The CCC was gone by 1942 (WWII drained its manpower and fund$).
But much of its work remains.
We should try to bring it back, bigtime, IMO.
Among its functions, it could build/refurbish/maintain trails like this all over America.
The CCC, re-formed for this era and connected-together with social media and modern high-tech
communications, could be awesome!
It could provide decent jobs (some shorter-term, some longer) for people all over the country,
and protect, maintain and upgrade our Nation's natural treasures for the the present AND future.
That's my view.
"... the CCC was probably the most popular New Deal program..."
Here's what remains of CCC work in, just in California ALONE ...
But we also are informed enough to know that after she gets elected, Hillary might make us very sad
by doing things like supporting fracking, changing her mind back on TTP,
and following the Neocons' lead into a war with Russia.
I will confess,
after I give her my vote, if she does those above things and doesn't at least ***fight*** hard
for Progressive change,
I, and the other Bernie-people who gave her our votes, in trust, may end up forcing a crisis for the party,
because we will threaten to leave.
I pray that does not happen.
I pray we are not betrayed by Hillary and the mainstream Party after (we help her win) the election.
The way I see it, the real crisis for the Democratic Party could be after Hillary wins the election
(assuming she does).
If the Democratic Party violates the trust given them by the millions of Bernie-folks
who voted for her, by going bigtime Neoliberal ib her direction
after the election, the big loser will be the Democratic Party.
In that case, and at that time, the Party will have to choose between
its Progressive wing and the corporatists.
That's not a threat.
It's what will happen if President Hillary does not push hard, post-election, for the Progressive agenda.
Not expecting her to win everything---Just to try sincerely HARD.
But don't worry----The above scenario will only happen if Hillary drops the Progressive ball after the election.
So it really is up to her.
No one says The New Deal was great for everybody, and it is well-known some of its effects were mitigated
by racist southern democrats and others.
African=Americans did get the short end of much of the New Deal, due to the stifling climate of racism back then.
Yeah, FDR should have fought against it harder.
FDR also should not have signed-off on the Japanese Internment, or rejected the German transatlantic liner St. Louis,
with her 1000+ Jews aboard, most of whom ended up dying in concentration camps. (I'm Jewish, so that hurts especially).
FDR also should never have allowed corporate insider Harry Anslinger in his administration, who pushed for the illegalization
of cannabis, destroying the lives of millions via incarceratiion in the decades that followed, for smoking a flower.
But regardless, many of FDR's economic ideas are worth keeping, and adapting and improving, in our era, right now.
So now, instead of admiring what was good about the New Deal, and speculating about *how we could do it better now*,
we get a convenient new "Centrist" narrative
about how great LBJ was, and FDR wasn't really all that hot, etc.
Beware the coded message:
The New Deal wasn't so good after all, and should not be replicated.
A perfect GOP/Conservative/Reaganite opinion.!
And that's a fact, dear deFacto GOPers!
So this is how FDR's acknowledged failure to extend the New Deal properly to African Americans in a racist era
becomes a possible rationale (wait for it) for more corporate-leaning, Conservative fiscal policies (you, know, stuff that ain't the New Deal, maybe even more tax cuts and trade deals like TPP and NAFTA, more for-profit prisons, and other goodies).
Both men did good things, and both men had feet of clay and made some big mistakes.
That would be the realistic way to view history.
But that doesn't support some folks' agendas quite enough, does it?
Sounds like some folks are preparing themselves, after Dem victory, for a
scattering of a few shallow social programs, a bunch of investor-friendly policies and a great BIG war,
under Hillary (maybe Libya can be the new Vietnam under the Neocons, eh?).
That could well turn out to be what happens after 2016 (but I hope not).
This thread seems to me like one big rationalization for what is very possibly to come,
under the expediency of Democratic Party "centrism".
This is how people get led astray, little-by-little.
But I am really wondering about some of the things I've been reading on DU lately.
If you wanna' know the truth, I find it increasingly creepy.
Again, just MO.
It is a fact that Democratic Party "Centrism" (as seen in the 1990s, especially)
tilts decisively towards corporatism. This is measurable and has been documented,
so I'm not going to list the pro-corporate policies that were passed then.
You probably know what they are.
If you don't, then you are not ready to form a respectable opinion on this topic.
Go back and do some reading.
I will respectfuly suggest refrences if you need some guidance.
Dem Centrism = pro-Corporatism.
It is all part of the "slippery slope" towards the corporate state.
Why are so many Democrats blind to this dangerous truth?
Profile InformationGender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Current location: California
Member since: Sat Sep 9, 2006, 06:02 PM
Number of posts: 3,284