. The patronage and clientelism of the past was based on personal loyalty to specific people. The best examples are the Jacksonian spoils system, Tammany Hall, and the Chicago machine. That kind of partisanship doesn't exist anymore - at the national level anyway - having been replace by ideological partisanship. It's my contention that the "rules" of ideological partisanship are different and there are many fewer constraints on bad behavior by political actors.<br /><br />Finally, on education, I largely agree with what you wrote. It's nice to have some data, though, to back up my long-standing contention that lack of funding has little to do with problems in our education system and that we aren't getting good value for what we pay compared to other countries. Speaking of which, I have a meeting today with our school principal who is saying that the school PTO needs to provide funds to the principal's discretionary account because of budget cuts. That should be interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-18330405019638707242011-01-27T16:36:15.100-08:002011-01-27T16:36:15.100-08:00Andy: re: the CAP report on education.
No argumen...Andy: re: the CAP report on education.<br /><br />No argument that school districts, like most bureaucratic organizations, are prone to throw away money on administration. So taking apart district management to find more efficient ways to run schools is always a good idea.<br /><br />But beyond that I don't get much from their work other than the usual dispiriting litany of "less is more", "stretch the dollars", "reward success, penalize failure".<br /><br />I keep hearing similar ideas along these lines, while I keep wanting to hear one of these reports find metrics that contrdict the EEOS (Coleman) study from 1966 that found that 1) economic background was the single largest predictor of academic success, and 2) kids from poor families tend to go on to have kids who are not good in school. Goldhaber, at UW, estimates that non-school factors like income and parent presence make up as much as 60% of the factors impacting school performance. Compare that to studies like Hanushek's that put teacher impact at between 7.5% and 20%.<br /><br />My personal experience bears this out; kids from stable, middle- and upper-class homes tend to have the sort of stable, middle-class school behaviors that lend themselves to success. They are organized, prmpt, good listeners, capable of absorbing, analyzing, and reproducing information. <br /><br />Kids who aren't, usually can't and don't<br /><br />So the study isn't entirely useless, but it does seem to content itself with fiddling around with the furniture in the principal's office rather than trying to really get at ways to improve the classroom.<br /><br />But boy howdy are we off topic!FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-38040814045504415882011-01-27T15:38:50.345-08:002011-01-27T15:38:50.345-08:00Andy: You've got it exactly backwards. The m...Andy: You've got it exactly backwards. The media environment had changed, and Reagan's genius - evil genius, IMO, but your mileage may vary - was that he DID suss it out. He figured out that by just continuing the lie he could introduce enough uncertainty ("He keeps saying that! Why would he say that if it's not true like THEY say it is? He sounds so convincing! There MUST be something there...") that the punishment for misbehavior - and lying - wasn't going to happen.<br /><br />That wasn't the case before because, by and large, the lies just didn't get exposed. FDR could lie his ass off about not wanting to get into WW2 because the possibility of exposur was so small. Johnson DID know - and its because of Elleberg that we now knew he knew - that Vietnam probably wasn't winnable by 1964! The difference was that Johnson thought that he, the press, and the public were still playing by the old rules. The idea that someone like Ellsberg would go public, or that any newspaper or TV station would broadcast his leaks...Johnson couldn't believe that, and he had no way to respond to it.<br /><br />Reagan could have, and did. Look at all the scandals and skulduggery he survived; Lebanon, Iran-Contra, HUD grant rigging, Ollie and the multiple violations of the Boland Amendment, the Inslaw business, the S&L Crisis (Reagan's retroactice changes in the tax code bankrupted many real estate developments. Many S&Ls, which were taking advantage of Reagan-era deregulation, went down in turn requiring the FDIC to cover their debts and losses with tax funds.) One of the reasons he's not the 21st Century Harding is that Harding's people just relied on secrecy and when the secrecy was lost were pilloried for their public lying about secret crimes. Reagan's people's crimes were dragged into the daylight...and nothing happened. Reagan is STILL the idol of the Right.<br /><br />Because Reagan had figured out the response to the change in how the news system worked. He wasn't responsible for the change - but he was the one who figured out how to navigate the change, and we're living with the results.<br /><br /><i>"...a patronage and clientele-based system of politics to an ideologically-based system."