Who was the last president who wasn't a "corporatist" ?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

According to "elite" theory you can make an argument all of them were.

[Scuba]

1. James Earl Carter? Teddy Roosevelt?

[dembotoz]

4. jimmy

[BainsBane]

40. He was the most conservative Democrat running that year

and a peanut farmer, a business that was undoubtedly incorporated.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

61. No but close. George Wallace was but I would argue on Economics he was to Carter's left.

Folks here forget that Ted Kennedy challenged him , as the sitting president of his own party, because he felt that his policies were too conservative and Carter opposed his universal health care program.

[Reter]

88. The OP said corprotist, conservative has nothing to do with anyone

You can be crazy conservative and not be a corprotist. Pat Buchanan and Rand Paul certainly aren't. Nazi David Duke hates Wall Street too, because he thinks dem "Jooz" run it. So political persuasion has not a thing to do with the label, as many Democrats are corps.

[craigmatic]

148. President Carter was. Sure he was conservative but he wasn't bought and paid for.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Jimmy Carter was the most conservative Democratic president since Grover Cleveland

Why do you think Ted Kennedy ran against him?

President Carter's major domestic initiatives were trucking and airline deregulation.

All presidents serve the interests of big business...Some do try to bend it a bit to serve all of us more than others though.

[Reter]

89. Once again, conservative has nothing to do with anything

Many right-wing nuts are anti-corporate, and many liberals are Wall Street humpers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. I wouldn't disagree with that ./NT

[MADem]

141. He also introduced the concept of conservation of resources. He established the Dept. of Energy.

The (unpopular) 55 mph speed limit, turning the thermostat to 68 degrees F and putting on a sweater, price controls (and rationing) of energy resources during the energy crisis e.g. -- who remembers odd/even?

The economy sucked back then--rampant inflation and no growth. Ford had been trying to WIN (Whip Inflation Now!) but Carter got stuck sorting it out. The military didn't get their cost of living increases because the economy was so awful, but the costs kept rising, leading to the (admittedly, terribly clever) "Go Navy/Go Hungry" bumper sticker.

Carter also established the Department of Education, though it hasn't accomplished what he might have hoped for it.

He also played the moral card--remember, he boycotted the Moscow Olympics over the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR? Lots of fuss and bother over that.

Kennedy's campaign absolutely SUCKED -- it was disorganized, he was going through a divorce, in essence--he wasn't living w/his wife, he had a bad cocaine habit, he was drinking like a fish, and he went down like a ton of bricks--but what he was able to do was divide the Democratic Party, and he did that pretty decisively. Reagan wiped the floor with Carter and the GOP won in a landslide. Those were dark days.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

144. Kennedy ran at the urging of Senate liberals

The ironic thing is they almost all abandoned him when he started to lose,even Birch Bayh who saved his life. My mom was a Kennedy delegate at a Florida straw poll. She got swamped by the Carter people.

He did lead a fairly dissolute life but a lot of us would crack under the cloud he lived under. The cocaine abuse revelation is relatively but not totally new to me.

My remarks weren't made to denigrate Jimmy Carter. I don't look at any politician with rose colored glasses. Politics ain't bean bag and no matter how well intentioned you are you aren't going to accomplish anything without convincing a plurality or majority of fellow citizens you are right. It was just to put him in his proper historical perspective. Ironically or maybe not, like a lot of politicians he became more liberal after he left office.

As an aside, Kennedy challenge or not, he wasn't going to be re-elected with a crap economy and hostages in Iran.

[BlueCaliDem]

35. I would vote for Ted Roosevelt. He loathed Big Business and their unethical treatment of

American workers.

[HereSince1628]

95. If we go back the TR, then I think you've got to include FDR

Smedley Butler testified to congress about business factions attempting to organize military coup to get rid of him.

If you think about presidents who tried to balance corporate power vs elected control, Eisenhower has to be recognized for warning about the destructive positive feedback loop between corporate industry and the military.

I know, he's a republican and we aren't supposed to recognize anything good about them...

[randys1]

126. Liberals that I know dont say that, there are historically some decent things done by

some cons and Ike is the best example of that.


But other than McCain's attempt to do something about campaign financing and Nixon signing in EPA it is hard to find any reason to applaud any republican since Ike.

There are I assume a few other examples, but not many.



But I cant think of a single nice thing to say about a single republican or con or teaparty person in the past 30 years.

[WinkyDink]

2. The last one assassinated.

[Octafish]

13. JFK stood up to Wall Street

Kind of a forgotten story:

JFK battled Wall Street and Big Business

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich"
-- Inaugural Address of John F. Kennedy, Friday, January 20, 1961



So, in the short time he had, President Kennedy did what he could to balance the interests of concentrated wealth with the interests of the average American -- necessary for the good of the country.

Professor Donald Gibson detailed the issues in his 1994 book, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency.

From the book:

"What (J.F.K. tried) to do with everything from global investment patterns to tax breaks for individuals was to re-shape laws and policies so that the power of property and the search for profit would not end up destroying rather than creating economic prosperity for the country."

-- Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street. The Kennedy Presidency

More on the book, by two great Americans:

"Gibson captures what I believe to be the most essential and enduring aspect of the Kennedy presidency. He not only sets the historical record straight, but his work speaks volumes against today's burgeoning cynicism and in support of the vision, ideal, and practical reality embodied in the presidency of John F. Kennedy - that every one of us can make a difference." -- Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Chair, House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs

"Professor Gibson has written a unique and important book. It is undoubtedly the most complete and profound analysis of the economic policies of President Kennedy. From here on in, anyone who states that Kennedy was timid or status quo or traditional in that field will immediately reveal himself ignorant of Battling Wall Street. It is that convincing." -- James DiEugenio, author, Destiny Betrayed. JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Had he lived to serve a second term, I'd bet on JFK over Wall Street and its owners.

[raouldukelives]

30. Yes sir. nt

[BainsBane]

41. He slashed taxes for the rich

and was born into a very wealthy family that owned several incorporated businesses.
So it seems that Hillary Clinton's problem is not being born into the 1 percent and not proposing tax cuts for the wealthy. Working for a living is just so common.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Corporatist is kind of a bogeyman.

