"The Taking of Thought"

"The situation in Vietnam presents us with our most urgent problem today in the field of foreign affairs. But the Vietnam problem is only the most vivid expression of a deeper crisis in American foreign policy. The roots of this deeper crisis lie not in the malevolence of men but in the obsolescence of ideas.

"For we live in a time when the velocity of history is greater than ever before. The world has changed more in the last hundred years than it did in the thousand years preceding. The transformations wrought by science and technology have acquired a cumulative momentum and exponential effect. One consequence is that perceptions of reality become obsolete with new and disconcerting rapidity. This would be all right, if the way we perceive reality changed as reality itself changes. But, as we all know, it doesn’t. Our perceptions of reality are crystallized in a collection of stereotypes; and people become so fond of the stereotypes, so much at home with them, that they stop looking at actuality. In this way they protect themselves from the most painful of human necessities, which is, of course, the taking of thought.

"The rapidity with which reality outstrips our perception of reality is an underlying source of our troubles with foreign policy. I do not suggest that, if our perceptions were kept up to date, this would solve all of our problems, because many of the great problems of the world are in their nature insoluble. But I am sure that we cannot make much sense at all in the world as long as we continue to base policy on anachronism. We must be forever vigilant to prevent transient strategies from turning into cherished and permanent verities.

"Thus the ideas which dominate our foreign policy today were largely shaped by a very different world – a world threatened by massive, unitary, centralized movements of military aggression and social fanaticism: Adolf Hitler and Nazism in the thirties, Josef Stalin and Communism in the forties and early fifties. These ideas were admirably suited for this world and admirably achieved their objectives. They reflected a great and challenging time in world history, and the men who grew up in that time and acquired those ideas quite naturally find it hard to relinquish them. Yet the world itself has changed drastically – and this fact surely demands the review, if not the revision, of the presuppositions of our policy."
--Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.; The Bitter Heritage; March 8, 1967.

The 2008 presidential election contest between John McCain and Brack Obama provides a stark contrast between the "old" and the "new." No election since 1960’s Kennedy vs Nixon has presented the nation with such an obvious choice between the stale policies of the republican party, and the democratic party’s ability to lead us into a New Frontier.

The American public is beginning to recognize the differences between the two candidates as we move towards the national conventions. John McCain comes across as a captive of the Bush-Cheney failed policies, who advocates continuing the war of occupation in Iraq for "a hundred, maybe a thousand years," and "more wars, my friends."

His strongest campaign tactic will be commercials – which have already started – that attempt to portray him in a manner that the candidate himself can not live up to in his personal appearances. At the time that Schlesinger was saying the country needed to change its way of thinking, there were commercials showing the "new Nixon." Yet no single question better summed up Nixon’s career than "would you buy a used car from this man?"

Our goal as grass roots activists is to ask the country if they would buy a used candidate from the republican party?

In 1960, history was made when the public saw John Kennedy debating Richard Nixon. Kennedy looked young, confident, attractive, and prepared to lead this country into the future. Nixon looked unattractive, hesitant, and untrustworthy.

This fall, when Barack Obama participates in the presidential debates with John McCain, there will be similar images. Our job during the summer months is to prepare the public for seeing the differences between the two candidates. We know that the public is thirsty for change: we need to keep presenting Obama as a fresh, cool, clear glass of sparkling water, and John McCain as an old, stale drink in a dirty republican cup.

Nixonland

"Adlai Stevenson and his learned speechwriter had coined a useful word, Nixonland. They just did not grasp its full resonance. …. Thus a more inclusive definition of Nixonland: it is the America where two separate and irreconcilable sets of apocalyptic fears coexist in the minds of two separate and irreconcilable groups of Americans. The first group, enemies of Richard Nixon, are the spiritual heirs of Stevenson and Galbraith. They take it as an axiom that if Richard Nixon and the values associated with him triumph, America itself might end. The second group are the people who wrote those telegrams begging Dwight D. Eisenhower to keep their hero on the 1952 Republican ticket. They believe, as Nixon did, that if the enemies of Richard Nixon triumph – the Alger Hisses and Helen Gahagan Douglases, the Herblocks and hippies, the George McGoverns and all the rest – America might end. The DNC was right: an amazingly large segment of the population disliked and mistrusted Richard Nixon instinctively. What they did not acknowledge was that an amazingly large segment of the population also trusted him as their savior. ‘Nixonland’ is what happens when these two groups try to occupy a country together. By the end of the 1960s, Nixonland came to encompass the entire political culture of the United States. It would define it, in fact, for the next fifty years."
--Rick Perlstein; Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America; Scribner; 2008; pages 46-47.

Why would anyone write another book on Nixon? And why the heck would anyone read another book, especially one that is more than 800 pages long, about Richard Nixon? Is it not better to forget the man who was forced to resign from the presidency in utter disgrace?

Two weeks ago, I watched Rick Perlstein debating Patrick Buchanan on the MSNBC morning show. Buchanan’s attacks on Perlstein’s book, and the authors humorous responses – which indicated he was fully aware of Buchanan’s activities in the Nixon White House – caught my attention. Surely, Buchanan would not have reacted as he did, if he was not sensitive to this new book. More, Perlstein came across as a gifted communicator. I decided to purchase the book on my next trip to a book store.

There have been numerous important and highly readable books on Richard Nixon. Among these are a few very important ones which tend to fall into one of two groups: the first focuses on the criminal nature of Nixon the politician; the second, smaller group, provide a psychological profile of this strangest of America’s Presidents.