</i><br /><br />WTF? Are you saying that the parties are less beholden to their contributors now than then? Other way around, if you ask me...<br /><br />I agree that the partisan lines have hardened. But I'd argue that this is more a return to the U.S. norm. From about 1945 to about 1965 the parties wer a lot more fungible than before or since. The Dixiecrats pulled the Dems to the right, the Ike/Rocky Republicans pulled the GOP to the Left. Since then the Dixiecrats migrated over to the GOP and the GOP purged most of their moderates.<br /><br />But the "system", ISTM, is based MORE on patronage and influence than ever.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-78806322440878255722011-01-27T14:05:24.672-08:002011-01-27T14:05:24.672-08:00"What has become of our social peace in this ..."What has become of our social peace in this context of power [between labor and capital]? The acrimonies of party strife are considerable among us. The absence of collectivist or revolutionary ideology among the workers does not save them from charges of being revolutionaries. Yet the business community accepts the general development of democracy in America with a certain degree of practical grace even while it wars against it ideologically. This is why we are so completely misunderstood in Europe. For Europe knows our semi-official ideology better than it knows our practical justice.<br />It knows that our business men talk endlessly of liberty in accents which Europeans, particularly Continentals, associate with a decayed liberalism, transmuted into a vexatious conservativism. But Europe seems not to know that our business men sign five-year contracts with labor unions, containing 'escalator clauses' guaranteeing rising wages with rising prices. American business in practice has in short accepted the power of labor; it has even incorporated the idea of the necessity of high wages as a basis for mass production into its social philosophy. It acknowledges the 'right of collective bargaining' in the various creeds of liberty by which it seeks to popularize the 'American way of life.'<br />Some of our social peace must be accredited to the fluid class structure of American society. . .<br />Reinhold Niebuhr, "The Irony of American History", 1952, pp 101-3<br /><br />What exactly happened? Something big did, and I suspect RR and the rise of the Radical Right had something to do with it . . . The "decayed liberalism" is of course the utilitarian/free market view which equated "liberty" almost exclusively with "property" and thought that political power was unnecessary, government, best kept "limited". But that isn't really what happened is it? Government became the captive of economic political investors who then used government programs to enrich themselves either directly or by removing government restrictions which were meant to saveguard the public good. A radical ideology has indeed taken over, our practical justice reduced to a frail ghost haunting the land . . . while the once fluid class structure hardens . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-905924707164166432011-01-27T11:51:39.006-08:002011-01-27T11:51:39.006-08:00Andy Said:
Are you saying that everyone knew John...Andy Said:<br /><br />Are you saying that everyone knew Johnson knew the war was unwinnable and he was continuing it for domestic partisan political reasons?"<br /><br />He suspected victory was unattainable as early as 1964 (before grunts were committed). Recorded white House talks between He and Richard Russell and other luminaries confirmed this. His belief, as well as those of his interlocutors was that, should he not escalate, he would be accused of losing Vietnam, and be impeached for his troubles.fasteddieznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-52736167177398479582011-01-27T06:44:38.243-08:002011-01-27T06:44:38.243-08:00Al,
Speaking of education, have you seen this?Al,<br /><br /><a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/educational_productivity/report.html" rel="nofollow">Speaking of education, have you seen this</a>?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-3568128120244743102011-01-27T06:34:20.076-08:002011-01-27T06:34:20.076-08:00Even if you were correct to split politics into a ...Even if you were correct to split politics into a pre- and post-Reagan dichotomy, then Reagan or any other politician isn't the problem, which is my other point in this thread. You seem to be complaining that politicians aren't being held accountable for their lies to your satisfaction. Well, whose fault is that? You said yourself the public is "credulous and stupid" - well if that is true how is it possible to blame Reagan for today's political climate? You think Reagan is the first politician to exploit the public's ignorance?<br /><br />Your arguments in this regard are self-contradictory - like Hitchens, I wonder if you are simply grabbing at anything in order to cast Reagan in the worst possible light.<br /><br />I also think you are missing or misinterpreting a more fundamental change in US politics - namely the change from a patronage and clientele-based system of politics to an ideologically-based system. The nature of political identity changed and that transition was pretty much complete by Reagan's time. Reagan, nor any other politician, is responsible for that either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-41395060597686992142011-01-27T06:33:53.749-08:002011-01-27T06:33:53.749-08:00Chief,
