babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » RFK's Murder: A Missed Opportunity for the US?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: RFK's Murder: A Missed Opportunity for the US?
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 June 2003 03:59 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Beirut Daily Star
quote:

On the morning of June 5, 1968, America received a warning about the costs of its foreign policy when New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Los Angeles.
A young man named Sirhan Bishara Sirhan had raised a .22 caliber pistol in the Ambassador Hotel, and aimed at Kennedy from a distance of just a few yards. When former LA Rams football player Rosey Grier and others tackled Sirhan as he was still firing his weapon, the shooter cried out, “I can explain.” Explain what? He also allegedly stated: “I did it for my country.” What country? What exactly was Sirhan trying to say? And did America listen?
What America saw in the assassination was yet another political murder climaxing a decade ripped by violence ­ the assassinations of John Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the war in Vietnam, and urban unrest in Watts, Detroit, and Newark. Time magazine seemed to speak for millions when it asked, “Why?,” and spoke of “deep doubts about the stability of America.”
Time went on to state that the best way for the country to move forward was by “eradicating the conditions that trigger the assassin’s finger.” In an effort to do that, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed a commission to investigate violence in the US, and asked the Congress for gun control legislation. These were real issues, to be sure, but were they the only ones?
In fact, Robert Kennedy’s murder offered another, different lesson that America failed to absorb, a lesson about Palestinian anger. The Kennedy assassination was the first case of Middle Eastern “terrorism” on American soil ­ decades before the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, and before Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda became household names.
Sirhan was a Palestinian whose family had fled in West Jerusalem during the first Arab-Israeli war of 1948. Raised first in Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem and later in Pasadena, California, Sirhan grew up deeply embittered about Israel and the plight of fellow Palestinian refugees.
Sirhan’s early support for Kennedy turned to hatred after the Senator advocated the sale of advanced F-4 Phantom jets to Israel in the wake of the 1967 war, a war that signaled growing US support for the Jewish state. Sirhan’s diaries revealed the depth of his anger when they recorded, “RFK must die!” Kennedy was shot one year to the day after Israel launched the 1967 war.
Although most Americans became aware that Sirhan was an Arab ­ he was referred to as a Jordanian citizen ­ the source of his rage was not clearly explained in most stories. In those days few people even knew what a Palestinian was ­ Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said shortly afterward that there was “no such thing” as a Palestinian people and that “they did not exist” ­ and even fewer understood their grievances. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by the Israelis was barely a year old, and the PLO would not be taken over by Yasser Arafat until a year later. The hijackings and killings that would bring the Palestinians to the center of the world stage had not yet begun.
Did Americans miss an early opportunity to draw conclusions about the political backlash they might experience as a result of US policy in the Middle East? Sirhan may have been mentally unstable ­ and there was plenty of testimony at his trial to suggest as much ­ but he clearly saw himself, like today’s suicide bombers, as a fighter for his people.
It also seems clear that Sirhan’s fellow Palestinians became convinced after the assassination that high profile violence might advance their cause and put the name “Palestinian” into the headlines: One month later, the Popular Front for the Liberation (PFLP) hijacked its first plane, an Israeli passenger jet. Fourteen months after that, the PFLP hijacked its first American plane. Some Palestinians clearly saw Sirhan as a hero; in February, 1973, when members of the Black September organization seized (and eventually killed) American hostages at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum, one of their demands was the release of Sirhan.
Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda operatives who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon decades later, were, like Sirhan, Arabs motivated by their anger at American foreign policy. But today, as in 1968, Americans seem to obfuscate this political motivation by focusing on what their leaders insist are broader cultural reasons for the attacks. The president and the secretary of state quickly called the terrorist strikes an “attack on civilization” and assaults “on democracy.” In dodging any political motivations for the attacks, US leaders are doing the American people a disservice at this crucial time by leading them down the same path of delusion as when many Americans de-politicized Robert Kennedy’s murder 35 years ago.
The roots of terrorism, like those of crime, are complex. They require an appreciation of the complexities and interconnectedness of the modern world. I fear that as in Robert Kennedy’s assassination 35 years ago, America is missing an opportunity to address the hard questions posed by violent acts associated with its role in the Middle East. Who knows where the country might be today if it had learned different lessons from the tragedy of June 1968? Have Americans already missed the lesson of September 2001 by invading Afghanistan and now Iraq?