I bought a dozen books on my weekend trip to Barnes & Noble, and admittedly have not finished Perlstein’s book. I am, however, concentrating on it more so than the others. Thus far, it has not introduced any new information on Richard Nixon. What the author does is to present the previously known information in a unique way: rather than a psychological study of the president, "Nixonland" is a sociological study of how a politician who had so many repulsive traits was able to get elected in 1968, and re-elected in ’72.

He also includes information that documents something that is far too often overlooked: that Nixon was the first vice president to really change the nature of that office. It is often remembered that during the 1960 election, when a reporter asked Ike to list some of VP Nixon’s accomplishments, that he said he might need a week to make such a list. The press took this as the President’s disrespecting his vice president, and in truth, he likely did. But he also knew that most of VP Nixon’s main responsibilities had been in the areas of secret, international programs which were classified.

Like all tyrants, Richard Nixon appreciated that if a ruler/ politician could get a large group of people to hate a common enemy, those people would willing forget their own low level of being. From 1963 to 1968, Nixon was able to manipulate and exploit the darkest passions in "main stream" American society.

Perlstein notes that Nixon was "a serial collector of resentments." In a five-year period that included the civil rights movement and riots in ghettos, the anti-war movement and a divisive war in Vietnam, and plans for a "Great Society" and economic hardships, Richard Nixon was able to make full use of his collection of resentments. He understood the power of the fear and anxiety that many Americans – including Democrats as well as Republicans – were experiencing.

For many of us, looking back in 2008, there is a memory of believing that the USA could never have a worse criminal than Nixon for President. Then came Reagan, Bush the Elder, and now Bush2. This has resulted in many people recalling Nixon as something of a moderate in comparison. And, in fact, his administration did a few good things. But it is important to recognize that Nixonland made Reagan and the Bushes possible. In fact, the book covers the curious relationship between Nixon and Reagan, which is too often overlooked by history books.

The tactics that Richard Nixon and others, including Patrick Buchanan, used in those years are the same tactics that the republican party is using today. There was a time, after his loses in the early 1960s, when the public and the "experts" wrote Nixon off. They did not think there was any serious chance of his ever being elected to an important office (especially the presidency) in the future.

Today, many people assume that there is no way that McCain can beat Obama, or that the republicans can keep from losing seats in the US House of Representatives or the Senate. But democrats must be aware of the fact that the republicans will certainly try. We must also be able to recognize their tactics when we see them – and we are seeing them these days, in the media and on the internet.

I strongly recommend reading Perlstein’s book, "Nixonland."

By Any Means Necessary

(Note: This essay originally appeared on the political discussion forum, "The Democratic Underground.")

"In the eyes of history, our greatest presidents have proved their qualities of greatness when confronted by great challenges -- war, depression, and moral issues from slavery to civil rights. The discovery that the Soviet Union had secretly rushed nuclear missiles into Cuba tested JFK's wisdom, courage, and leadership as no president since Lincoln and FDR had been tested. No other test so sharply put at stake, depending on the president's choices, the survival of our country. It was for that moment that he had been elected; and it was for that moment that he will most be remembered."-- Ted Sorensen; Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History; 2008; pages 308-309.

One of the very best books of the year is Ted Sorensen's history of his service to President John F. Kennedy. Chapter 23 covers the Cuban Missile Crisis (pages 285-309). Since his experience in 1962, Sorensen has had the opportunity to find that had JFK followed the advice of those who advocated military strikes against Cuban targets -- including the recommendations of his top military advisers -- the outcome would have involved unexpected consequences. The results would have likely included missiles already in Cuba being fired at the USA, and if President Kennedy had responded in kind, it is possible that the conflict would have spiraled further out of control.

It is a good thing that Kennedy was President. Had any of the four other presidents surrounding JFK been in office (Truman, Ike, LBJ, or Nixon), it is unlikely that their judgement would have allowed for the peaceful resolution that President Kennedy reached. Sorensen notes that this episode led to JFK's most important speech, the June 1963 address at American University.

Ted Sorensen was among the first people to endorse Senator Barack Obama. He has said repeatedly that his confidence in Obama is based upon his impression that he is the first candidate who has the same sense of judgement as JFK had. This is important when we consider the choice that Americans will make in November, between John McCain and Barack Obama.

Two of the most important issues at hand involve the US war of occupation in Iraq, and the closely-related issue of Iran. There is a group within the Bush administration that is advocating the US military conduct air strikes on targets within Iran. This group, which is centered in the Office of the Vice President, was involved in the neocon/AIPAC espionage scandal, where highly classified military intelligence concerning Iran was passed on to intelligence officers from another country in the Middle East. Some of the leaders from that country are advocating the US conduct the air strikes on targets in Iran, and some have suggested they are weighing their options for such strikes.

John McCain has shown himself willing to cooperate with those in the OVP who advocate aggression against Iran. Some neoconservatives have spoken publicly about the likelihood of a conflict between the US and Iran. This is, I believe, the primary reason that General Wesley Clark has sounded the alarm, and reminded the public that we must evaluate each candidate's judgement on military matters.

The war of occupation in Iraq -- from the lies that led to the invasion, to today -- show that the republican party's current leadership has poor judgement on these matters. The consequences of this war are not even close to what their "experts" predicted. The possible strikes on Iran would also lead to consequences this merry band of fools does not anticipate.There are numerous important issues to be discussed and debated in the weeks and months ahead. But none are more important than the issue of judgement in military matters.

Our choice in November will impact every other issue that we recognize as being important in our attempts to rebuild the foundation of our Constitutional democracy.

It's time for all sincere DUers to focus on what is important. Please ignore the apparently coordinated "concern" campaign, and keep your eyes on the prize. Work to elect Barack Obama and other democratic candidates at every level -- by any means necessary.