You said, "Reagan was, IMO, the firs...Chief,<br /><br />You said, <em>"Reagan was, IMO, the first American President to recognize the value of the Big Lie. Never apologize, never explain, never retract. Pretend you were right all along. If they push you, double down on the lie!"</em><br /><br />I'm saying that wasn't unique to Reagan. Now you're saying something different - that the media environment changed and Reagan didn't change with it:<br /><br /><em>"Reagan realized that despite the ever-increasing likelihood of being caught in a lie, at the same time the news organizations were being pounded by the Right for being "traitors", were losing circulation as advertisers pressured them to be more "balanced". Maybe because as an actor he had no investment in the truth of the lines he read - he just read them, whatever, and left it up to the audience to supply the meanings, Reagan "got" that getting caught in a lie didn't mean the same things anymore."</em><br /><br />Politicians haven't changed Chief, that's my point. The whole "lies were treated as lies" thing doesn't make any sense - are you saying that everyone knew the entire basis for Wilson's campaign was bullshit? Are you saying that everyone knew Johnson knew the war was unwinnable and he was continuing it for domestic partisan political reasons? Are you saying that if it came out tomorrow that Obama knew Afghanistan was similarly unwinnable he wouldn't suffer political damage?<br /><br />Yes, often politicians do double-down on their lies when they are caught. The fact that they are more likely to get caught in today's media environment doesn't change the fact that politicians have been telling "big lies" for a long time and making no apologies. I also don't think your assertion is true that lies, once exposed, used to be more politically damaging. Just to give one example, a few months ago I went through the NYT archives reading press coverage of the Filipino insurrection. It sounded a lot like what we saw with Iraq - there was plenty of "spin." Advocates for the conflict changed their justifications for continuing the war once their original justification proved false, and made no apologies in doing so. <br /><br />IMO, Reagan wasn't special at all and I think you make a mistake to suggest that Reagan is somehow responsible for today's political mendacity - by doing so, you imply that politics today would somehow be better or different had someone else been President. <br /><br />cont.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-68944019432902036812011-01-27T04:31:10.455-08:002011-01-27T04:31:10.455-08:00Raging Tory-
Georgia is not "a middle or gre...Raging Tory-<br /><br />Georgia is not "a middle or great power". Russia was attacked and responded in a limited manner considering. Proxy wars are exactly that because the powers behind the factions don't wish to be tied too closely to them because . . . obvious, isn't it?<br /><br />So British railways are not in the state they are today due to lack of private investment in maintenance and simply squeezing a profit out of something which is better seen as a public asset performing an essential public service? Surprising how many Brits think exactly that, ain't it?<br /><br />"I have not said Defence spending is too low, merely that Reagan DID NOT ALTER IT."<br /><br />I did not say you did, I said "so low", which isn't the same as "too low", right? "So low" depicts your view accurately imo.<br /><br />Two hundred or even 100 years ago the views would have been much more based on dogma, superstition, religion, blind following of questionable ideology . . . so yes, there are similarities between pre-Enlightenment thinking and the Mises view of the world.<br /><br />But the fifty year line is important to this topic, which is the legacy of RR. RR played an important role in ending the Cold War imo, by the international cover he provided Gorbi so that he could focus on this internal opposition, who were far more dangerous than he thought RR to be. But that is just a small part of the story. If we had the economy we have today (and a lot of what has happened has to be laid at the door of Mises and his followers) the East Germans and the rest probably would have thought, "well things aren't so bad here after all". In other words the collapse of Communism had a lot to do with the apparent workability of the same system you trash. You don't have to be socialist to see that. <br /><br />"Yours, that government knows best, that the state must be allowed untrammeled power, are the product of the second world war."<br /><br />Where have I maintained that?! I in fact praised your party and your PM for their defense cuts which I find in line with a correct threat assessment.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-80716708700272372372011-01-27T01:36:16.433-08:002011-01-27T01:36:16.433-08:00Seydlitz again