My goal in this thread wasn't to diminish this president or that president or any president but to highlight the fact in a nominally capitalistic nation every president needs to accommodate the interests of corporations.

[BainsBane]

54. Precisely.

I was writing a response to your OP to that effect but got interrupted. I'll finish shortly.

[WinkyDink]

53. You ignore the point, which is: Was he a tool of corporations? And the evidence is negative.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. "Tool " is a loaded word.

Did he believe the health of the economy which is a large part of the health of the nation and the health of corporations in inextricably entwined? Of course he did like every other president.

[BainsBane]

65. So you would be cool with a dramatic tax cut for the rich?

It's not about favoring the elite or not, it's about "corporations"? All US presidents have served capital. That is the nature of the capitalist state. Much but not all of that capital is incorporated. I find is ironic that you all have chosen the most conservative Democrats to idolize. It shows how meaningless this whole argument is. JFK was as much the tool of corporations as any politician of his era. Wall Street was not the dominant business interests of his era. Manufacturing still prevailed. Finance was a small sector of the economy and not nearly as powerful as it is today. That has to do with the nature of the American economy and capitalism more generally, not because JFK wasn't "corporatist." There is no president who has not served moneyed interests, and there never will be as long as we continue to live under capitalism. This insanity that some members of the political elite are "corporatist" while others aren't is about as inane of an argument as I've seen. It shows a complete lack of awareness of the nature of capitalism and the capitalist state we live under.

Octafish does not site evidence. He sites lines from speeches and says if he had lived he would have done this or that. What policies did he implement? He slashed taxes for the rich. What did he actually do that undermined moneyed interests? Anything?

[fasttense]

68. He closed tax loopholes on the rich. The end result was actually a tax increase for the rich

He just went about it differently.

Just because you are born into a wealthy family does NOT make you a corporatist. Just because you own stock in an incorporated businesses does NOT make you a corporatists. I own stock in several corporations, does that make me a corporatist?

I think you need to better define your terms because your definitions are very loosey goosey.

[BainsBane]

71. It is not my term

I'd sooner shoot myself in the head that use that term in the way people do here. I'm a Marxist for Christ's sake. I use the term capital. I'm critiquing what I see as an inane argument that some Presidents represent capital while others don't. See my response here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6216520

I'm not sure you're right that the end result was a tax increase for the rich. I'll have to look that up.

[BainsBane]

74. This chart shows a decline in taxation for the wealthy in 1960

The year of the highest rate. Enter in incomes of 10 million, a billion, etc... in today's dollars. http://qz.com/74271/income-tax-rates-since-1913/
It says effective rates, not marginal rates. I've seen other charts to that effect. I'm trying to find one I've seen before with historical taxation by quintile of income.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. Because the word "corporatist" is so loaded.

I used it inartfully but in a roundabout way the point I wanted to make is being made.

It is or has become a meaningless and fatuous label to put on anybody we don't like.

There is a whole structure in place that is reflected in our laws, our culture, and our government to protect private property which the foundation of capitalism. No president is going to upset that and even if he or she wanted to , barring a coup, it would be impossible.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. John Kennedy was one of my heroes but turning him into a cardboard saint diminishes him.

He campaigned on getting America moving again after the stagnancy and complacency of the 50s and upon election to get America moving again he was proposing cuts in the marginal tax and capital gains rates.

Many of his closest advisers were right out of corporate America. It doesn't make the great man bad, just a bit like every other president in trying to stimulate big business...

[WinkyDink]

51. Being advised by, or even the son of, corporatists doesn't MAKE one a corporatist. And your

hyperbole of "cardboard saint" is not a refutation.

JFK's actions, however, are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. He argued in favor of cutting the highest marginal tax rates and cutting the capital gains rate.

That's an empirical observation and not a normative one... If you don't believe cutting the capital gains rate and the highest marginal tax rates , regardless of their net impact, doesn't benefit the wealthiest among us there is nothing I can do to disabuse of that notion.


Oh, his Secretary Of Treasury was a Republican.

[WinkyDink]

49. And U.S. Steel.

http://peoplesworld.org/how-jfk-forced-steel-price-roll-back/

[Reter]

94. Don't forget Reagan in 1981

For the first two months, he railed against the Tri-Lateral Commission. Then he gets shot and not a peep. Yes, he was super conservative. But was he establishment? Not in the least. That's why they shut him up.

[randys1]

127. Who shut him up?

[merrily]

3. As with so many things, it's a continuum. You find a piece of the continuum that is acceptable,

to you, within the realm of what is possible.

[MineralMan]

5. Probably President Carter, but

we live in a country that has a capitalistic economic system. Corporations are at the core of that system. Pretty much everything revolves around economics, so corporations have a huge influence on government, regardless of who is President.

That is the reality of our system. Some will argue that FDR was not a corporatist, but it all depends on how you define the term.

[libdem4life]

7. Noticed a thread about 4 people killing their own food...there is a comparison there. We do like

corporations to kill and process and protect our food supply, for instance, among a host of other every day necessities, unrelated to politics. You never hear people wanting to get the corporations out of, say, the hospital system or the electronics/digital products, et al.

Food for Thought.

[merrily]

12. You never hear people wanting to get corporations out of the hospital system? I sure hear it.

Then again, we had a nice little community health system that interfaced smoothly with hospitals until Mass General stepped in.

I am not sure what your point is about providing for your own every day necessities.

People who live in cities and satellite suburbs (much of the US population)and maybe work a full time job or two would really have to re-arrange a lot in order to kill their own food or make their own cloth, tan their own leather for shoes (or these days, maybe make their own cardboard and plastic for shoes).

You never hear people wanting to get the corporations out of, say, the hospital system or the electronics/digital products, et al.

"Corporations" is a convenient shibboleth. It doesn't matter if you are a corporation, a sole proprietor, a limited partnership, business trust or whatever. Or what business you are in. The issue is not corporations per se.

The issue is predatory, powerful, callous, greedy businesses, and more particularly, those whose donations and perks politicians take and use our money to help those businesses to get even more powerful.

