General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's amazing that over the span of two decades, America went from this...
to this:
Twenty years, between 1960 and 1980.
DU'ers who remember that time, or who have any historical knowledge of that period...tell me, no, tell us all what went so horribly wrong, and why.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Both parties have sold their souls for a fat wallet. That is what went wrong.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Messaging. To damn many people forgot were they came from and what and why they had a position that paid the bills for one wage earner. Funny how the Kool-Aid tasted so good for many.
unblock
(56,200 posts)democrats historically have had some of their best appeal when times are tough for a lot of people, when government programs are a comparatively easy sell and ultimately almost everyone benefits.
but the very success of such programs reduces the apparent need for them, and then the republican appeals to greed hold more appeal as people look to getting more of a share of the abundance rather than worrying about the need for a safety net.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)The country supports social programs. They want social programs to fall back on in hard times. But people want to be able to take care of themselves. People want jobs and a living wage. People want to be able to afford to send their kids to college, take their kids to the doctor, buy a house and retire. Neither party is helping them do that.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,161 posts)When Reagan fired the striking air controllers, it shocked the country.
I actually did see that, at the time, as a bad bad sign.
another bad sign was when non-profits were getting de-funded, and the emphasis went to insurance based services.
And then, in the late 1980's, I watched inpatient insurance covered programs get axed, via length of stays and more case management by insurance companies. We would have to argue, every day, why our clients needed to treatment,
Saw the handwriting on the wall, so I moved over to outpatient services, which eventually got the same axe.
block grants disappeared.
The Feds stopped funding a lot of social services and later the counties did too.
Ross Perot was right about NAFTA, which was the first of many labor exporting schemes from this country.
I don't know when, or why, TPTB forgot their history of what makes countries grow.
Or maybe they just don't give a damn, figuring they can buy their own little Eden on this deteriorating planet.
Rozlee
(2,529 posts)But getting rid of the draft and depending on an all volunteer military created even more problems. A military industrial complex can't do an effective job of starting wars if the sacrifice is shared by all Americans. They want an American public that feels secure in the knowledge that it's someone else's kid being sent out to die.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,161 posts)is the heavy reliance on contractors and foreign troops.
It was telling that Darth Cheney did not inflict a draft, as you point out.
MontyPow
(285 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,568 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)... the folks who were active in the 60's lessened their activism, became more moderate as they got older and those who were not in favor of what happened in the 60's and were in fact angry at the changes used the 1970's and 1980's to roll back as much as possible.
Supply side economics made an impossibly good sounding promise, that your taxes could be lowered and the government would take in more income, which we now know doesnt work, but lower taxes sure sounded good to some folks so they voted Republican. Add a few social wedge issues (Abortion, LGBT rights, crime) that cynically shrewd Republican campaign managers manipulated and you have the three Republican Presidents since 1980.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Most late '60s, early '70s movies were painfully unenjoyable to watch. When Star Wars came out, critics largely panned it with the good guy wearing white, the bad guy wearing black simple-mindedness of it. The fact that it was just plain, fucking cool as shit went right over their heads. And the fact that we teenagers were sick and tired of having not been allowed to be, well, kids.
So we spent the '70s in decadent partying. And I have no apologies for that. I wish we were still paryting! That's the way life should be for everyone.
Then came the '80s. And the teens were rebelling against ... the '70s party crowd. If "Just Say No" and "MADD" doesn't scream "partying is evil, m'kay?" ...
maddiemom
(5,180 posts)were actually the period we think of as "The Sixties" era. True, there was major civil rights activity and the beginning of the anti war movement in the first half of the sixties. The mid sixties was when the entire country began to more caught up in the unrest, which sadly exploded in 1968 everywhere. That continued into the early seventies. I guess age (pre-adolescent/early teens versus late teens/early twenties) was the major factor in viewing that period.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)The TV series 'Family Ties' was very popular and it was about an aging (grown up anyway) hippie couple raising a conservative (Michael J. Fox) son.
We always rebel against our parents. So we have a popular TV series with a handsome young conservative star. The other factor is that the folks who suffered through the Great Depression weren't as prominent as they were the previous 20 years. This is one of the reasons why republicans haven't been obliterated the same way they were after the Great Depression for causing the latest downturn. The stock market crashed in '29 and Hoover flailed for almost 4 years while people suffered. Contrast that to the recession occurring in 2007 (after Bush was in office for over 6 years) and peaking after he left office.
EVERYONE (ok, a large majority of people) blamed the Great Depression on republicans because of the way they dealt with the stumbling economy after the crash. Reagan blamed his huge recession on Carter because he'd just taken over from him.