The recent defence cuts amounted to...Seydlitz again<br />The recent defence cuts amounted to little more than gross vandalism. He may have said that we must be co-ordinated, but in now way were the cuts co-ordinated, we ordered Carriers, but pulled the only aircraft we have that can operate fromt them. We ordered a new wave of medium tanks (FRES) for expeditionary warfare but pulled the amphib ships that transport and land them. We've kept our old low level penetrating strike aircraft, but to pay for it, we've cancelled the upgrades to make our new aircraft capable of low level penetrating strike missions.<br /><br />FDChief<br />The Big lie is hardly Reagan invention.<br />What was the Spanish American war fought over exactly? Fantasy dreams of freeing an oppressed people? That was a lie and everybody new it, but it was a convenient lie, so it was repeated until it ctreated truth.<br />Goebbals makes Reagan look like an amatuer.Domohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-43480170684288614202011-01-27T01:36:04.573-08:002011-01-27T01:36:04.573-08:00Seydlitz
No one see's military force as a viab...Seydlitz<br />No one see's military force as a viable tool?<br />The Georgian Invasion of Ossetia?<br />The Russian Invasion of Georgia?<br />Iran/Israel proxy wars in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria<br />Sri Lanka / Tamil conflict<br /><br />Is there anyone who DOESNT bribe some of the Taliban? India certainly sees Afghanistan as a knife at Oakistans back.<br /><br />I said quite clearly it was an unlikely outcome, but the commentariat doesnt have a good track record of predicting the future.<br />Hitler was peaceful and had no territorial ambitions in Poland. (Peace in our Time)<br />France would Occupy Berlin in a month if war broke out. (The Times (UK) in the late 30's.<br /><br /><br />The UK doesnt have a free market rail service.<br />It Doesnt.<br />Again, to believe otherwise is to believe a lie.<br />The vast majority of the damage was done long before Thatcher took power in any event.<br />The current system works as such. There is a train line between two cities. The Government sets the time the trains need to reach each station along the way, the number of trains, and the number of carriages they carry.<br />All the private companies do is provide drivers and collect fares.<br /><br />As for Thatcher, I'm fairly ambivilant.<br />Like Reagan, shes seen as this big defender of the free market, but she was no such thing.<br />Government spending as a proportion of wealth was basicaly flat under her as well.<br />The facts are there, look at them.<br /><br />She changed some things, the big government owned tax subsidised monopolies were sold off and became tax payers, but most of its just bull from one side or another.<br /><br />"who would have been making this argument 50 years ago? That current defense spending was in fact so low, that government was the problem, that the market . ."<br /><br />Now here, I must protest.<br />I have not said Defence spending is too low, merely that Reagan DID NOT ALTER IT.<br />There is a marked difference.<br /><br />I'd also question your time scale.<br />Go back 100 years, go back 150 years, go back 200 years.<br />You'll find my comments are fairly normal.<br /><br />Yours, that government knows best, that the state must be allowed untrammeled power, are the product of the second world war.<br /><br />Aviator 47<br />True, not all charter schools are good.<br />However, its my understanding, that you can choose NOT to attend a charter school.<br />Which you should do, if its bad.<br />Thats not the case in the UK, the school you attend is decided by your address, if the school is bad, tough luck. Its your school, deal with it.<br />Your only other option is private school, which is out of reach of the poor and even middle class, although the middle class have the option of buying houses near good schools, in one extreme case, houses with 110yards of the school gate sell for £100,000 more than those 150 yards from the gate.<br /><br />Me, I'd divide the education budget and give it directly to the children (well, parents) they can buy a place at the local state school, or do whatever.<br />My Partners a Teacher, even after all the various employment taxes, she'd need to teach 10 children to earn more than she ever could at a state school, where class sizes are 30 minimum. She could literaly teach the children on our little street in our living room, they'd get a better education, she'd earn more money.Domohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00240964731398145995noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-9538839359413382142011-01-26T21:22:39.792-08:002011-01-26T21:22:39.792-08:00So Reagan wasn't a bigger or more facile liar,...So Reagan wasn't a bigger or more facile liar, he didn't somehow tarnish a spotless office with lies. What he DID do was recognize before most of his contemporaries that the U.S. public was largely credulous and stupid, something that a lot of people had pretended wasn't true between 1945 and 1975, and that the news media could be gulled, spindled, tricked, and seduced into taking your lies and putting them up on the screen or in print next to your opponent's truths and making the two sound very similar.