[libdem4life]

23. We can agree to disagree...Mom and Pops went out with the rural community from the past. Why did

the offspring choose to move to the city rather than live off of and manage the family farm? Or the European masses immigrating? The Age of Industrialization...machines...investing money in someone else's business for profit, etc., jobs for a wage. Corporations.

Even pot growing is going the way of not only industrialization, but because there is profit...see Colorado, the corporations can do it cheaper and we all want the best price...even pot smokers.

I can wish it away in politics...then come back to reality. One Billion Dollars. That's reality. Since millions, like me, vote but don' t give them $100 or so, it's got to come from somewhere.

It's a cultural/economic cycle and some day it will give way to another...but not anytime soon, IMO.

PS...Re my first post...Imagine the risk of a Mom and Pop hospital cutting corners wherever necessary to stay afloat. I'm not taking my loved ones there. One lawsuit and they are done. And I know that many small rural hospitals have had to do that, and been forced to sell. Or who would pay the price for hand made cell phones and iPads, vehicles, etc.

[merrily]

25. Did you read my post?

[libdem4life]

34. I did, sorry if I read it wrong. But Mineral Man says it much better than I do.

[merrily]

45. I thought he set up a false dichotomy but, as you said, we can agree to disagree.

So, what's the new meme here anyway? Corporatism is everywhere, and all Presidents have been corporatists, so there's no point objecting to Hillary on the ground that she is a corporatist?

[libdem4life]

47. Discussion is the purpose here, up to the Primary.

[merrily]

48. Sure. Let's stick with that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

112. Imagine the risk

of a Mom and Pop hospital cutting corners wherever necessary to stay afloat.

Really? because giant corporations cutting corners wherever they feel they can never happens?

You do realize most giant corporate hospitals are understaffed, because the corporate bean counters feel they can cut corners and 'get by' with fewer nurses and aides, right? That staff are told to 'keep down' supply usage, ignoring the fact that probably one of the most vital functions of a hospital environment is NOT transmitting disease from one patient to the next?

Yeah, one lawsuit doesn't put them under. Instead, they get to keep getting sued, because they've got lots of people willing to keep taking their loved ones there. Despite the risks inherent in corporate capitalist medicine.

[randys1]

128. THe only for profit hospitals that should be allowed are those for the rich who want to pay

extra for private rooms and such.

Other than that, they should all be part of AmeriCare, my name for our national health care system

[merrily]

133. No need for separate hospitals.

Various kinds of accommodations and levels of staffing can co-exist in one hospital, just as they do now. Could even have different entrances and elevators. Then, what the rich would be willing to pay for extras could go toward the hospital's entire budget.

[MineralMan]

14. Pretty much everything we do every day has a connection to

corporate capitalism, including what I am doing at this moment - writing a post on DU. Throughout the day, capitalism will affect almost everything I do, since I am not self-sufficient in any aspect of my life. It's 0 degrees outside today. If it weren't for the natural gas powering my furnace, I would face almost insurmountable problems with simply staying alive. Both the gas and the furnace are products of corporations. The cup of coffee I am drinking has a long, complex history, all corporate, and even the coffee maker was manufactured by a corporation. Coffee doesn't grow in Minnesota, so without corporate involvement, I would have any to drink in the first place.

I could go on and on, listing my activities for the day, and every one of them would have links to capitalism and corporations.

I could live without those connections. I have the skills and experience to obtain my own food, construct shelter, and do most other things. I would not enjoy living that way, however and, at age 69, I wouldn't be able to maintain that for very long at all.

Now, I must resume my work, which is creating the content for a website owned by a corporation. A small corporation, but a corporation nevertheless. If I don't, I won't be paid, and won't be able to purchase the things I need to continue my life. I'm inexorably tied to capitalism. And there it is. Politically, I will work for and vote for those who will try to control the hold of capitalism and corporations on my life, but I do not expect any politician to remove capitalism from the equation. That would be impossible in a nation of 300 some odd million people. It's not happening.

[merrily]

16. zero capitalism vs. the status quo = false dichotomy.

[MineralMan]

19. Well, of course. That's not my point.

Here's my point: In 2014, we elected Republican majorities to control both houses of Congress. I can't see any way that is beneficial, can you? The quest for perfection should never prevent people from working to make improvements, no matter how small.

In 2016, we will have a chance to reverse that Congressional imbalance. Electing a Democratic President is part of that opportunity. If we fail to do that by not voting for whomever is the nominee, we will lose any chance to regain control of Congress and allow the Republicans to set the course for another four years.

It is impossible to completely reform our political and economic system quickly. It cannot be done. Politics is about incremental change. If we lose sight of that in our quest for the ideal, we will lose in far more important ways.

Am I a pragmatist? You bet your ass I am. I live in a real world, in a real economy, and in a real society. Reality is my guide to working to accomplish goals. Blind optimism leads to failure in a system that selects its leaders by something resembling a majority vote. We're either in the majority or the other side wins. So, yes, I'm a pragmatist.

[merrily]

50. Jeebus. So many worn out Third Way memes strung together in one post.

[emulatorloo]

56. This labeling of Liberal Democrats who took civics in HS as "Third Way" is pretty tiresome

[merrily]

64. I didn't label MineralMan. I labeled the worn out Third Way memes in his post, which are

also tiresome. Perhaps you want to have a word with him about that.

[emulatorloo]

70. So educate me. Which "Third Way Memes" did MM use in his post?

Quoting his post here to make it a little easier:

"Here's my point: In 2014, we elected Republican majorities to control both houses of Congress. I can't see any way that is beneficial, can you? The quest for perfection should never prevent people from working to make improvements, no matter how small.

In 2016, we will have a chance to reverse that Congressional imbalance. Electing a Democratic President is part of that opportunity. If we fail to do that by not voting for whomever is the nominee, we will lose any chance to regain control of Congress and allow the Republicans to set the course for another four years.

It is impossible to completely reform our political and economic system quickly. It cannot be done. Politics is about incremental change. If we lose sight of that in our quest for the ideal, we will lose in far more important ways.

Am I a pragmatist? You bet your ass I am. I live in a real world, in a real economy, and in a real society. Reality is my guide to working to accomplish goals. Blind optimism leads to failure in a system that selects its leaders by something resembling a majority vote. We're either in the majority or the other side wins. So, yes, I'm a pragmatist."