Michael R. Fischbach is professor of history at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Virginia. His book, Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, will be co-published this October by Columbia University Press and the Institute for Palestine Studies. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star



From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 07:30 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is a bit much. If you're going to link RFK's murder to modern terrorism, then so were assasinations going back to 1914. That Sirhan and let's say, the 9/11 WTC attackers, may have acted out of similar motives, doesn't mean they're both instances of terrorism.

Besides, by June 1968 most Americans were stunned by the assasination of four major leaders within less than five years that they didn't give a shit what the reason was. And that assumed that Sirhan actually fired the shot that killed RFK, which many have disputed, or that he was not "hypnotized," as he has claimed. But I won't get into that!

The RFK campaign was the first one I followed. Believe me, there was a missed opportunity for the U.S. But it was not related to the middle east.

[ 04 June 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 04 June 2003 08:17 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, although McGovern was much more progressive. Another of those Minnesotans who'd have been on the NDP if they were on the Canadian side?
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2003 11:01 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, RFK's competition at the time, for the left, was Eugene McCarthy -- remember all the hippies who went "Clean for Gene"?

(Another Minnesotan, though, it's true. )

Odd as McCarthy became in later years, in 1968 he looked very good to many of us on the left, on the Canadian left as well.

Even so, RFK's assassination was a blow to us all. That year was so dark. It began to look as though anyone even vaguely liberal was going to get bumped off, or beat up by the Chicago cops.

josh, though: I think you are giving that article too short shrift. It makes a point that matters.

One of the factors that animate discussions of Israel/Palestine on this board, I think, is the startled realization many young North Americans have come to that, while they grew up knowing a great deal about Israel, and much of it good, or at least "proper" -- ie: Israel is just like us -- they had internalized a prejudiced view of the Palestinians as a pathetic people, and probably more generally a prejudiced view of all Arabs as vaguely suspect, corrupt, threatening, etc etc etc.

In my memory, josh, it is a very very recent phenomenon that either the Palestinians or the Arab cultures in general have received any very widespread objective, never mind sympathetic, coverage in the North American pop media.

That Sirhan Sirhan's declared motive (however affected by dementia) was not taken seriously at the time tells us something about that time. It tells us a lot about popular ignorance of Middle East history and politics until very recently. And it probably suggests a lot about the interests of propaganda media (like Time) and government elites in keeping people's attention diverted from serious and growing problems.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 11:02 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, McGovern was from South Dakota. And while not taking anything away from him, he was not more "progressive" or "left" than any number of Democratic Senators at the time. Labor in particular had some problems with him. He was no more "left" than RFK, and in fact entered the '68 race right before the Democratic Convention at the request of many RFK delegates.

[ 04 June 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2003 11:05 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I repeat: the left challenge was from McCarthy, not McGovern.

Time for a rousing chorus of that great old Tom Lehrer song, "Whatever became of Hubert?"


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 11:11 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, Humphrey is a sad case. He was a great liberal, progressive, whatever, before becoming vice-president. He championed civil rights in the South before it became popular. He stood for a host of progressive domestic programs from medicare to aid to farmers. Yet, when he is remembered now it is for his support for the Vietnam war as Johnson's vice-president, the '68 race against McCarthy and RFK, and the Chicago convention. It's a real tragedy. The man deserved, and deserves, better.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2003 11:13 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Have you read my long post above, josh? I think we were posting at the same time earlier.

Lehrer's song actually does Humphrey credit. It makes fun of him as VP, yes: but it reminds everyone of what he had been before.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 11:24 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, you should know after 9/11 that Americans don't give much of a damn for the underlying reason of violence being perpetrated on their soil. And, again, there was so much else going on at the time. Not only was this just the latest string in a series of assasinations, but there were major riots in the cities and a war in Vietnam. Those things pretty much crowded out every else. The mideast didn;t become a major concern for most Americans until the '73 oil embargo, which affected them directly.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2003 11:40 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, josh. That's what I meant. That is the point of al-Q's article, no?

The disconnect between the popular understanding of what was happening internationally and ... what was happening internationally -- that is the point, no?

I cannot believe that many USian diplomats did not grasp, even way back in the sixties, that Israel/Palestine was a poweder-keg.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 04 June 2003 11:43 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, I meant McCarthy, not McGovern. That was a VERY long time ago.

Edited to add: Here is the Tom Lehrer song on Hubert Humphrey:

ARTIST: Tom Lehrer
TITLE: Whatever Became of Hubert?