My point is that those who ran the show during the Reagan years had learned from Hoover's mistakes (improved the technique even more under Dubya), and they took advantage of the natural born tendencies of young people to rebel against their parents.
Of course it was also about the time the MIC was getting control of the television networks too.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)way in the right direction. probably did not even consider the social issues touched, with the progression moving forward.
this is just one small comment to the whole of the issue.
thelordofhell
(4,569 posts)That scurrilous, soulless, scion of old money slithered into Dallas and helped make possible the assassination of JFK (I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't on the grassy knoll himself)........Then he sidled his way into being a VP, then tried to kill that other brain addled scumbag on the right (He was even hanging with the family of the assassin). I guess what I'm trying to say is FUCK GWB!!!
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Initech
(108,799 posts)
Tommymac
(7,334 posts)Won't speculate on the assassination stuff, but GHB was senile old Ronnie's Raygun's Cheney. But a suave charming 'cheney', not a scaremonger, as befits a CIA director, which made him much more dangerous. I have no doubt his behind the scenes work both as CIA director and as Vice President & then President, was largely responsible for the sudden change in direction from the 70's onward.
Rather than speculate on assassinations, perhaps his behind the scenes role in the Iran Hostage October Surprise, influencing the militants not to release the Hostages in mid 1980 as they had planned to do but wait until after the US elections in November should be studied.
Also, how much did GHB use his CIA knowledge and influence to aid his GOP in destroying the reputations of his rivals such as President Carter, VP Mondale and Gov. Dukakis?
I would speculate that GHB may also have been somehow involved in the Watergate shenanigans - but I have an idea that that operation was not his - it was too amateurish and had Nixon's team's incompetent fingerprints all over it.
Watergate was important because it led to Nixon's resignation which in turn made the future neocons pretty damn angry and determined to get back at the liberals at any cost.
One more factor was the many demonstrations of the 1960's scared the shit out of the oligarchy - they determined that they would work to take away the free time and the disposable income the middle class (who provided most of the demonstrators) enjoyed at the time so that in the future such large scale actions would be difficult to achieve.
Finally greed was a huge factor. For example, The modern American Health Insurance death by spreadsheet industry was started by William Kaiser and Richard Nixon. Nixon was looking for a way to relieve the political pressure that liberals were putting on him to establish a single payer Medical infrastructure in the US - Kaiser told Nixon that hell, he could set up a for pay infrastructure that mimicked a national health care system, fool the people, and would make $$$$$billions in profit. (The actual conversation is on the Nixon tapes.)
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)corporations started figuring out how to rig the system more and more and more ...
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)and the Dems gave away the country to the minorities which led the Jim Crow South to switch parties. Add the lying/cheating minions of Nixon to a breaking of the Fairness Doctrine and you have a group that only responds to power and money.
If they're allowed to bald-face lie ceaselessly without any push back, why would willfully ignorant, spiteful folks vote any other way? If you can find a place to channel your anger, fear, and frustration you'll turn out at every opportunity to stick to the (wrong) man.
unblock
(56,200 posts)my mother's parents were edith and archie to a t. i've never even heard of a tv show that remotely resembled any real aspect of my life, but if at some point they came out and said they based those characters on my grandparents it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
the king-of-the-castle, the bigotry, the getting expressions wrong, the constant fights over nothing, and edith interrupting the brawl to offer snacks, even jean stapleton's voice peculiar falsetto-ish voice was spot on, the only real difference was my grandma had an austrian accent.
makes me wonder how common that particular dynamic actually was.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)Many looked up to Archie when, in reality, he was poking fun at them. Even Nixon fell for it, cheering Archie on.
Norman Lear is making the rounds talking about the show. I saw him on PBS tonight. He looks great for a man of 92.
Eric J in MN
(35,639 posts)I'm not sure if you're criticizing it.
bigbrother05
(5,995 posts)Problem was the Nixon Dems (now Rep base) didn't realize the joke. Much like Colbert plays now, they RW did not see the satire and irony. They felt Archie was speaking out for them instead of seeing what should have been the dying gasps of the dinosaurs.
Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)It's the religious vote. In the late 60's/early 70's the right started courting religious folks. It worked so well that they now have convinced people like the Duggars to conceive for God.
That's why they pander about gays and abortion; if they drop that from their platform? The right would be toast.
LeftInTX
(34,317 posts)Apparently Falwell and his type didn't even vote until Reagan courted them.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)That said, it was the end of segregation that got Falwell to start organising his acolytes.
Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)The Southern Strategy wouldn't have worked without religious people. The Church is where the Dog Whistle was honed.
Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)I can't imagine living in a world where religion and politics aren't one and the same, but at one point they really weren't. Now we have the "Left Behind" film in mainstream movie theaters.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)How they hijacked his simple message of love and turned it into hate is beyond me.
liberalmuse
(18,881 posts)A lot of Americans wanted an excuse to be dicks who didn't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Reagan told them what their self-centered, greedy, gluttonous ears wanted to hear. "We don't have to conserve energy or sacrifice. We're Americans!". I was too young to vote at the time, but increasingly grew sickened by the gluttony, hedonism and self-centered materialism that defined the Reagan/Bush years. The likes of Reagan, Limbaugh, Rove and Bush gave some weak-minded people permission to be the lowest common denominator of humanity. I don't know that we'll ever recover from taking the wrong road in 1979. It didn't help that the same traitors who orchestrated Iran-Contra which helped put Reagan into power are still very much in play today.
cordelia
(2,174 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)into that way of thinking as well.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)maddiemom
(5,180 posts)to come right out and say "greed is good."
pacalo
(24,857 posts)
Remember, too, that Gordon Gekko's "Greed is good" quote in Wall Street (1987) capsulized the Reagan era perfectly.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)McGovern and Carter weee terrible candidates (arguably any D could have won in 76) and the antiwar left abandoned the Democratic Party in 1968.
MontyPow
(285 posts)I have a better explanation.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)The Democratic Party abandoned the left.
MontyPow
(285 posts)
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)MontyPow
(285 posts)Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Ed Muskie might've won a few more states more than McGovern, but what the hell difference does that make? Likewise, maybe Scoop Jackson would've been a better candidate than Jimmy Carter, but if enough bad shit happens on your watch that's completely out of your control, you're going to lose.
Dukakis is the one example in recent history where the quality of the candidate absolutely made the difference.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Particularly those who now seek our political support. Elizabeth Warren for one. She says she paid no attention to the anti gay policy or the anti choice positions because she so strongly agreed with Reagan about 'the markets'. She's extremely rich, so 'the markets' to her are like a sacred place of ritual I guess.
JI7
(93,630 posts)and her opponents will make it an issue for sure.
but i don't think she will or wants to run for president.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)It wasn't out of selfishness. It was because they had superior marketing.
John Stewart said in an interview that the last time he voted republican was Bush Sr.
In retrospect, I realize it was wrong to support them, but as much as I respect Jimmy Carter (and I have a lot of respect for him) - the job really took its toll on him and Reagan, since he wasn't really doing anything - he seemed to be handling it just fine.
Watch the movie 'Miracle' with Kurt Russell. It has a Jimmy Carter speech at the beginning and it's not an uplifting speech. He just looks defeated.
It's easy to sit back and be critical of folks who did something in the past that was wrong. I supported Carter in 1980, but I was in the military at the time and it literally changed over night - there were people who were dragging morale down and they were identified and kicked to the curb.
You can't really blame people for voting for who they think was the best candidate at the time. The republicans have fired up the crazy train now, but back then they seemed to actually have a plan, and the democrats weren't selling their plan as effectively.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)of people I loved when they step up and ask for my vote. Try to stop me.
Blanks
(4,835 posts)But among the things that they did successfully was keep a lot of the tragedies out of the public view.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)
heaven05
(18,124 posts)'The Southern Strategy" started the division we see today.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The selfish generation.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)... and worked for Civil Rights, Women's Rights, farm workers' rights, and so on? That supported Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy?
That watched in horror as students were mowed down on campus during a peaceful protest, as one by one every one of our heroes was assassinated?
That generation?
Yeah, we were all selfish shits.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts)
Skittles
(171,744 posts)I am a Boomer - you're telling all us Boomers on DU *WE* are the problem?
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Some boomers fought right wing policies.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)JFK didn't actually accomplish very much of anything at all. He was inspirational, that's about it; the day he died, every major bill on his legislative agenda was hopelessly bogged down in Congress; he more or less caused the Cuban Missile Crisis by going through with the Bay of Pigs and then not providing air support. He was probably more effective dead than alive, in fact; LBJ got the Civil Rights Act through Congress in part by framing it as JFK's legacy (but getting that bill passed was very much LBJ's achievement, and not Kennedy's). If you want a portrait of Presidential greatness and the potential of the office for good in the right hands, LBJ (Vietnam excepted) is a much much better example than Kennedy; Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Medicare/Medicaid, Head Start, etc.