[merrily]

73. Seriously? Spend a lot of time pulling that apart phrase by phrase? For what purpose?

To have you reply, "Ah, thanks merrily. Now I get it." Cause that's obviously the direction you intend to go with a request directive like that, right after chastising me for mentioning memes in that post, right?

But, seriously, folks. Most of us know what they are. If you don't, I am confident in your ability to educate yourself. Alternatively, I can bill you for the consulting time, with a retainer paid up front, of course.

[emulatorloo]

86. The purpose is I don't see "Third Way Memes" I see statements that most Liberal Democrats agree on

And I don't understand what you are getting at and was eager to hear your reasoning that led you to say MM's post is full of "Third Way Memes'

"Here's my point: In 2014, we elected Republican majorities to control both houses of Congress. I can't see any way that is beneficial, can you?"

Why is advocating the election of Democratic Majorities in both houses of Congress "Third Way?"

That's one of the main reasons Democratic Underground was founded. To elect Democratic Majorities. Is DU "Third Way?"

"The quest for perfection should never prevent people from working to make improvements, no matter how small."

Most liberal Democrats agree that we are more likely to make progress on things we care about under Democrats. And we are VERY UNLIKELY to make any progress under Republcan Rule. A simple example: Republicans mandate vaginal probes, Democrats do not. How is it "Third Way" to recognize the Republicans are regressive.

"It is impossible to completely reform our political and economic system quickly. It cannot be done. Politics is about incremental change. If we lose sight of that in our quest for the ideal, we will lose in far more important ways."

How is it "Third Way" to understand that the US Govt system of checks and balances/Three Branches of Government is designed for incremental change rather than precludes radical breaks? That's the way the US was set up.

So yeah I just don't get what you are talking about. I would like to know what you're talking about but apparently you aren't that interested.

Which is fine by me. Your unwillingness to elucidate mostly suggests that you can't' back up your claims that MM's post is full of "Third Way Memes"

[merrily]

92. No, just means I knew where you were going to end up, no matter what I said.

Your unwillingness to elucidate mostly suggests that you can't' back up your claims that MM's post is full of "Third Way Memes"

And there we have it. Didn't much matter how you get to the obligatory ad hom put downs of a critic of Third Way. Any excuse/route will do. I'm just glad I didn't take the bait and spend a lot of time before you got where you wanted to go.

I hope you feel better now.

[emulatorloo]

99. I'm a left liberal Dem so I have no use for Third Way. So it is ridiculous to say I am 'ad hom'

attacking a critic of Third Way.

I have no use for HRC, I hope to hell Sanders runs and I hope to hell we have some more great challengers.

I wasn't baiting you. I genuinely wanted to know how you came to the conclusion that statements advocating electing Democratic majorities is Third Way. I assumed you could explain your viewpoint on it.

That being said, I'm not crazy about the number of DU'ers who smear good liberal and liberal activist DU members with the Third Way/DLC moniker just because there are differences on a couple issues or on strategies.

I didn't assume you were that way, I still don't. In spite of the fact that you labeled me Third Way when you don't know a damn thing about me.


Oh I never felt bad, but thanks for asking!

[merrily]

100. And I'm not crazy about the number of DUers who smear the left with just about everything but the

Third Way label. Fox News, TeaLeft, etc., RW, etc.

Glad you feel perky.

[emulatorloo]

102. So basically everybody sucks on DU! Hope you feel perky too!

[merrily]

104. Sorry you feel that way and I am.

Since I don't see a happy dance emoticon, this will have to do

[MineralMan]

113. Then refute them.

Don't just post some general name-calling. Show me where what I said is incorrect. I'll wait here.

[merrily]

116. Oh, goody. From memes to orders.

Show me where what I said is incorrect.

? meme means incorrect?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=meme

I'll wait here.

[MineralMan]

124. I already posted my ideas. You responded with a one-liner.

Please excuse me if I don't continue this conversation, such as it is.

[Maedhros]

63. Yes, politics is about incremental change.

Have you noticed that the incremental change is always in one direction, even when ostensible "Democrats" are in the White House?

I don't see Hillary reversing the trend.

[merrily]

66. Excellent point on one way. Incremental:

TPP, bank settlements (stemming indirectly from repeal of Glass Steagall) (Obama). Iraq War advocacy and flag burning amendment (Hillary)

And that's just the low hanging fruit that springs immediately to my mind.

Baby steps. Teensy weensy tiny baby steps. But, sooner or later, they do seem to add up, don't they?

[Maedhros]

76. In the last six years

we've escalated our military operations in the Middle East, increased military operations in Africa by 217%, used the Espionage Act an unprecedented number of times to punish journalists for investigative reporting, crafted an unconscionable "trade" agreement in near-complete secrecy, deported a record number of immigrants, pushed the wealth gap beyond the excesses of the 1920's, put Social Security on the bargaining table, had the Executive Branch declare the right to execute citizens without due process, jailed every whistle blower we can find and further deregulated the financial industry...

BUT IT'S ALL GOOD, because we got mandated corporate health insurance in return!

[merrily]

80. Just two questions:

Why do you hate progress and America so very much?

And exactly how far to the right are you?

[emulatorloo]

87. Did you not take HS civics? Three Branches of Govt, Checks and Balances.

US govt was set up for incremental change not radical breaks.

You are trying very hard to make some "nefarious statement" out of a basic recognition that our Govt was intentionally set up to favor of incremental change.

[Maedhros]

117. I acknowledged the nature of the system.

Incremental change is indeed part of the design of the U.S. Government.

My post was pointing out how the ongoing incremental change for the last 40 years has been constantly to the Right, even when so-called Democrats are in the White House. My desire is to have an actual Democrat in the White House, one that will instigate incremental change to the Left.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. I think the real deflection there

is waving the 'yay, corporations' flag, and then pretend you couldn't live exactly the same with non-capitalist 'corporations' owned by the employees or by the state, that there is some sparkly magic to privately-held 'corporations' meant to concentrate wealth for the oligarchs.