<br /><br />So he and his coterie are hugely responsible for the political mendacity we live in today. Every time some fucking idiot mouths some fact-free talking point and doesn't immediately get slammed down, he's living the Reagan Dream.<br /><br />And as I've said elsewhere - that's a problem, because any polity needs a sane conservative faction. But Reagan - by picking up the Goldwater mantle, among other things - helped assemble the coalition of birthers, Birchers, religious zealots, Israel-firsters, warporn addicts, and plutocrats that has taken over the Party of Lincoln, God help us. And where we go from here, I have no idea. Because you're going to spend a lot longer than forty years wandering the intellectual desert if your can't find better Moseses than Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, and Michelle Bachmann...FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-35674950999508974292011-01-26T21:13:04.828-08:002011-01-26T21:13:04.828-08:00"I'm not so sure Reagan was the first &qu...<i>"I'm not so sure Reagan was the first "big liar." What about Nixon? What about Johnson, who knew Vietnam was a doomed enterprise? What about Wilson whose campaign slogal, "he kept us out of war" was thrown out the door a couple of months after he won the 1916 election? In terms of lies it seems to me Iran-Contra, bad as it was, pales next to Vietnam."</i><br /><br />Let me try again but this time I'll type r-e-a-l s-l-o-w...<br /><br />"<i>Presidents had lied before, had lied all that way back to Polk lying us into war with Mexico if not earlier. <b>But these lies were TREATED as lies. They were hidden, veiled behind a smokescreen of bullshit. When and if they were exposed (and they usually weren't - the press was pretty compliant outside of a few muckrakers back in the day) they could be tremendously damaging to the politician's position.</b></i><br /><br />So, yes, I already went through the requisite admission that Dutch didn't invent official lying.<br /><br />But<br /><br />Here's what I said after that: <i>'Reagan was, IMO, the first American President to <b>recognize the value of the Big Lie. Never apologize, never explain, never retract. Pretend you were right all along. If they push you, double down on the lie!</b></i><br /><br />So no, Reagan didn't introduce lying to the Presidency. But what he helped do, and he and his cronies, including especially people like Snowflake Donny Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney who have been transmitting the Reagan ethos to the rest of their party, DID do was move Presidential and official lying into the 21st Century.<br /><br />Up into the Sixties what press coverage that wasn't fawning was excluded. Upton Sinclar and Sam Clemens never had a chance at getting a peek inside the McKinley or Taft or TR Administrations. First, the governments were too small to provide real access. Second, journalists were "outsiders", and the notion of a government official spilling the beans was almost unthinkable. Officials who lied were not really in danger unless they doublecrossed someone inside the loop. Exposure was unthinkable. Look at things like Teapot Dome; it wasn't exposed by the press, it took a Congressional investigation to expose it (and, in a nice pre-modern twist, the chairman of committee that exposed the fiddling that blackened Harding's name was a fellow Republican. Good luck finding THAT now!). Everything from assassinations, coups, to JFK boning mob mistresses in the White House happened out of the public view.<br /><br />A lot changed in the Sixties and Seventies, but the beginnings of the 24-hour-crap-news culture we have now was beginning. Vietnam threw a wrench into the cozy government-press relationship when the newsies began to realize that the pols were spinning them and lying to them. Stuff like the Pentagon Papers began to emerge, and the old-school backroom pols like Johnson were finished.<br /><br />Reagan realized that despite the ever-increasing likelihood of being caught in a lie, at the same time the news organizations were being pounded by the Right for being "traitors", were losing circulation as advertisers pressured them to be more "balanced". Maybe because as an actor he had no investment in the truth of the lines he read - he just read them, whatever, and left it up to the audience to supply the meanings, Reagan "got" that getting caught in a lie didn't mean the same things anymore. There was SO much shit flying around that if you just stayed on message you stood a good chance of getting away with your trickery.FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-56390513168338809412011-01-26T17:06:13.079-08:002011-01-26T17:06:13.079-08:00The usual suspects did some heavy lifting on this ...The usual suspects did some heavy lifting on this thread . . . looks like I got plenty to chew on . . . thanks gentlemen . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-91350716593693094992011-01-26T16:31:09.781-08:002011-01-26T16:31:09.781-08:00srv-
"Chernenko and crew, sure they probably...srv-<br /><br />"Chernenko and crew, sure they probably only saw Hollywood. "<br /><br />Laughed out loud at that. So true. Nice.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-84876583613806678772011-01-26T16:22:00.517-08:002011-01-26T16:22:00.517-08:00Seydlitz,
Regarding Postman, I agree, but that is...Seydlitz,<br /><br />Regarding Postman, I agree, but that is mainly inside baseball to elites who follow politics. Most people don't and [url=http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/]most people don't follow "issues"[/url] hence image and style count for a lot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-68036530515470833662011-01-26T15:48:48.085-08:002011-01-26T15:48:48.085-08:00Andy-
Almost forgot, you actually brought up two ...Andy-<br /><br />Almost forgot, you actually brought up two distinct points. The first was Hughes, as I mentioned, but the second, the Zinger, was Postman . . .<br /><br />Postman was referring to the 1984 Presidential debates . . .<br /><br />"The men were less concerned with giving arguments than with 'giving off' impressions, which is what TV does best. Post-debate commentary largely avoided any evaluation of the candidates' ideas, since there were none to evaluate. Instead, the debates were conceived as boxing matches, the relevant question being, 'Who KO'd whom'? The answer was determined by the 'style' of the men - how they looked, fixed their gaze, smiled, and delivered one-liners. In the second debate, RR got off a swell one liner when asked a question about his age. The following day, several newspapers indicated that Ron had KO'd Fritz with this joke. Thus, the leader of the free world is chosen by the people in the Age of TV". "Amusing Ourselves to Death" p 97.<br /><br />Elsewhere Postman refers to RR and lying and how people became accustomed to it. (pp 108-9) which supports Chief's view . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-43721574824945874592011-01-26T15:34:02.447-08:002011-01-26T15:34:02.447-08:00The British Conservative Party's goal is in st...The British Conservative Party's goal is in step with the NATO requirement of Defense Spending at 2% of GDP . . . which explains the massive cuts now being made . . .<br /><br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593<br /><br />Here's what the current Conservative PM had to say about these cuts . . .<br /><br />He said the country had to be "more thoughtful, more strategic and more co-ordinated in the way we advance our interests and protect our national security".<br /><br />That's how Conservatives speak and act. We used to have conservatives in the GOP. What happened?seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-21039544802059641912011-01-26T15:24:09.663-08:002011-01-26T15:24:09.663-08:00Andy-
Ya caught me with the Hughes comment. Actu...Andy-<br /><br />Ya caught me with the Hughes comment. Actually wanted to bring in Christopher Lasch, but couldn't find an appropriate citation. His classic "Culture of Narcissism" was written in 1979 and a lot of the problems we associate with RR Lasch identifies in that book. So as to making the nation more stupid, let's say it's probably TV . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-32515967262910687452011-01-26T14:27:02.881-08:002011-01-26T14:27:02.881-08:00Andy - post releasedAndy - post releasedAviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-46220614088006594622011-01-26T10:11:35.126-08:002011-01-26T10:11:35.126-08:00Raging Tory wrote: But I digress, The US has Chart...Raging Tory wrote: <i>But I digress, The US has Charter schools, these are schools ran by the market, and they are far far far and away the best schools in the country.</i><br /><br />Before you offer any superlatives to the charter schools, I'd suggest you present some facts to back it up. To date, no legitimate study has found them to be <i>far far far and away the best schools in the country</i>.<br /><br />You might take the time to read this <a href="http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf" rel="nofollow">comprehensive 2009 study from Stanford</a>. The executive summary states:<br /><br /><b>The group portrait shows wide variation in performance. The study reveals that a decent fraction<br />of charter schools, 17 percent, provide superior education opportunities for their students.<br />Nearly half of the charter schools nationwide have results that are no different from the local<br />public school options and over a third, 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly<br />worse than their student would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.<br />These findings underlie the parallel findings of significant state‐by‐state differences in charter<br />school performance and in the national aggregate performance of charter schools. The policy<br />challenge is how to deal constructively with varying levels of performance today and into the<br />future.</b><br /><br />The "Market" is not necessarily the answer to all social needs.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.com