And as to "what happened", the passage of the Civil Rights Act made Southern Democrats turn to the Republicans (see Nixon's Southern Strategy, best explained by Lee Atwater); as to what else happened? In 1970 US domestic oil production peaked. The USA ceased being able to produce enough oil to meet domestic demand. The Bretton Woods system that underpinned the postwar global economy with the US dollar as a global reserve currency, convertible to gold at a fixed rate, ended in 1974 in the midst of oil shocks and recessions. The rising cost of oil made Detroit, with their hulking gas-guzzlers, uncompetitive and American manufacturers started haemorraghing market share to Japan. The decline in industry of the '70's with the energy crises and increasing automation and resultant job losses led to what Jimmy Carter called "our national malaise".
The USA's unprecedented postwar prosperity was based on two things: one, the USA was the only major industrial nation left standing after WWII, and two, the USA in the immediate postwar era produced half of the world's oil. The recovery of European economies in the postwar era, and especially the economic rise of Germany and Japan, coupled with the decline in the USA's relative share of world oil production with the rise of OPEC, made the eventual decline of American industry pretty much inevitable. The immediate postwar economic boom of c. 1945-1970 or so was an unrepeatable historical fluke. One result of the recessions and stagflation and oil crises of the '70's? By 1980 a lot of people were ready to listen to a slick actor who told them that he had a plan for economic recovery (tax cuts, beloved of right-wingers everywhere). Like James Carville said, "it's the economy, stupid." (Only political leaders generally have a lot less control over said economy than most of them would like the voters to think.)
raccoon
(32,393 posts)
geardaddy
(25,392 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Of course many blame renault for AMC's failure.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Powell Memo is a pretty good gauge of the turning point - that is if you think Oswald acted alone
http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/
jehop61
(1,735 posts)The rise of civil rights efforts and tbe Vietnam War. The south totally changed from Democratic to Republican over civil rights. And, we all began to mistrust government over the lie of Vietnam.
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)unblock
(56,200 posts)nightline's relentless daily focus on the iranian situation was a godsend for reagan's electoral chances. it amounted to one very long, in-depth attack ad against carter.
cnn launched in the middle of that crisis and between these nightline and cnn, the media landscape changed.
eventually, moneyed interests figured out how to benefit from these changes, which rewarded fast breaking stories, lower standards of accuracy, shallow analysis, and a muddying of editorializing and news coverage at the expense of all that used to be respected in traditional journalism.
it's often been said that nixon's 5-o'clock shadow during the first televised presidential debates cost him the election, and perhaps civil rights were won by a whisker (groan!)
but republicans learned they need to own the microphone, and they are certainly taking full advantage.
Sancho
(9,206 posts)of course I don't want to get the thread locked, but here goes!
1.) The "cold war" machine gave way too much power and money to the CIA/military establishment, and secret departments like the FBI and NSA. Starting in the 50s, they have kept us at war (on purpose), installed their own puppet politicians, and basically took over lots of the government, media/communications, and financial institutions. They probably don't care what happens socially or economically to the average American, as long as they have their hands on the money and power.
2.) The principle mechanism this "con/neocon" militaristic group uses is to cheat on elections! They have manipulated DREs and tabulators, redrawn districts, played all sorts of games with ballots, prevented registrations, and controlled election supervision. Of course, over time they probably resort to almost anything you can imagine. The truth (if known) is likely stranger than fiction.
3.) The 21st century targets are not just the US government - this self-perpetuating "group" of personality disorders wants to control the world - military, natural resources, finances. They aren't there yet, but stay tuned.
villager
(26,001 posts)...the far right, in their march on the White House, and the levers of government in general.
But, you know, good citizens don't ask questions.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
villager
(26,001 posts)But wait! Those same people and players have assured us there's nothing to see here...!
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)JI7
(93,630 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)That's why voter suppression has become such a big part of the republican playbook.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)started working for the CIA. The American Plutocracy was planned out decades before Reagan became POTUS.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Just to get a glimpse at what the history books will say about this particular time period.
byronius
(7,973 posts)Americans seem to be cyclically Very Fucking Stupid.
Plus, October Surprise.
WhiteTara
(31,261 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)all. One thing that changed was that up to JFK this was mostly a white world. Both Democrats and Rs. Minorities were not encouraged to participate. Women too often asked their husbands how to vote. Rs mainly worked for the corporations (which were not international at that point - they were still American supporters) while the Democratic Party was still very much the old FDR party.
After JFK the world changed. Women stood up for their rights, other minorities demand the vote without poll taxes and they registered. Religions began fighting the abortion issue and had not even started to worry about equal rights for gays. They also stopped supporting social issues like hunger and the safety net. Protesters against the war and most causes showed the real divide between the eras and the use of drugs and free sex really cause a panic in the older generation. It was a total opposite.
By 1970s this could no longer be called a good old boys country. By 1972 the white population were scared. Not all whites but enough to bring about change. The Democratic Party began loosing its members to the Rs. And we ended up with Nixon.
From there it was almost all down hill. I am not sure how to explain the Clinton win. Maybe that was the beginning of swing back to the left. I don't know. After him the Rs used lies and media to con the people into voting for Rs and we lost total control until President Obama. W was probably the last gasp of those old white men trying to deny the change that is coming if democracy is allowed to run its course. President Obama's win with minority votes tells us where we are heading no matter what the good old boys want UNLESS we let them stop us from voting.
So that is how I see it - may be wrong.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)between the 2 Bushes.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)
NightWatcher
(39,376 posts)You know, Georgie boy was in Dallas on that fateful day....
And it all went to shit, climaxing with the former head of the CIA taking the reigns from his senile predecessor, while the evil Darth Cheney remained in the shadows a little while longer.
DFW
(60,210 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 15, 2014, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)
Will McAvoy
We revered intelligence, we didn't belittle it, it didn't make us feel inferior, and we didn't scare so easy:
Hekate
(100,133 posts)That his wife was admired for bringing Pablo Casals to the White House, and for knowing French.
Jesus. 
I remember when JFK set us on a course to the Moon and Stars, and demanded we be better and smarter students.
I was a kid. We were not considered too goddam stupid to learn math, science, and foreign languages. I was put in an advanced math class whether I wanted it or not, and my husband (5,000 miles away) was sent to the Bronx High School of Science where he and his family considered it an honor for him to work his ass off among the best and the brightest.
Our parents paid their taxes for, among other things, the schools and colleges and universities we attended at what now seems like a pittance.
Of all the things we've lost, I miss our brains the most. Seriously, DFW, this has made me cry.
DFW
(60,210 posts)And instead of taking that as an insult, they took it as their battle cry.
What happens if the USA becomes the country the Republicans want? Will they blame THAT on us, too?
Hekate
(100,133 posts)As for the Repubs, they have a way of twisting everything to suit their ends. Ew.
I keep saying it over and over: Behind the scenes the RW has the long view, but the Dems/LW have the attention span of a gnat. Among the Left, our current POTUS is soundly derided for his long game and quiet patience. The very qualities we desperately need on our side are not flashy enough to suit the mood.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed. The possibility of failure is simply not a part of their system of thought. Since the failure of conservatism is, by definition, impossible, it can only be failed by those insufficiently zealous or not pure enough or too pragmatic. So the conservative centre of gravity pushes ever further to the right. And the Democrats, in their constant and pointless attempts to appear moderate, follow them to the right. To a lesser degree, sure, but to the right all the same.
And let's be honest, the conservative's have won, for the time being at least. They've got themselves a minority veto in Congress (which they'll do away with the very second they're in the majority), a compliant media to frame everything in their terms and an obedient SCOTUS majority to rule "unconstitutional" any law they don't like. They've won, for the time being. All you can do is try and limit the damage. Until the demographics shift completely kills the GOP in about fifteen years anyway.
maindawg
(1,151 posts)Because they use fear as a weapon against democracy. One party is fascist. One party wholly invested itself in the methods of propaganda.
They are the ones who killed Kennedy.That was a coup.
Reagon was their chosen rep they spent 30 years grooming him.He was a fucking actor ! for christ sake and Poppy was the head of the fucking CIA. why does no one understand that? What is so fucking hard to understand?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Because in between there was a significant event
and those pen scratches changed EVERYTHING!
And out in front of it all was the political right acting under cover of protestant religious authority, telling us that GOD wouldn't accept equality of women with men, or people of color with people whose thinking about humankind was and remains handicapped by a lack of melanin expression in their skin and an excess of privileged opporunity to put green in their pockets.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)unwashed masses -- ever again -- after the revolution of the 1960's/early 1970's, where native americans, black people, chicanos and women were recognized to have equal rights as the white guys. (Way too scary for the 1%.)
The Powell Manifesto was a deliberate, written PLAN for the 1%, lead by Adolph Coors and the Chamber of Commerce and others, to:
1) infiltrate the democratic party
2) take over all the media (teevee, newspaper, radio AND churches -- where do you think all that money comes from for the mega-churches that support the republican/Powell/1% agenda?
3) reduce the number of liberal-leaning professors who are afforded tenure in the colleges, by tying college research & sports funding to a voice in who gets hired/tenured
4) attach themselves to right-leaning organizations like the NRA, to move them further to the right
5) find a puppet president (Reagan) who would deregulate the banks (one of the biggest places to start a right-wing take-over)
and 6) use every opportunity to make any possible effective use of propaganda and demonize liberals (which Reagan did).
There is more they did, but google the Powell Manifesto, and dig deeper past the google-picked links to see just how insidious their plans were.
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Older GenX are conservative. Younger GenX are liberal.
We swung because younger baby boomers (and to a lesser extent older GenX) got old enough to vote.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Worked like a charm and we are still paying for their greed.
Hatchling
(2,323 posts)
world wide wally
(21,836 posts)I remember talking with friends back in the old hippie days (Early 70's) about how much better this country was going to be when we got our turn to run it...... Right!
The people who listened to "classic rock" and vote Republican now were the dweebs who hated the music when it first came out.
In other words, I have no idea WTF happened.... But it sucks!
jalan48
(14,914 posts)The secret government made it's play. First, by killing off both Kennedys, then colluding with the Iranian government to keep American hostages until after the 1980 election. thus insuring Reagan and not Carter would be President. While this happened American's were kept in a fog by the entertainment industry, sports, music, movies, etc.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Clinton might have used that line during his campaign, but it was just as significant at the time that Reagan was elected. The economy was seriously scary. We had out-of-control inflation. We even had rationing of gasoline, where even numbered license plates could get gas one day, odd on the next day. People were afraid, and whenever they are afraid, they usually vote for the one who is not an incumbent.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)JFK only won by 100,000 votes. And while the Repub's had the likes of Goldwater we had the likes of Wallace and the Solid South. So we may remember the period more fondly than is justified.
Also we hadn't "lost" a conflict since 1812. The loss in Nam and the sting of being shown up by a bunch of college students in some backwater podunk in the middle east (Iran). Accentuated by the slow response and eventual humiliating failure of our special forces to bring our people home safe. Set the stage for a charismatic actor who new how to connect with the people and give them the reassurances they wanted to hear.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)then it was MLK then RFK. Odds on favorite for one of the culprits standing in the 2nd picture.
CT? Maybe, but look where the events have led us. Look at the $$$ that was made for BFEE.
BFEE is not above anything as witnessed by their family history.
That's what happened.
villager
(26,001 posts)...the repeating players, coupling those "coincidental" events with the various election frauds, scams, etc. (Nixon and Vietnam, Bush I and the October Surprise, Bush II and the Outright Theft before out eyes, etc.)...
Octafish
(55,745 posts)We know this because that is what George Herbert Walker Bush told the FBI.
We also know, from the same FBI report, that Poppy heard someone threaten to kill President Kennedy.
So, why did Bush wait until AFTER JFK was assassinated to come foward with the warning?
Here's the document:
Here's a transcript of the text:
TO: SAC, HOUSTON DATE: 11-22-63
FROM: SA GRAHAM W. KITCHEL
SUBJECT: UNKNOWN SUBJECT;
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT
JOHN F. KENNEDY
At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H. W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-Shore Drilling Company, Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.
BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES PARROTT has been talking of killing the President when he comes to Houston.
BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt Mrs. FAWLEY, telephone number SU 2-5239, or ARLINE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican Party Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of PARROTT.
BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone number is CA 2-0395.
# # #
Here's background:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbushG.htm
Another FBI memo, from a week later, was unearthed just prior to the 1988 election. In it, "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" was debriefed by J Edgar Hoover himself about the Pro- and Anti-Castro Cuban communities in Miami. 1988 Presidential Candidate Vice President ex-DCI ex-China legation head George Bush said "It wasn't me." Surprisingly and contrary to longstanding policy, the agency even released the name of another "George Bush" who worked at CIA for six months or so. That guy was surprised to find reporters on his doorstep and told them he was a photo analyst on loan from another government department and he never was debriefed by J Edgar Hoover, let alone for the anything to with the assassination of President Kennedy.
Here's a transcript of the above:
Date: November 29, 1963
To: Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State
From: John Edgar Hoover, Director
Subject: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
NOVEMBER 22, 1963
Our Miami, Florida, Office on November 23, 1963, advised that the Office of Coordinator of Cuban Affairs in Miami advised that the Department of State feels some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalize on the present situation and undertake an unauthorized raid against Cuba, believing that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy might herald a change in U. S. policy, which is not true.
Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling is that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U. S. but to all of Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorized action against Cuba.
An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them and, although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination.
The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency on November 23, 1963, by Mr. W. T. Forsyth of this Bureau.
# # #
I do remember that GHWB was head of the CIA when the Church Committee was looking into the CIA assassination programs. He made things all friendly-like and turned what had been a serious hunt for truth under previous DCI Colby into another dog-and-pony show.
And the Church Committee represents the last time our elected representatives worked to reign in the Secret Government agencies. That was 1975.
So. We wonder why America is in the shape it's in?
Austerity for the majority and a state of permanent war, where "money trumps peace."
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Overwhelming. I think only DUers didn't vote for him. Lol. I was too young both times.
Rex
(65,616 posts)In the 1980 U.S. presidential election, NBC predicted a victory for Ronald Reagan at 8:15 pm EST, based on exit polls of 20,000 voters. It was 5:15 pm on the West Coast, and the polls were still open. There was speculation that voters stayed away after hearing the results.
But what you said was funny too! 
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Some would call it treason:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/15/world/new-reports-say-1980-reagan-campaign-tried-to-delay-hostage-release.html
Mr. Sick said he has become convinced that there were two meetings between Mr. Casey and Hojatolislam Karrubi in the Ritz Hotel in Madrid in late July 1980. Hojatolislam Karrubi is now the Speaker of the the Iranian Parliament. Mr. Casey died in 1987. The "Frontline" report said he never addressed the allegations.
Mr. Sick's principal source for the Madrid meetings is Jamshid Hashemi, an Iranian arms dealer who said that he and his brother, Cyrus, had helped arrange them. Attending, they said, were Mr. Casey, the Hashemi brothers and an unnamed American intelligence officer. Cyrus Hashemi has since died. Other Sources Named
In an interview, Mr. Sick, who now teaches at Columbia University, said other people with second-hand knowledge of the meetings were Ari Ben Menashi, a former Israeli intelligence official; Arif Durrani, a Pakistani arms dealer, and Ahmad Madani, a former Iranian Defense Minister. They could not be reached for comment.
“There is something I want to tell you,” [Yassir] Arafat said, addressing [Jimmy] Carter in the presence of historian Douglas Brinkley. “You should know that in 1980 the Republicans approached me with an arms deal [for the PLO] if I could arrange to keep the hostages in Iran until after the [U.S. presidential] election,” Arafat said, according to Brinkley’s article in the fall 1996 issue of Diplomatic Quarterly.”
Also from the article:
“As recently as this past week, former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr reiterated his account of Republican overtures to Iran during the 1980 hostage crisis and how that secret initiative prevented release of the hostages.” http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/06/none-dare-call-it-treason/
This is very similar to the back room deal that scuttled the paris peace talks before the 1968 elections.
The US delegation, left, and North Vietnamese delegation at Paris peace talks The Paris peace talks may have ended years earlier, if it had not been for Nixon's subterfuge
Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.
So on the eve of his planned announcement of a halt to the bombing, Johnson learned the South Vietnamese were pulling out.
He was also told why. The FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and a transcripts of Anna Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. In one conversation she tells the ambassador to "just hang on through election".
Johnson was told by Defence Secretary Clifford that the interference was illegal and threatened the chance for peace.
President Nixon in 1970 with a map of Vietnam Nixon went on to become president and eventually signed a Vietnam peace deal in 1973
In a series of remarkable White House recordings we can hear Johnson's reaction to the news. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668
freebrew
(1,917 posts)seeing HHH on the balcony watching the peace demonstrators getting pummeled by the cops reminded me of the old photos of Hitler when he was addressing crowds. I think others had a similar experience. I was too young to vote against Nixon the first time. Remember too that the Dem party was also divided with 'Hawks' and 'Doves' and the hawks were getting worried.
Then Nixon cut the GI Bill in half. No more cheap education for the ingrates.
As for Reagan, he lost a bunch of times IIRC before 1980. It was almost a joke at the time that he was taken as a serious candidate. He ruined California, I guess the rest of the country thought that was a good thing???
MontyPow
(285 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)The Republicans figured it couldn't possibly be worth anything.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)the Democrat Party after the equal rights bill. They found a safe harbor in the GOP and took it over. and here we are,,,,,,,,
Response to YoungDemCA (Original post)
appalachiablue This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ampersand Unicode
(503 posts)His brother would have carried the torch for him, but he got capped too. That left brother #3, Ted, who like anyone having seen two of his brothers shot and killed within the span of 5 years, became a complete and utter basket case and turned to the bottle. He totaled his (supposedly) pregnant mistress somewhere off Cape Cod and became immediately and forever ineligible to become a viable POTUS candidate.
Guy #1's brother getting shot (and guy #1's VP deciding not to seek "proper" election) meant that the formerly vanquished contender of 1960 finally had himself an opening in '68. Southern Strategy worked in both '68 and '72. Dick left office disgraced but got his veep to pardon him. Jerry Ford fucked up big time, so the hippie vote kicked him out for Carter. But 'Muricans decided Carter was too much of a milktoast (BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN) and put the Gipper in. The perfect asshole to make 'Muricans feel good about themSELVES. Cue the glitzy, rich Dynasty era, in contrast with the largely ignored epidemics of crack addiction and AIDS, not to mention the behind-the-scenes financial deregulation that was going on that would eventually pull the rug out from the nouveau riche 'Muricans. Crack and AIDS didn't matter because Falwell and others said "God wants to punish those evil sodomites and tar babies, and it would be against his will to do anything about it." So 'Muricans said, "OK, fine, who cares about Rock Hudson and a bunch of ghetto blacks anyway, let's go buy some expensive shit from Radio Shack on our charge cards and go to the mall, because fuck yeah Gordon Gecko. GREED IS GOOD! YEAAAAAH COCAINE AND MTV!!!" Iran-Contra didn't matter in terms of disgracing Reagan, because "hey, he got the hostages back, so what? Just nuke those dirty Mexicans and be done with it!" Enter 1989 and it's all, "RONNIE BEAT THE RUSSIANS! FUCK YEAH 'MURICA! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! Now let's go buy some MORE expensive shit and go to the mall, because FUCK YEAH TETRIS HERE COME THE NINETIES!!111!"
They rewarded Dutch for his efforts by putting in "Reagan the Sequel" (HW Bush), then turned against him because he wasn't Reagany enough ("no new taxes"
even though "he won us another war" (Persian Gulf). Nowhere left to go, they thought they were electing a good ol' boy from the Deep South, but instead they got a centrist with a libido who committed the unforgivable sin of having a sex drive. Couldn't get enough votes to ditch him in '96 or impeach him in '98, so they were stuck with him until he left in '01. Just like they rewarded Ronnie by electing his veep, they punished Clinton by "screwing" his (Gore). Talibangelical vote came out in droves to issue the penultimate blow of the Reagan revolution (that really started with Nixon). Result? Finish out papa Bush's "unfinished business" ('Muricans had buyer's remorse about not coming out for HW in '92) with this:
...and then this happened
...giving us a "perfect excuse" to go after "the ones responsible" (not oil-rich Saudi Arabia, even though the 19 hijackers were from there). No, we went after the old nemesis Saddam Hussein on false pretenses even though he wasn't really doing anything at that point. Wasn't invading Kuwait and had nothing to do with 9/11. Shrub destroyed everything by getting us involved in a two-front war, which nobody has won since, well, us in 1945 and only Ancient Rome before that. He became an absolute disaster, even made the GOP look bad because he was a total dunce on stage. '08 came and 'Muricans couldn't get enthusiastic about a decrepit old POW and his trophy MILF, so Dems surged and elected (DUN DUN DUN) A BLACK GUY. 'Muricans never forgave the dirty hippies for that and will finally get their revenge in November of this year and 2016.
Phew. Long story and a sad one at that. RIP freedom, 1960-1968. Not all sagas have a happy ending.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)I'm on my way to bed so can't give this the attention it deserves but be careful that you're not overestimating the popularity of pic 2. When Reagan left office, he had distinctly sub-par numbers. It's only because of a ceaseless effort to "burnish" (i.e. lie about) his reign that he's remembered so fondly.
RobinA
(10,478 posts)for decline is Apollo 13. I remember it well and followed it fairly closely, even though I was in elementary school at the time and had no particular interest in space. That thing was in dire trouble that stretched for days and we got it back safely. From space. To me as a youngster that meant there wasn't a problem the US couldn't solve. That was obviously naive as a generalization. Apollo 13 was happening at the same time as one of our greatest FUBARs, Vietnam.
But look what we have now. Rightly or wrongly, the impression one gets these days is that we couldn't save ourselves if trapped in a wet paper bag. On earth. It's all FUBAR with no Apollo 13 moments. Maybe it's what comes from being raised in the most optimistic of times in America. The optimism seems normal and the opposite seems a malaise. Maybe it was a blip that those of us born at a certain time thought was just the way things were.