'Corporatist' is a relative term - it relates to the TYPE of corporations that predominate in American society. If we were largely socialistic, it simply wouldn't have the same connotations as it does with so many vulture capitalists around. Being a 'corporatist' in a society in which corporations were mostly run by the state to benefit ALL of the people, instead of just the 1% would be a far different kind of thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. What nations are "socialist" ?

A lot of nations that are held out as socialist nations are really mixed economies or more generous welfare states but they are at their core capitalist.

[merrily]

52. And/or:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026215785#post45

[elias49]

18. It is estimated that less than a quarter million Americans live off the grid

so, in other words, you're right.
Too bad 'corporate' wasn't infected with just a hint of 'humanity'.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I'm impressed with Mineral Man

A majority of Americans couldn't make it a week in the wild.

[MineralMan]

26. I'd guess that number is much lower than that, frankly.

While that number may have partly disconnected from economic society, those who attempt to completely do so cannot succeed.

I have the knowledge and skills to build a place to live with my own hands, working alone. However, I will require tools to do so. I will need at least and ax and a saw. I do know how to knapp flint, so it might be possible for me to create an ax, but flint is hard to come by where I am. I am capable of walking a very long distance, though, so I could conceivable relocate myself in time.

I am also capable of making a bow and arrows and to build simple traps. I know all of the edible plants where I live, and in most other regions of the country, and I can catch fish, even without hooks and line, so I probably could feed myself. That would, however, require much of my day, so it would interfere with shelter-building.

I know and can identify and measure appropriate doses of a large group of medicinal plants, too. I can reduce a fracture, bandage wounds, and do many other medical things. I couldn't do much, though, for any serious illness. That's why people died young in olden times.

To do more than simple survival, though, I'm afraid I'd need other tools. I might also need a tribal group of people to distribute the required labor. That system once worked in North America, but I don't think I know enough people with the knowledge and skills to create such a group. We've almost all lost such skills.

So, I doubt that there are a quarter of a million people who actually live "off the grid" in the US. Some have eliminated some connections, but few have eliminated them all. That's just the fact. You can eat out of dumpsters, but all of that food has corporate ties. You can scavenge tools, clothing and other needs, but those, too, are corporate products. You can post on the internet from a library, but that library also has corporate ties. Even if you don't directly participate in the economy, you are still part of it. The "grid" extends everywhere. Almost nobody actually lives "off the grid."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. There was a episode of "The Sopranos" called Pine Barrens

Two of his crew got lost in a national park in the Winter. If Tony didn't find them they would have froze to death in a couple of days. That would be the experience of most Americans.

[merrily]

72. Unless you watched re-runs, I am impressed with your memory.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. It was voted the second most popular episode.

It's wrong, in a way, to include this most un-Sopranos-like of Sopranos episodes; in a series that unfolds like a novel, "Pine Barrens" is a distinctly self-contained short story. Paulie Walnuts and Christopher go to make a routine collection, from a Russian named Valery, which goes awry, ending with the Russian in the trunk of Paulie's car. When they try to dispose of his body in the snowy Jersey woods, they find he's still alive—and as a former commando, far better off in the Siberian conditions than they are. The pursuit turns into a brilliant comedy of violence and bonding moment. The episode (directed by later guest Steve Buscemi) has taken on a life of its own among fans, to the possible annoyance of the show's writers, who have said repeatedly: The Russian is not coming back people—get over it! Dosvedanya, Valery.

[merrily]

84. Yes, but you remembered--and the name of the episode, too.

So, I'm impressed.


I didn't see any of it when it aired originally, but I "binge watched" it maybe three years ago when On Demand did a free promotion. And I still probably would not have called it to mind that readily.

One of the cool things about that show: since offing some of the main characters was routine, you really didn't know that one or both characters would make it out of the woods.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

90. I only remember the name of that episode because I researched it

Because I was interested if the Russian lived or not. David Chase really didn't say. He left the question open. On the one hand Paulie and Chrissie never found their car which could lead one to believe the Russian escaped. On the other hand he is shown as being shot.

But the overarching point is they were lost in the wild, their survival skills were comical, like many of us would be.


(GRAPHIC LANGUAGE , VERY GRAPHIC, ALERT)

[merrily]

98. Ah, I totally forgot about that Russian bit. I even forgot that hair dye job.See why I'm impressed?

I am going to give myself the benefit of the doubt: I almost never literally watch TV. I half listen. It's more that I'm writing or reading or posting or shopping online or doing household chores while the TV is on.

Unless the Russian was wearing a bullet proof vest, I'm going with dead. And the car is just one of life's mysteries that we may have found out about if the series lasted long enough. Or not. Because that's how they played with our heads all along, right up until the last scene.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. I watch

70% news
15% sports
15% paid tv series

I am currently watching Getting On, Ray Donovan, Nurse Jackie, Shameless, and Mad Men.

If you ever get to see "Shameless" it's really good. They really push the envelope. It's treatment of their gay characters, showing them as truly three dimensional beings, earned them a GLAAD award.

...

Back to the whole survival in the wild thing...Norman Mailer opined decades ago with the advent of the modern economy the blurring of genders is almost complete. Your average male cube rat wouldn't fare much better in the wild than his female counterpart.

[merrily]

108. If genders are going to blur, wouldn't it be nice if they blurred in the direction of fitness and

resourcefulness? I mean, with all the research and info available to us today, couldn't we manage to go in the direction of rescuers instead of in the direction of those needing to be rescued. (btw, don't jump to conclusions about which gender is which in my example)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. i'm not ashamed to say my gf would last longer in the wild than me./NT

[merrily]

114. I live in the heart of Boston. Getting lost in the wild is not my biggest worry today.

My man not being fit would worry me, though. Not ripped fit necessarily, but heart healthy fit.

[1StrongBlackMan]

106. You must have been a Boy Scout! n/t

[MineralMan]

121. Nope, just a person interested in many things.

I have experimented, in the past, with wilderness survival with minimal starting equipment. I can do it, but it's not my idea of how I want to live, frankly.

BTW, it's harder to start a fire with flint and steel that with the bow and stick method. Neither is easy. Catching trout by tickling them is a snap though, in a small stream. Trapping small animals with a figure-4 trap, though is overrated as a technique. Lizards and snakes are pretty good eating, and easy to catch.

[1StrongBlackMan]

140. That reminds me of a particularly stressfull time in my life ...

I announced to a good friend that I had had it and was going to move to the wilds of Wyoming to live off the land ... far away from other humans.

My friend reminded me that I was, city born and bred, and that story would end: "And 1SBM ran across a bear, born and bred in the wild, and was heard from no more!"

[sabrina 1]

119. Did someone say that all corporations should be eliminated? As merrily says, you are setting up a

false dichotomy.

The question in the OP should be, since it's aimed at DEMOCRATS, who was the last President who attempted create MORE EQUALITY between the corporate world and the american worker.

The entire premise of the OP is an 'either/or' premise, something that Dems are often falsely accused of.

To lecture Dems on the REALITY that in today's world many people are dependent, not all of course, on Corporations, is to assume they are igorant of the world they live in.

FDR was one of the last, perhaps JFK, to try to strike a balance between Corporations and the Working Class imo. His pro-working class policies were hugely opposed by Corporations and Big Banks. Not all, again, but those who appear to have way too much control over this democracy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

122. I would like to think every president with a D after his name and even a few...

I would like to think every president with a D after his name and even a few with a R after theirs tried to bend capitalism with the tools at their disposal to benefit everybody. But the point I was trying to make is that the term "corporatist" is not only used so loosely that it could be applied to any president but it has become an epithet for anybody we don't like.

[MineralMan]

123. There is almost nobody alive any longer who was an adult during FDR's

presidency. My parents, at age 90, barely remember him in any detail.

We live in a much different world than the world of FDR.

And yes, several DUers have advocated eliminating all corporations.

I've finished my day's work, so I'm posting again, until it's time for my daily call to my parents. I recognize that each call I make to them could be the last one possible. That's reality. So is the impossibility of major changes in our economic system in any time period I will live through.

I'm almost 70 years old. I've been around for some time, and understand how US politics works. Here's the truth: We'll be damned lucky if we don't spend the next 8 years with a GOP President and Congress. I mean to work to prevent that from happening, and I won't brook any nonsense that doesn't help with that goal.

You may do whatever you please.

[Rex]

130. We'll be damned lucky if we don't spend the next 8 years with a GOP President and Congress

Dream on.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

139. How would you eliminate all corporations without a violent revolution?

And what would replace them.

I don't own a car but I plan to rent one so my gf and I can do things on Valentine's Day.


If there is no Avis, Hertz, or Enterprise whom do I rent a car from? Where does the capital to buy the cars to rent come from?


I take Lisinopril and Hydrochloride for my hypertension. They are generics and relatively cheap because they are manufactured on a large scale. Without corporations where would I buy them? From my local dealer?


It reminds me of a graduate level Political Theory course I took where we all needed to read our papers. I did mine comparing and contrasting "Politics And Markets" and "Does Big Business Rule America." i had an Iranian friend and classmate. I forgot the topic but he started it with "American democracy is a sham." He started to ramble and the professor said something. I said half jokingly "it's a beginning" The professor said "no, it's the end."


I see some of that here.

[Rex]

131. Yes and the ones that keep apologizing for Big Biz seem to love neoliberalism.

The fact that they post here and get to stay here, is sad but predictable.

[randys1]

129. Nothing wrong with corporations as long as we regulate them with the understanding that

their very existence demands that they ignore what is good for society as profit is all that matters to a corporation.

Once we understand that, once we initiate universal healthcare, minimum wage of $15, etc., once we make sick leave and vacation pay mandatory by law, etc.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. The superstructure is capitalism and that informs every part of our lives.

Actually that might be a bit broad.



The superstructure is capitalism and that informs every part of our economic lives. However I would argue it's nearly impossible to separate our personal, political, and economic lives as almost every human interaction can be reduced to a cash nexus.

[MineralMan]

10. Absolutely. Economics has a strong influence on every aspect of life.

There's no way around that. Capitalism is our economic system, and corporations are the natural consequence of capitalism. So, there's no way in our society to separate ourselves from corporate influence. That's especially true for anyone in an elected office.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. It's been literally decades since I got in the weeds of political theory...

It's been literally decades since I got in the weeds of political theory and really thought deeply about it.


That being said I would feel comfortable arguing that many Democratic and even a few Republican presidents try to bend capitalism to serve the interests of the nation but all to a one roughly subscribe to the notion that in order for the nation to do well its businesses must do well.

[MineralMan]

17. You are absolutely correct. While some politicians work to control

capitalism and corporations, there is no ridding ourselves of it. A major portion of the work of our government officials is directly connected to corporate and capitalistic needs. Our recent recession is clear evidence of that. We lost some control over the corporate world, allowing greed to seriously damage the overall economy.

Sadly, we do not appear to be learning the lesson, since we allowed Republicans to gain control of both houses of Congress in the recent election. We can do better, if we want to. It appears we do not want to, and some of us appear to be willing to see the entire system collapse, just to make a point. They will not enjoy the result, if they succeed.

[GeorgeGist]

44. I think it's obvious ...

a Corporatist favors corporations over people.

[bluestateguy]

137. He also deregulated the airlines

nt

[Rex]

9. The non-governing elite control the governing elite so it really doesn't matter.

Since none of them want to get money out of politics or fix the horrible gerrymandered system in place, it really won't matter until the non-governing elite decide to get some morals and get out of politics all together. Which will never happen.

Sucks, but that is the way things go with Vulture Capitalism.

[treestar]

11. Definition of corporatism

Last edited Thu Feb 12, 2015, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Reading that is amusing. Penguins are corporatists!

[ProfessorGAC]

36. That's Quite Odd

Not really sure what that definition was trying to describe. Seemed all over the map. Labor is a driver of corporatism? I don't feel any more informed on the subject after reading that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

20. Is this an appeal to tradition?

Let's say for the sake of argument that none of them was, that every single President ever was a corporatist.

Is this supposed to suggest that we should want to continue electing corporatists?

Every single President to date has been a male, should we never elect a female President, simply because all prior Presidents were male?

Prior to President Obama, every single President was white, was electing a PoC a 'mistake' because it failed to adhere to the 'tradition' of electing white guys?

No matter whose 'theory' you want to use to classify prior Presidents to corporatist tendencies, simply having 'always done something that way' is no reason to continue doing it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Ummm, yeah....

But if our first forty four presidents served the interests of big business it's more likely than not our forty fifth president will.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. It's certainly more likely than not as long as we make excuses to keep electing them.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. The whole political system mitigates against fundamental change.

I had a right wing acquaintance that argued Reagan was some kind of revolutionary. My argument was that the government didn't look all that different in January of 81 than it did in January of 89. If there were changes it was on the edges.

The superstructure (capitalism) is intact and it plods on and our government, our institutions, and our culture ensures it.

[HappyMe]

24. I guess we are supposed to be comfortably numb.

Not worry our little heads over how much big, big money is playing the leading role in elections and then government. The money people know what's best.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. You are conflating an empirical observation with a normative one. I was making the former one.

There is a difference between the way things are and the way they ought to be.

[emulatorloo]

58. You're putting words in OP mouth s/he never said or implied. Which is very Fox News of you

in my humble opinion.

[HappyMe]

60. ....

[emulatorloo]

67. Clearly you despise people with ocular disorders and want them dead

A little taste of your own medicine: willful misinterpretation and putting words in your mouth you didn't say.

Have a nice day

[HappyMe]

69. Oh my!

I'm so hurt!


Toodles!

[emulatorloo]

91. LOL I knew you'd get a kick out of it. I know you have a good sense of humor.

[merrily]

78. Reject mindless submission to the anointing and get accused of being like Fox News.

Left is right.

Everyone knows that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. Yeah, well, wow...I never said the concentration of wealth is a good thing ...

Yeah, well, wow...I never said the concentration of wealth is a good thing ... or that rich folks are repositories of wisdom, some are really messed up.

I did imply or hope to imply that a person whose interests were inimical to capitalism or big business could never be elected president.

[Thinkingabout]

29. The next question will be who will the next one be in the future, with Citizens United I don't see

this happening. Lots of corporations donates to both candidates, this way they can call on whomever gets elected. Campaigns costs lots of money, the 90% sure do not have the funds to support a national campaign so we have to accept funds from other sources. It cost money to travel around the country, literature and staff workers.

[on point]

32. Carter comes to mind. Raygun started the voodoo supply side nonsense.

[kydo]

38. Carter

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. What was his great domestic initiative beside airline and trucking deregulation?/NT

[craigmatic]

150. His energy policies. Not to mention that he actually had a pretty good record of getting what he

wanted from Congress. Here's a link http://millercenter.org/president/carter/essays/biography/4

[DemocratSinceBirth]

151. Respectfully your avatar is a little ironic...

Respectfully your avatar is a little ironic in light of the fact that Ted Kennedy challenged him, a sitting president of his own party, at the urging of Senate liberals because his policies weren't liberal enough.

All politicians including Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter served the interest of capital. This doesn't deny the fact many presidents tried to temper and humanize it so it would benefit us all.

[craigmatic]

152. I know it's ironic but I do like both. I'm not far from Plains so I like Carter. I'm liberal so I

like EMK.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

153. Travelled much of GA but I don't think I have ever been near Plains.

I once drove from Tally to Atlanta... That was one of the times I truly felt I was in the Old South.

[craigmatic]

154. It's like 70 miles from my house last time I went there was last spring. The museum is really

interesting if you've never been.

[HereSince1628]

109. His support for environmental issues put him at odds with business

I suppose that's anti-corporate by contemporary standards.

[Ichingcarpenter]

59. Jefferson Lincoln Rossevelt

?w=580&h=614

[BainsBane]

62. Excellent question

We live under capitalism, with a state intended and designed to promote the interests of capital. Therefore we have never had a President who has not served moneyed interests. The term "corporatist" tends to be used by people who have only recently begun to think about income inequality in the US, something endemic to our system but certainly worsening, in keeping with the overall trajectory of capitalist development. I wish they would read some Marxist theory and stop with the inane notion that capitalism rises or falls based on a single presidential candidate. The argument is entirely devoid of evidence or logic.

Then we see the examples they site: Carter the most conservative Democrat running for President at the time, far more conservative than the average Dems. He was also a peanut farmer, owner of a business that was certainly incorporated; and most absurdly the example of JFK, born into a very wealthy family who slashed taxes on the rich. The absurdity of those examples shows how vacuous the entire assumption that "corporatism" as something wrought by particular members of the political elite but not others. As you noted above, Presidents of the US have always severed the interests of capital; the system requires it. Now, that doesn't mean there aren't particular policies that we can champion that would soften the excesses of capitalism. We can seek better wages, better regulation of Wall Street, accountability for financial crimes, and a fairer tax system. But the idea that certain politicians are corporatist and not others is completely absurd. It shows a lack of awareness of the nature of capitalism and the capitalist state we live under. Marx, people: Read him. Read theories on the capitalist state. Read some histories on the development of capitalism.


A tangentially related pet peeve of mine is when people impose their contemporary use of the word "corporatist" and "corporatism" on writers from the historical past, like Adam Smith. He was talking about corporatist as in collective rather than individual, corporate bodies like the Church and royal monopolies, rather than business corporations as we understand them today. They do the same thing when discussing fascism and mistake the corporatist state (coming from the Latin corpus, like a body) with the capitalist state, which is what we currently live under. The corporatist state was something else, which I can explain in detail if anyone is interested. It was not rule by business. That is capitalism, our current system.

[Blue_In_AK]

75. Jimmy Carter, I think.

[tridim]

77. Our current president serves everyone, thus by definition he is not a corporatist.

The correct answer is Barack Obama.

[diabeticman]

79. Very good question

[KamaAina]

82. Washington?

[99Forever]

83. Even if your premise was not bullshit, which it is...

... does that somehow make corporate type government ok?,well the only thing I can say to that is, fuck that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

85. I will ignore your overheated rhetoric and ad hominem attack

Shrill and overheated rhetoric never fed a starving child, ended an immoral war, or provided shelter to the homeless...

We have a base and that is capitalism and we have a superstructure: government, culture, and institutions that prop it up, maintain it, and support it.

What is interesting is that it's usually folks on the right who deny this truth and laughingly argue that you and I have the same influence or can have the same influence on government as the Waltons, Bill and Melinda Gates, and Lloyd Blankfein.

Learn the difference between an empirical observation which I was making and a normative one, it's really POS 101 stuff, and get back to me.

[99Forever]

93. Precisely how does one go about ignoring something they've already acknowledged?

Condescending rhetoric doesn't bother me in the least. I see corporate apologists for exactly what they are.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

96. Let's do this sequentially

1) You insulted me first.
2) If you can't discern the difference between an empirical observation and a normative one think of a physician telling his patient that the black spot on his lung is cancer. That doesn't mean he supports cancer or thinks it's a good.
3) Big business has ruled America since George Washington gave his first Inaugural Address.

[Bobbie Jo]

107. Correct on all counts.

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Interesting thread, have a rec and a heart.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

110. I'm getting older and unfortunately fat and lazy. Sometimes I can be clearer.

Explaining something doesn't mean one is endorsing something.

Lots of great men have occupied the Oval Office but they didn't get there by having interests inimical to business...We live in a capitalist nation that is predicated on property rights. Nothing short of a violent revolution will change that.

Presidents like TR, FDR, JFK, and LBJ and yes, Barack Obama, have tried to bend capitalism to make it better serve the needs pf everybody but none purports to end it.

[99Forever]

120. Keep right on peddling your snake oil...

Plenty of suckers out there. An ass for every seat.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

125. So big business doesn't rule America and I have as much power as a billionaire ?

My congressperson is Brad Sherman. Like most congresspersons in the greater Los Angeles area his interests are tied to the entertainment industry. If Steven Spielberg and DemocratSinceBirth wants to discuss a few things over lunch who is Congressperson Sherman having lunch with and who gets to speak to his aide?


In a capitalist system money equals power, political and economic, and the more money you have the more power you have.

You don't even have to particularly perceptive to figure that out. Tony Montana figured that out and he was fresh off the boat:

[div class="excerpt"

When John Reed, socialist activist, and author of "Ten Days That Shook The World" which was the account of the Bolshevik Revolution that became the movie "Reds" was asked about the upcoming presidential election of his time he simply said "capital" and sat down.

[Rex]

132. Some people are fine living in a plutocracy, you can read their replies here stating such.

I guess they are happy with what they got and could care less about the human race.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

136. I don't believe folks are fine with the concentration of wealth.

I do believe folks are aware it exists.

There has always been a concentration of wealth. I would be interested to see a chart by year.

[Rex]

143. Okay then it seems folks here are fine with the plutocracy and don't care about change.

And why? Because that is always how it has been. One of the lamest excuses out there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. Changing the nature of capitalism,imho, seems a bit Quixotic.

I remember in the immediate aftermath of 9-11 there was all this highfalutin rhetoric of how the world was black and white and this was an opportunity to reshape the Middle East and build the world anew.

Tony Blair said "This is a moment to seize. The kaleidoscope has been shaken, the pieces are in flux, soon they will settle again. Before they do, let us reorder this world around us."


What a mess we have now. I'm pretty jaundiced when it comes to wholesale change.

[hifiguy]

105. Maybe Carter, but he started the deregulation ball rolling

and that probably disqualifies him.

LBJ? He's the last president who really fought for the working class and the poor. I'll go with him,

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. I feel like I'm being pulled back into a Poli Sci course

You have pluralist theorists who believe there are different groups in America jockeying for power and they are on more or less equal footing and you have elitist theorists that believe some groups have a hell of a lot more power than other groups. I will throw my lot in with the latter.

There is no countervailing force to big business.

[Rex]

134. There is no countervailing force to big business.

There is, it is called the government and is supposed to be in control of big biz, not the other way around. The Founders had in mind wealthy land owners, not 85 people that control most of the money on the planet.

Yes we live in a plutocracy, no doubt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

135. Unions were supposed to be a countervailing force but they are contracting.

The press also was supposed to be a countervailing power.

[Rex]

142. Very true, both unions and a free press were supposed to be checks on power.

Unions, like pensions are a dying breed and a free press is really the $$$ press. Good point.

[First Speaker]

138. Serious reply? Probably JFK...

...Carter and LBJ were capable of standing up to business some of the time, and certainly were capable of annoying them. But Carter was indeed, as has been said, "the most conservative Democrat since Cleveland", and his deregulation didn't exactly put the fear of God into the business oligarch class. LBJ's Great Society wasn't exactly embraced by the business elite--though some of the more enlightened of them supported it; it was a very different country then. But once Vietnam got rolling, and the gravy train *that* turned out to be for business, well, they weren't exactly afraid of him. But JFK was *of* the oligarch class, as FDR was, and this gave him a certain inoculation against business men. As Eisenhower wasn't impressed by generals, JFK wasn't impressed by the business class. Indeed, he famously quoted his father at the time of the US Steel imbroglio: "all businessmen are sons of bitches". He knew this in a way that no other Dem President since has...

[Rex]

145. I guess it would be the ones that had no big corporate sponsor to get them into office.

SO the question is, have all the past POTUSes been backed by a huge conglomerate at one time or another? I don't think we saw corporatist presidents until Nixon came along. Who was FDRs primary donor? What about Truman or JFK? Ford? Carter?

It would be interesting to do some research on this and find out how far back we can go with direct ties between POTUS and a particular corporation. Congress and the SCOTUS as well.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

147. JFK

Here is one reason that shows it-http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/IdesOfApril.html
Here's snip-

After the steel crisis, President Kennedy felt so much hostility from the leaders of big business that he finally gave up trying to curry their support. He told advisers Sorensen, O’Donnell, and Schlesinger, “I understand better every day why Roosevelt, who started out such a mild fellow, ended up so ferociously anti-business. It is hard as hell to be friendly with people who keep trying to cut your legs off.”[

[sendero]

149. Eisenhower, JFK.....

.... perhaps even LBJ.

All downhill after that. My pet belief is that the 60s scared the shit out of the oligarchy and they immediately set out to make sure it never happened again.