Whatever became of Hubert
Has anyone heard a thing
Once he shone on his own
Now he sits home alone
And waits for the phone to ring

Once a fiery liberal spirit
Ah, but now when he speaks he must clear it
Second fiddle's a hard part, I know
When they don't even give you a bow

"We must protest his treatment, Hubert"
Says each newspaper reader
As someone once remarked to Schubert
"Take us to your Lieder"

Sorry about that

Whatever became of you, Hubert
We miss you, so tell us please
Are you sad, are you cross, are you gathering moss
While you wait for the boss to sneeze

Does Lyndon, recalling when he was VP
Say, "I'll do unto you like they did unto me"
Do you dream about staging a coup
Hubert, what happened to you

[ 04 June 2003: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 11:48 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
McCarthy was not to the left of the likes of RFK, McGovern and Humphrey. That's a popular misconception. His stance on Vietnam was what made him appear leftist. He would have fit more comfortably with the Tory party of the 1960s, than with the NDP.

The State Department has never been a big fan of Israel. Secretary of State George Marshall threatened to resign in 1948 when Truman recognized Israel.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2003 12:23 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That was a VERY long time ago.

No. It was yesterday.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 04 June 2003 01:11 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think its telling about US politics that in a race between the most decent man to run for president - McGovern and the most venal - Nixon; Nixon won in a massive landslide.
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Maggot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3585

posted 04 June 2003 03:00 PM      Profile for Maggot   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
If I remember correctly, RFK used McCarthy's campaign as a litmus test of whether or not a Democratic candidate could win the nomination while espousing an anti-Vietnam war agenda. Clearly, as McCarthy had shown, one could.

RFK, ever the opportunist — he was a Commie bashing crusader who, along with his brother, fabricated a fear-generating weapons gap with the Soviets in order to snatch victory in the 1960 election -- came very late to the wonderful world of liberal causes.

That he, and his brother, have been been deified since their murders is understandable, but flies in the face of their track records, and logic.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 04 June 2003 03:13 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think its telling about US politics that in a race between the most decent man to run for president - McGovern and the most venal - Nixon; Nixon won in a massive landslide.

Perhaps, but possibly it's simply more telling about Nixon, and the lengths to which he was prepared to go. As later emerged, he was willing to engage in illegalities, up to and including subverting the Constitution, to a truly breath-taking degree. He was sui generis, and that almost no-one in the political system at the time had anticipated such venality is not necessarily an indictment of said politicos.

Besides, for all his "decency," McGovern was a fairly hapless candidate -- as Nixon's crew had anticipated. Thus their sabotage of Ed Muskie's campaign in '72.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 03:17 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's an unfair assessment Maggot. First of all, RFK went through a great transformation after his brother's murder. His 68' campaign was not only an effort to end the war in Vietman, but he was the one politician who could bring working class whites and blacks together, and who spoke of trying to do something about the violent nature of American society.

And the McCarthy charge must be put in context. RFK and Johnson hated each other. RFK was torn about entering the race in late '67 and early '68 for this very reason--because people would see it only as a reflection of his hatred of Johnson. He sent a message to McCarthy several days prior to the New Hampshire primary indicating that he would enter the race. Nevertheless, he knew the "opportunism" charge would stick to him, unfair though it was.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 04 June 2003 04:21 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps, but possibly it's simply more telling about Nixon, and the lengths to which he was prepared to go.

Nope,sorry 'lance. If voters hadn't glommed onto what kind of creature Nixon was by then it was willful ignorance. Nixon appealed to the voter's dark side with knee-jerk wedge issues and they ate it up in record numbers. Sure he sabotaged Muskie, and sure McGovern's campaign had problems, but still, faced with a stark choice they chose the bad guy in a landslide.

Josh you just recited the official Kennedy family spin on Bobby's '68 run. I usually cut US 'progressives' a lot more slack than some of my leftist buddies. I realize the political milieu they have to deal with. However everything I've read about the Kennedys in recent years has me leaning much more towards Maggot's spin than yours.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 04 June 2003 04:32 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If voters hadn't glommed onto what kind of creature Nixon was by then it was willful ignorance. Nixon appealed to the voter's dark side with knee-jerk wedge issues and they ate it up in record numbers.

I suppose, if you're thinking of 1972. I was originally thinking more of 1968, when Nixon (unlike Humphrey, until far too late) at least seemed to be promising an end to the war. But by '72... yeah, you're right, no excuse for that.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 04:33 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is in no way spin JB. If you don't believe me, I suggest you read Richard Goodwin's book Remembering America, in which he substantiates those facts. Goodwin, besides working for JFK and Johnson, took part in running the McCarthy campaign, but switched to RFK after he entered the race. He was privy to all the machinations, and his recollections have never been refuted.

And lance, anyone who witnessed or heard about Nixon's redbaiting tactics in the 1940s and 1950s would have been well aware what kind of creature Nixon was. There was never a "new" Nixon. The Nixon of 1968 was the Nixon of 1952 and the Nixon of 1972.

[ 04 June 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 04 June 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Josh, let's just take the decision to enter the race after McCarthy had shown how vulnerable Johnson was in New Hampshire. The Kennedy/Goodwin spin is just as you say - didn't want it to look like a personal feud with Johnson, wanted to save the party from a deadly split that would elect Nixon.

Anti-war activists in the Democratic party had been after Kennedy to run since mid '67 but I will bet money the decision to stay out was mostly from political considerations. The delegate selection process was seriously rigged in Johnson's favor. (The process was opened up in '72 as a result, and this more than Nixon's dirty-tricks allowed McGovern to take the nomination.) Even after Johnson dropped out and Kennedy won several primaries including California, Humphrey would have still been the favorite at Chicago. He stayed out so long because he felt he couldn't win. It was oportunism to get in after McCarthy showed it might be done.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 05:13 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's no denying that political calculations went into the mix. Johnson controlled the party and the convention, etc. RFK was a politician. He knew the odds. But the Tet offensive in late January 68 changed his view. By early February 68, he told close advisors that he was going to get in. That was a month before the New Hampshire primary.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Maggot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3585

posted 04 June 2003 05:14 PM      Profile for Maggot   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I want to weep for the righteous America, embodied by the spirit (if not always the deeds) of RFK...

...or perhaps I'm just chenneling Ed Muskie.

C'mon people. It's a joke.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2003 05:33 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, I haven't read Goodwin, so I can't say. I would like to believe what you say -- as Maggot implies, even as he is scoffing, many would.

Could you, or someone else, please remind me of how we have learned, since 1968, of the true strangeness of Eugene McCarthy?

I must say, that saddened me. I knew a number of young Canadians studying in the U.S. in '68 who campaigned for either McCarthy or Kennedy, and it was certainly true of them that the breakdown was leftie vs soft liberal -- ie: the lefties worked for McCarthy, the respectable liberals for Kennedy. Maybe that distinction doesn't make sense in the U.S., but it sure did here (and occasionally still does).

A major factor in the 1968 election, I think, was the horror of the Dems convention in Chicago. And it really was horror. Everyone had already watched three assassinations on TV. Then the Chicago cops decided it would be a neat idea to rout all the McCarthy delegates out of their hotel-room beds in the middle of the night and beat them up. Canadian tourists were tossed through plate-glass windows when they happened to get in the way of the police riot. The Weatherman (please note: singular usage is correct) turned up and performed Days of Rage for the first time. William F. Buckley Jr and Gore Vidal spit at each other on international TV.

I mean, it didn't scare me, but I will admit it got a bit over the top at times, and it obviously scared a lot of USian voters.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2003 05:37 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: It is true: anyone who was an adult at the time of the Kennedy-Nixon race knew very well from then on exactly how to evaluate Richard Nixon. And many had, of course, known before.

I remember watching the results the night he was elected and thinking over and over again, But haven't these people seen the poster????

(Would you buy a used car from this man?)


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 05:53 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually it may have been the converse in the US. Someone once wrote that the A students were for McCarthy while the B students were for RFK. I think it broke down more along economic and geographic lines. The wealthier and more suburban liberals supported McCarthy, while the middle and lower middle class urban liberals supported RFK. And, of course, among blacks, latinos, native Americans, and those on the lower end of the economic scale in general, it was no contest.

McCarthy was more poet than politician. He'd rather recite poetry with Robert Lowell than roll up sleeves and plot political strategy. And he had a very elitist, conservative streak in him that led him to depise many of his fellow Democrats.

Had it not been for Chicago, Humphrey probably would have won. But had it not been for a lot of things that year, Nixon never would have won.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2003 05:57 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He'd rather recite poetry with Robert Lowell than roll up sleeves and plot political strategy.

Oh, gee, you just made my life so hard, josh.

