Why comparisons to Nixon in 1972, vs. "liberal" democrat is not valid

[salin]

an editorial by a centrist in our local paper really made me put to words why this false comparison bothers me so much. (BTW, his conclusion was that the only one who could have a chance would be Gephardt).

Please do not take my statements as the advocation of any candidate, this more has to do with the charges made against several candidates that they would be like McGovern against Nixon (I have heard that used against Dean, Kerry and Kucinich).

Context is everything. And the context today is very different than it was in 1972.

1. While the war in Vietnam was not popular in 1972, those most vocally opposed were perceived to be very young and part of the counter culture. Today, those with serious questions are much more mainstream. With the exception of the rightwing talking heads and pols, and their die hard supporters, the perception of the war opposition today as "hippies" is limited.

2. Even though the opposition was marginalized - the issue was big enough, even in 1972 Nixon had to address the issue and Americans unhappiness with the war. So he incorporated his "secret plan" to start decreasing troops in Vietnam as a campaign theme. Note - the discrediting of Nixon was not just watergate. Many media and political figures - even those sympathetic to Nixon - began having concerns about Nixon (which led to more scrutiny when the whole watergate issue exploded) - due to the publication of the Pentagon Papers. While the story broke before the 1972 election, it began a cycle of greater and greater distrust among politicians and some in the media (and the public?) about the policies and practices in Vietnam.

This latter point is important. Would watergate have been so vigorously pursued and led to the down fall, if there was not already growing, serious concerns about how that White House was doing business, and deceiving the American people? This bears directly to what is happening right now in Washington - and how it might affect the voting public.

(info on the Pentagon Papers: http://www.vva.org/pentagon/history/history.html

or
http://www.garygordonproductions.com/pentagon_papers.html

excerpt: The Papers revealed a more insidious involvement, including a secret war against the North Vietnamese; what Operation Plan 34A included was not only a deliberate step-by-step plan to sabotage the North Vietnamese but also a deliberate step-by-step plan to provoke them into a widened, overt war.

Don't take my word for it. Read it.

It was the implementation of Op-Plan 34A that provoked increased NVA patrol boat activity in the Gulf of Tonkin which created the circumstances for "the Gulf of Tonkin incident" in August '64 which gave Lyndon Johnson the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution-- the green light he was looking for to widen the war under his unfettered command. The achievement of this excuse and resolution, as revealed in the Papers, was all part of the plan.

Without the publication of the Pentagon Papers, the fiction that the North Vietnamese launched unprovoked attacks to which we had to respond would have prevailed.

What is different today?

Economy
Like Nixon, Bush has a weak/flagging economy. The contexts are very different and hard to compare. But some of the differences are very important. Both had high unemployment. But Bush has overseen an era where the job market is shifting and changing - there has been a net job-loss each month of his presidency, something not seen since Herbert Hoover was president (in the early depression era). His policies have not only seriously tried to address the problem, but his side political issues have seemed to exacerbate the problem (tax policies that favor the very multinationals that are pulling jobs out of the country, tax policies that negatively impact middle and lower classes thus not giving a consumer/demand side stimulus). In addition, he and his Congress have pushed policies that leave fewer safety nets for those citizens most impacted by the economy - leaving those citizens in worse condition.

War
Like Nixon, Bush is overseeing a war that has very mixed support. Unlike Nixon, Bush was the president that got us involved in the war.

Like Nixon, damning information has come out about the planning of the war and the lies told to the people about the war. Nixon, however, was not the president during the time that some of the damning things happened. Conversely, teamBush is solely responsible for the conditions surrounding this war and the lies told to the people about the war.

Unlike Nixon, the peace movement was broad based before the war - and is international. While at the time of the heavy warfare was going on the public opinion briefly peaked in favor of the war (a loyalty issue for the fellow Americans sent to fight), the skepticism has returned, with added fuel due concerns about the nature of the war (preemptive), the international isolation (and loss of international credibility), and the "post" (?) war conditions that are beginning to look like Vietnam. Remember there wasn't a recent historical reminder of a bad policy such as Vietnam, when Vietnam occured. This example has lead to broader concerns over this war (meaning broader segments of the population) than existed in the early years of the Vietnam war.

Now add that the scandals that are emerging are eroding trust on a grand scale a year before the election.

........

I say all of this to suggest that the context of the election is very, very different than the context of the 1972 election. A big part of what needs to happen, whoever the candidate running against Bush will be, needs to be strategies to reach people (one on one strategies) in order to combat the media echo chamber that seems particularly keen to pick on small (exagerated, or false) items about the democratic candidates in a long-standing smear campaign. Only way to combat that is through a whole lot of discussions.

Fortunately, almost daily, the Bush administration, and their lackeys in congress, give factual ammunition to be used against themselves regarding the economy, regarding War policies, regarding votes that are hostile to citizens and favor corporations (eg Hatch - pushing to limit the ability to sue for asbestoes health related damages; eg Congress working to prevent allowing Canadian medicines to reach the US market forcing the US companies to be more competitive in their pricing and to provide a market based approach to lowering prescriptions costs, the list goes on and on and on). Using these real news items, and letting the MASSIVE weight of the number of items that are alarming/disturbing to many individuals (if and when they actually hear about them) is the best way to counter the pervasive GOP media/pr/campaign deluge.

Focus on the HOW to combat it rather than weeding out candidates based on a false comparison - and we will again win the White House, and can take back control of Congress. Keep focusing on false comparisons is just a diversion, and is done so to keep us divided and ineffectual.

Rant over.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. WOW! The rant ended a bit too soon

With a little tweaking and a capsule about the Pentagon papers, this would be front page article material. It belongs on the front page. It is far too insightful to sink in GD or not be seen by the many that travel to DU read the front page and don't participate in the forums. ( Urges Salin to go for it :thumbsup: )

I think perhaps the greatest service you have done is to pull the rug out from under the pseudo historians that look at the Nixon VietNam era only through the micro-rather than MACRO events that underscored that era.

You have taken the historical context of that time and rightly underscored the correlations that DO exist but also underscored that the correlations being floated now by the anti-progressive middle of the road agenda that seeks to equate anyone who feels our aggressive, cowboy policy is impractical in the real world of concerns about terrorism. I refuse to call it a war on terrorism because that only serves to continue the linguistic manipulation of the phrase.

The only point I would further elucidate is that the events of WATERGATE set the tone for the disgust and distrust of the generation either paying OR NOT paying attention to the minutia of today's voting populace that make it so difficult to frame such a complex web of deceit.

YOu have unearthed a logical fallacy. Apples and oranges are fruits, therefore apples are oranges.

[salin]

2. who says a front page article

can't be cowritten... hint, hint... :D

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. I've already printed this..I am miles ahead of you

[Elidor]

13. I agree - front page stuff

Salin's post isn't a rant, it's a DU editorial just begging to be submitted.

Excellent points all around. Though I have my doubts about just how far to the left the anti-Vietnam movement was. I think it was more mainstream than we have been led to believe. It's more colorful supporters must be a handy symbol for those who would discredit it even now. But yes, Bushco is in much worse shape than Nixon could ever have accomplished, all of it wrought by their own hands.

"This latter point is important. Would watergate have been so vigorously pursued and led to the down fall, if there was not already growing, serious concerns about how that White House was doing business, and deceiving the American people?"

The two are indeed cut from whole cloth, but watergate was serious enough of itself to merit impeachment and conviction. Not the burglary, but the events it was related to - using the IRS and FBI to harrass political enemies, covert "ratfucking" ops funded by soft money, etc. It's clear that truly impeachable behavior is both much more likely to attract attention with an administration lacking in good relations with the media and/or the congress and is representative of a wider problem of combined arrogance and incompetence.

Still, Nixon couldn't touch BushCo for sheer over-the-top criminal ineptitude. Somewhere right now, Nixon is shaking his head and saying of Bush, "That guy is toast."

ps. a minor point: I believe comparisons are indeed appropriate - but they need to highlight the differences as your post does. If you're suggesting that people who compare the two periods are politically uninformed, I don't agree. They are extremely similar in too many details, and the Nixon era is a highly potent meme for a large number of people. But that's just nitpicking on my part.

[salin]

21. You raise very good points

if I do turn this into an article, you will see them incorporated.

To the final point, I think the comparisons when made to draw a conclusion (especially compared to the campaign/election) are not valid - as some of the context changes the variables tremendously.

However a compare and contrast approach - where one does consider some of the more legitimate comparisons of the bush Wh to the Nixon Wh are useful. Particularly when you consider that a number of the current heavy hitters (including Cheney and Rumsfeld) cut their teeth in the Nixon Wh.

[buddhamama]

4. more than a rant

excellent,salin.

i agree on counts, especially where the focus should be.

it is a double edge sword this interest in and knowledge we strive for. do we over analyze, draw parralels that do not exist and make false conclusions and sink into cynicism...i think so. i have been guilty of this myself.

i have suggested a few 'bizarre' theories that have been pooh-poohed because it didn't fit the 'norm'.

combatting 'it' should not be as hard as it appears.

i strongly think that media (re:corps.) are more than willing to sell out Bush.

it can be done. i'll think on this.

thanks,salin :thumbsup:

[salin]

7. I hope you are correct

about the media (being willing to sell out Bush and start reporting real issues).)

[redeye]

5. Can't really think...

...of anything to say except "Wow!" Very well-written, and, like NSMA, I recommend it for front-page.

On another note, there's another difference between 1972 and 2004: McGovern campaigned horrendously, whereas hopefully the Democratic candidate will do better and will know how to pounce on scandals and how to hold Bush accountable to his actions (if only McGovern had insisted on making a big deal out of Watergate...).

[salin]

6. Interesting point... timely

regarding McGovern's reluctance to push the Watergate thing. Seems that some candidates are taking this same approach.

[buddhamama]

8. don't know how to label

this action but it could be Bush's watergate, insofar as it mirrors abuse of power to stay in power (without the deep throat,maybe)
the outing of Wilson's wife i think could bring Bush down.

i mentioned this before in another thread earlier in the week but i think it bears repeating; this was the ultimate betrayal, to out one of your own. it breaks a trust that is unspoken but necessary. i sincerely believe that there are CIA and other agents who are extremely ticked about this, and will do what they can to expose Bush.
this Administration crossed a line.


i think the DEMs should focus more on this.
i think they will find this to be unacceptable to the American public as well,especially in these times.

plus it touches upon another matter, hthe lengthsto which this Administration will go to protect itself,its secrets.

a bit of hypocricy too thrown in for good measure.

[salin]

9. My suspicion

is that one of the outers was Rove - or was acting on Rove's behalf. It is his style. The coverup - if it is pursued - will be huge, given that all of Bush's political successes are directly related to Rove (he would be lost without Rove).

Not only is the issue one of security of information and 'agents' in other areas (which is why it is such a serious offense) - the work she was doing was vital to our national interest. She was tracking the flow of WMDs. If blowing up that network of information isn't a big blow to the "War on Terror" than I don't know what is.

I agree it should be trumpted - they acted politically and didn't blink an eye at compromising US national security.

[buddhamama]

11. yes--exactly

it is not just an assault on intelligence/law enforcement agencies who rely on a profound trust of their colleagues,superiors,etc., to do their job but this was an assault on the public's trust as well.

however some may feel about the CIA, we do depend on them for our intelligence and protection.

and this Administration sacrificed much to discredit an 'enemy' and hold on to power.

[tomp]

10. interesting perspective. thanks. let me add...

...one other important difference between iraq and vietnam is that not only is bush directly responsible for its initiation but there was MASSIVE opposition to it from the get go. i think it is only reasonble to expect that that opposition will increase as time passes, more soldiers die, and more lies are exposed.

since the coup, i have been unable to see any more reasonable approach than to attack bush at every opportunity. nothing has changed my mind.

[Bombtrack]

12. It's perfectly valid

The anti-war movement, which has been latched onto by the Dean and Kucinich campaigns, is not mainstream. Only 20 percent of the population agrees with there opinion of decision to go to war, how is that mainstream?

Of course not every thing is parallel to 1972, it would also be similar to 84, and in a way to '88(with Kerry anyway).

People who are believers in these primary campaigns, and not the Pro-Bush people who are also supporting them, don't really know anything about political science, or else they wouldn't think about supporting someone like Dean, much less Kucinich. All they think about is how they must be right about the war, and that they need to nominate someone who also is convinced that they are right, even though it already happened.

Basically they don't care if they lose an election based on an issue which already happened and they can't change.

It's no coincidence that these are the same people, here anyway, that also think that we should pull our troops out of Iraq now, it shows the misguided dogmatism that has warped their ability to make rational decisions about the country

They are the kind of people that make independants, not want to be called democrats, and democrats independants. Reaching out is selling out. Someone disagreeing with them on an issue or 2 makes them 2-faced or whores, and electability is a dirty word.

[salin]

15. Au contraire - though there are superficial similarities - they are very

different.

Mind you the election will not be won or lost on whether or not we went into Iraq. However doubts and questions by voters about HOW that decision was made, about the pre and post war planning and whether it was premature and put our men and women at risk, and whether the actions will make us "safer" or "Less Safe" in the war on terrorism, WILL shape how people view this presidency. That in turn will shape how they view (as we get closer to the election) his stand on other issues.

Back to the "anti-war" sentiments. Back in the 1960s it was years before the "anti-war" were even visible, as in the early years very few people were vocal about it. It wasn't until the draft was instituted, and the fatigue of daily deaths viewed on the news that the 'movement' picked up enough steam to be real noticeable. Even then, the participants were viewed as fringe hippies.

This time around the sentiment before the invasion ran about 50 percent against invasion, and dropped to about 28% IF the US were to go in alone/without the UN. Those numbers changed at the time of the onset of the war - as is understandable - as US men and women were going over there to risk their lives and not to be supportive was viewed by many as harmful to those people on the ground in Iraq.

The differences include - this time there was a large sentiment (50%) not in favor of the war before the war. Thus there was more identification with those who felt strongly enough to 'protest'. The protests themselves were often multigenerational (from kids to grandparents), multiclass, and often had war veterans participating. Thus except for the die hards - it was harder to completely marginalize.

Why is this important - think BIG picture. As doubts are raised about the soundness of the decision making process and the planning by the White House, it is easier to - in one's own mind - ask questions. And asking questions is not threatening in the same way as it would have been in 1971 - when the only people vocally asking questions were percieved to be unwashed, hippies.

As to the candidates themselves I believe it will be the campaign they run, and whether they continue to raise awareness through their campaigns that all is not right in America - including our foreign policy; and that ironically some moves made by this administration in the wake of 911 seem to do the opposite of what the administration claims (they claim to make us more safe; many reports indicate that indeed we are as vulnerable if not more vulnerable for attack today then we were two years ago). The candidate who can carry this message blended with a real response/different approach that is positive and visionary will be able to beat bush.

Who that is? Lets see how the primaries go and talk later on that point.

By the way, I have been speaking with peace folks, and almost all concede that withdrawing troops at the moment would create more havoc and damage to Iraq. Most of what I hear is people desiring a realistic plan being made that includes an exit strategy down the road; a plan that does infrastructure investment (as we promised in Afghanistan but never delivered) which would lead to economic incentive for cooperation and democratization (employment on various projects, such as construction - buys a whole lot more loyalty than does a primarily policing role). It seems that you are imputing some beliefs and statements on others that may not universally apply as is suggested.

[Bombtrack]

16. your numbers are wrong

70 plus percent continue to think that the decision to invade was the right decision. The numbers for those who think that it's going well are much lower, but they still are not against the decision.

And there are plenty of people here who think that we should bring all the soldiers home etc.

Any debunking of Dean talking points is met with 15 people with the same opinion attacking you. I have tried several times to point out how ludicrous their empty claims of his electability are. To no avail

The anti-war democrats are damaging our party. Just as in the cold-war the minority of doves did.

The election will be about the rebuttle to the claim that all democrats can do is complain and have no solutions. Well I haven't seen Deans solution to destroying radical islam, or protect civil liberties, or reform intelligence.

All he can do is blame everything on congressional democrats not being real democrats, exactly the kind of rhetoric that got Nader his 4 percent

[salin]

18. Perhaps

you are confusing your frustration with dynamics at a website with life outside of the website.

At a recent democratic county meeting this kind of dynamic wasn't operational. There wasn't a Dean camp in the corner working to supress the voice of everyone.

Hell the conversation wasn't about the presidential election at all. It was about finding a systematic strategy for identifying registered voters who haven't voted recently, and working to increase the voter turnout and strengthen the party.

Don't let a political website warp your interpretation of things.

Go volunteer at the local level if you are not doing so already. I think you will find very different dynamics there.

[salin]

19. by the way

have I ever mentioned a single candidate in this thread?

Believe me the GOP will compare any candidate to Nixon/McGovern. It is called trying to demoralize the opposition and depress the voter turnout. The analogy doesn't hold for any democratic candidate because the context today is very, very different.

Not sure what your rant about Dean and Dean supporters or Nader have to do with what I have posted.

[ulysses]

17. subjective much?

Did you even read what salin wrote?

Most of what you've written is either opinion (as opposed to fact), questionable or just plain wrong. A simple "no" will suffice in response.

[Bombtrack]

20. according to the post

the opinion of 20 percent is mainstream, that's fact?

I did read it and it's wishful thinking and emotion not logic

[indigo32]

23. Have you a link to those 20% numbers?

also you are just plain mistaken in thinking that the War vote is the ONLY issue for ALL supporters of Dean and Kucinich.
Your obvious anger is convincing noone.

[ulysses]

14. read and bookmarked

A lot of desperately needed perspective here. Excellent, salin! :toast:

[TheBigGuy]

22. I dont see any similaritys between Vietnam and Iraq.

The deal with Vietnam was that it was a real war that was dragging on and on.

The the was "real" in that we where sustaining alot of casualties, and there where real, hard fought battles, and we where fighting another country that we never really did invade (North Vietnam) as well as an allied guerilla insurgency. Not only that the enemy was allied with and being supplied by a foreign superpower (the USSR), with the added fear that this superpower and possibly China would have joined the war if we had invaded NVA (the precedent here would have been the Korean War).


In Iraq the war was fought and quickly won, and Saddam was not allied or supplied by a foreign superpower.

We are engaged right now in sort of low-intensity guerilla war, alot different from the one we fought in Vietnam. We are taking casualities, but we are not fighting a North Vietnam/VC type of war. This is a fragemented guerllia actiion, taking what amounts to potshots at our troops.

So the admin can still make a good case they they can stamp this type of insurgency out or seriously neutralize it. If they cant we dont know that yet...its too early I think to make that case that we have to pull out because we "cant win"...which was the case against Vietnam.

[MrPrax]

24. Nice rationalization....BUT

who is comparing Iraq with Vietnam?
why not compare Panama with Iraq?
Or Grenada with Vietnam?
or Afghanistan with Haiti?
um...other than the US death toll, this rap seems utterly meaningless as far as 'expansionist' policy in 2003 and leaves out the 'green belt' strategy under Haig and his current offspring...
Sure...the economy in '72 was different and sure Nixon introduced food stamps and the environmental protections and sure 'wage and price' controls carried on to Ford with the WIN campaign...BUT...the US is currently stationed in 62 different countries in the world and at anytime there could be an 'adjunct' to a foreign policy decision

But Agreed...911 was Tolkin Bay was USS Liberty or Reischtag Fire or anything #5030 as is currently making the rounds about the war-niks...

[salin]

25. My argument isn't about the war itself

but the political context of elections during the war.

Hard to say how it will play out in terms of fickle public perception. I generally chose not to play the role of a forcaster because I think that is foolish.

My point is that the political contexts are very different, while on the surface there do seem to be similarities. But those differences are likely to play out differently in the upcoming election. As a researcher - my eye is always attuned for variables - and in this case there do seem to be a number of variables that are different, that may (or may not) play out in the upcoming elections.

[newyawker99]

26. kick

:kick: