Point Counterpoint

I received an excellent comment on a recent post (http://zarathustrasoldman.blogspot.com/2008/05/say-it-aint-so-joe.html) which I'm going to copy to this new post in order to give it, and my reply, a higher profile. The comment was:

Your Nixonian enemy list is extensive- Carter, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Gore, the Clintons, liberals, Democrats, Protestants, etc. Your heroes include Bob Barr and Henry Hyde, co-inquisitors who tried to crucify Clinton. Note that they both have sex infidelities on their records. No Jekyll here, only Hydes. FDR, with the help of your "maggots" brought us out of the depression and steered us through most of WWII. You will say, no doubt, that he started WWII. Carter did bring Israel and Egypt together and he is the only President who made an effort to address the energy crisis. The solar panels he put on the White House were removed by Reagan.I think you will find that the Vietnam war was started by Eisenhower and Dulles. It was escalated by JFK and LBJ. JFK had little time to do much good or harm. He did deal with the Cuban missle crisis, but screwed up on the Bay of Pigs fiasco. LBJ did sign the civil rights act. You gore Gore and must think that global warming is surely dreamed up by a bunch of Prius driving, pointy headed, latte drinking, NPR listening, PBS watching, tree hugging liberal scientists hatched at certain institutions of higher learning. Clinton led us through 8 years of peace and prosperity. What a drag that was! You have added Lieberman to your list. I agree, he is more concerned about the security of Israel than of the US. I shall remain anon as I would rather not have the Opus Dei militia or the Vatican Swiss Guards descend on me wielding crossbows and broad swords.

My response:

I'm glad to see we agree that Lieberman "is more concerned about the security of Israel than of the US." That, of course, was the main thrust of my little "what if" fantasy. But to speak to some of your other points -- yes, I do have an extensive list of targets -- "the usual suspects" as the saying goes. But I think this is perfectly fair because they have all grossly intruded into the lives of all Americans for years, and show every sign of continuing to do so. As one commentator replied when asked why he couldn't just "leave the Clintons alone" -- "It's because they won't leave _me_ alone." Anyone running for office who promises to assume even more control over your life, whether you want them to or not, is fair game, in my opinion. But please, don't call my "enemies list" "Nixonian". Although Tricky Dick is one of my heroes for his fine work against Alger Hiss and all of his co-conspirators, he deserves a failing grade for Vietnam, for taking us off the silver (or any other metal) standard, for price controls, and for many other offenses. He also employed more than the usual quota of sleazeballs and sociopaths in his administration, and the Watergate affair made it possible for Jimmy Carter to win in 1976, which has to rank as one of the greatest unintended consequences in American history.

As to Barr and Hyde "trying" to crucify Clinton -- well, Willie is so slick he would have slid right off any cross they tried to attach him to -- besides which, they were right, he was unfit for office, not least because he opened wide the gates for the Chinese Trojan Horse to enter. This may be his most lasting legacy, in fact -- although we shouldn't neglect incidents like Waco, which set a precedent for government-sponsored domestic terrorism, which is being emulated, albeit in a "softer" way, with the current persecution of the FLDS sect. But aside from all that, Barr and Hyde deserve a "profiles in courage" award because they stood virtually alone against the media and the Democrat/Clinton attack machine. In this, they resembled (again) Nixon vs. Hiss, and McCarthy vs. Almost Everyone. What ever happened to the traditional American admiration for the lone man standing up and speaking truth to power? And how many like these do we see today? Ron Paul and, um.... No, there are still some "Jekylls" around, and frankly I am not up to speed on Hyde and Barr in the "sex infidelity" department. You have to realize that the Clinton impeachment was not about sex, or even about his lying under oath. Those were the things that had the best chance of working -- but his true crimes were much more profound and more serious. Think: Al Capone vs. the IRS, and you'll see my point. No one really gave a damn whether Capone had paid his taxes, but that was something they could get him on, and the rest wasn't such a sure bet.

Now, as to FDR -- I'm no expert, but a considerable body of economic and social history supports the view that his policies actually prolonged the Depression. Did he start WW II? Well, the Japanese fired the first shot, of course, but again it's arguable that we provoked it. The war with Japan was about who was going to control the Pacific, and as such it would have happened sooner or later -- with or without Pearl Harbor. We would have to have invented something, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident, if they hadn't obliged us by attacking first.

As to Carter -- well, as it's said, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. But I feel that the damage he did to the economy and military far outweigh any achievements he might have made -- intentionally or by sheer dumb luck -- in other areas. However, I have to give Carter this much, he paved the way for Reagan, the way Nixon paved the way for Carter. For that, he gets "major ups".

As to Vietnam -- of course, our post-WW II foreign policy was grossly mismanaged in many areas by both Truman and Eisenhower, the most egregious being our "benign" neglect of China which allowed -- encouraged, even -- supported, even! -- Mao's takeover and the resulting auto-genocide of the Chinese people and the shredding of their culture. (Fortunately, they have been smart enough to pull themselves out of Mao's dark ages and have now embarked on a campaign to return the, um, favor.) JFK was a liberal by 1960 standards but would be considered a "hawk" and even a bit conservative by today's. LBJ's fatal flaw was that he assumed sole ownership of the Vietnam war, even calling in air strikes from the White House. He could no more give up that war than Bush can give up Iraq. So yes, "all have sinned and fallen short".

As far as "global warming" buffs, your description overmatches anything I could come up with. As long as one views the global warming cult as a religion rather than a science, we'll get along fine. As science, it's on very speculative, shaky ground, as evidenced by the number of equally-qualified and credentialed scientists who consider it so much bunk (the "bunk" being of two varieties, i.e. "is it for real?" and "did we cause it?" Those are still two separate and distinct questions, even though they are typically confounded in the media.).

The Clinton "vacation from history" -- no argument! At least he had the sense to not dabble too much in the economy, although he did come right out and say he didn't trust Americans to spend their own money properly. But he was not a "theorist" -- unlike his wife, who has a _plan_ -- yes, for you, me, and all of us. Just wait until you see it! Of course, it is also just possible that Clinton's benign neglect of foreign policy constituted a vacuum that militant Islam rushed into; leave us not forget that 9-11 was a mere eight months after Bush's inauguration, hardly enough time for Bush and his cronies all by themselves to have softened up our defenses (or pursued a foreign policy that irritated the Arabs so much that they felt they had to knock down a few of our buildings). I mean, the conspirators themselves -- i.e., the ones who weren't on the planes -- have said that the idea had been in the works for years.

Now why are you so afraid of Opus Dei? (Don't worry, I find them a little creepy myself.)

And as to the Swiss Guard -- hey, have you ever tried running in those outfits?

And -- as always -- thanks for tuning in. Keep on commenting! And have a good Memorial Day.