When I asked about McCarthy, though, I didn't mean in the '68 election. I meant since. Has he not really shocked a lot of us since? Forgive fuzzy brain: I just vaguely remember being shocked by political positions he took in recent years.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 06:03 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, as I said, he has a conservative streak. I think he endorsed Reagan in 80. He also detests any type of campaign finance reform.

I guess he's the Neil Young of American politics.

[ 04 June 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 June 2003 06:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS: josh, you happier with recitations with Theodore Roethke?

quote:

The Waking


I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.
I feel my fate in what I cannot fear.
I learn by going where I have to go.

We think by feeling. What is there to know?
I hear my being dance from ear to ear.
I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.

Of those so close beside me, which are you?
God bless the Ground! I shall walk softly there,
And learn by going where I have to go.

Light takes the Tree; but who can tell us how?
The lowly worm climbs up a winding stair;
I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.

Great Nature has another thing to do
To you and me; so take the lively air,
And, lovely, learn by going where to go.

This shaking keeps me steady. I should know.
What falls away is always. And is near.
I wake to sleep, and take my waking slow.
I learn by going where I have to go.


Forgive the self-indulgence, josh -- but every once in a while I remember how much I have learned from many Americans, and how much I have loved them.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 06:11 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 04 June 2003 07:30 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And lance, anyone who witnessed or heard about Nixon's redbaiting tactics in the 1940s and 1950s would have been well aware what kind of creature Nixon was. There was never a "new" Nixon.

Fair enough. But -- and no offence intended, mind you -- what percentage of the mass electorate do you suppose would have known about this, or taken it into account, in 1968? Not a preponderance, I'll warrant. Surely some people bought the "new Nixon" rubbish, else he would have been trounced by Humphrey, rather than beating him narrowly.

I'm not claiming any greater discrimination on the part of Canadian voters, you understand. Trudeau was no Nixon (who, indeed, called PET an "asshole" -- high praise considering the source), but despite War Measures, got re-elected in 1972, albeit with a minority. Then again, most English-speaking Canadians actually approved of martial law during the October Crisis.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 04 June 2003 07:36 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, don't forget Nixon also ran in '60. Both in '60 and '68 he got less than 50% of the vote. It was only after four years in office, and the diplomatic opening to China and imposing wage and price controls and a weakened opponent, that he got a large majority.

It's not comparable, but Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the civil war and is considered the country's greatest president.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 04 June 2003 07:53 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right. And in 1968 Nixon had George Wallace playing the spoiler role, though likely that just drained off votes Nixon would have got anyway. What a dreadful election that must have been.

There's an old Johnny Hart "BC" comic I like -- possibly the only one with a political edge. One caveguy is lying on a rock, couch-fashion, talking to another who's working as a shrink. Patient says, "I have this recurring dream where I go to vote and there's only one name on the ballot." Shrink asks "What name?" Patient: "Humphrey Wallace Nixon."

[ 04 June 2003: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 June 2003 11:25 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, it's quite refreshing to read of the politics of an earlier time, before one has been born.

So, on Nixon: after having read The Trial of Henry Kissinger, it makes me wonder how critical the negotiations to end the Vietnam War were to Humphrey's success. If Nixon had not used his back-channel, Kissinger, to manipulate the South Vietnamese negotiations, would Humphrey not have won, and genuinely been able to end the war four years earlier?

History would have been so different, I think. Humphrey would have been far better situated to help the US weather the oil embargo of 1973, since he would not have been weakened by a simmering political scandal. He also wouldn't have begun the process of awakening the inner asshole in people as Nixon did by catering to a soft-conservative constituency; in the worst case he might have delayed it for enough years that Reagan's Cold-Warrior mythos and dogma would never have caught on.

quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
In my memory, josh, it is a very very recent phenomenon that either the Palestinians or the Arab cultures in general have received any very widespread objective, never mind sympathetic, coverage in the North American pop media.

Don't tell that to any of the rabid pro-Israeli types out there. To them, the media has been Palestinian-Arab-biased since 1981 when Anwar Sadat got rave reviews for signing that peace treaty.

[ 04 June 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 05 June 2003 07:42 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dr. C, the difficulty in disclosing the secret talks with the South Vietnamese is that it would revealed Johnson's bugging of Nixon's campaign. That's why Johnson didn't want the information to be released. Humphrey didn't want to do it out of principle: he didn't want to win an election that way and he didn't want to "taint" Nixon's presidency should he go on to win anyway.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca