Best leader your country never had

I see Cutlass doesn't want to defend the steep charge of "treason" when called out.

kochman said:

There's clearly a breakdown in communication.

This is where I have been focusing (the Adam's thing was just a quick, hey, he signed it):

To call either of those "treason" is exaggeration and inaccurate. That's where my points stop. I really don't know enough about the Nixon thing, and you just introduced that a bit ago... the bolded has always been my point. I apologize if it seemed confusing or I transgressed too far.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that is evident, and life is too short for this sort of thing. So I'll close with this: 1) you might be surprised to find that what I posted in #111 is not inconsistent with what you just said here, and 2) the Nixon comparison is really, and I mean really, important for the context here. Otherwise, we end up with a bunch of falsely attributed positions and we have to waste over a dozen posts getting to this point.

Good night.



(I've enjoyed the few bits on Goldwater, thank you all for sharing them.)

kochman said:

You mean Mr. Aliens and Sedition Act???

Click to expand...

He later called them the biggest blunder of his presidency, which is an apology we will never get from other presidents who have committed worse violations -- not Wilson, not Nixon, and certainly not Bush and Obama. I've become fascinated by Adams in recent years, and am very much impressed by the way he viewed the office of the presidency as being above politics. He took a lot of flack for striving to keep the US neutral during England and France's battle, so much that it cost him reelection even though the choice was best for the country. The Alien and Sedition Acts were disgraceful, of course, especially to a man who helped form the fight for American liberties, but considering his response to them later, and the fact that his vice president was trying to stir up another revolution (French style), I'm ready to forgive the mistake.

Elaborate on the VP "trying to stir up another revolution (French style)" statement... I need to know what you mean.

And no, we certainly don't get apologies anymore.

kochman said:

Not really... they were an authoritarian mess.
Even their Constitution said, right at the beginning, the government can go outside of the following when necessary...
Which is basically saying, you dolts may buy this, but it's all BS.

Click to expand...

And now that they don't have that, they're objectively "better off" than before?

By what measure are we judging this, apart from "liberal freedom feel-feels?"

Who, the Eastern Europeans that are no longer being exploited and living in police states?
Absolutely better off.

As for the Russians, I don't really know... I really don't think that the situation changed much for the common folk. There's still an oligarchy that reaps most of the benefits in the country, many of the old police state institutions are still in play from what I understand, etc...

kochman said:

Elaborate on the VP "trying to stir up another revolution (French style)" statement... I need to know what you mean.

And no, we certainly don't get apologies anymore.

Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson was convinced that the Federalists within Washington (and thus Adam's) cabinet had effectively rendered the American revolution moot. He believed that Adams was a pro-British aristocrat who wanted to preserve or reinstitute the old order. Jefferson was utterly in love with the French revolution, even indulgently tolerant of its violence, and a patron of pro-French Revolution societies in America. Whether Jefferson was actually willing to throw the country into another war is unknown -- he might have had he not won the presidential election, which he later referred to as a second revolution.

Hmmmm, well, that's still a big "if" to the point of you presenting it like he was actually attempting to do it...
"the fact that his vice president was trying to stir up another revolution"

Being sympathetic to it, fearing a potential return to an aristocratic state, etc =/= the strength of your statement.

kochman said:

Hmmmm, well, that's still a big "if" to the point of you presenting it like he was actually attempting to do it...
"the fact that his vice president was trying to stir up another revolution"

Being sympathetic to it, fearing a potential return to an aristocratic state, etc =/= the strength of your statement.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. It has been well over two years since I read anything on the Adams/Jefferson fallout during their presidential years. The point is that the stress of the time pushed him into an action he later regretted. If he had governed with his own cabinet, he might not have been in such a weak position given the constant drama between Hamilton's lot and Jefferson. Considering the strength Adams displayed in foreign policy, his command of the law and practical knowledge, and more than his fair share of prudential wisdom, he could have shone much brighter than he did.

kochman said:

Who, the Eastern Europeans that are no longer being exploited and living in police states?
Absolutely better off.

Click to expand...

The ones who had their welfare state gutted, their industries sold off and shut down, and inequality through the roof? Hardly. The countries' GDPs might be higher, but that is a mask for the economic distress of the country.

As for the Russians, I don't really know... I really don't think that the situation changed much for the common folk. There's still an oligarchy that reaps most of the benefits in the country, many of the old police state institutions are still in play from what I understand, etc...

Click to expand...

The former Soviet Union itself is a demographic catastrophe. Life expectancy fell by a decade when the social welfare net was gutted and tens of millions of people lost their jobs when the economy tanked following mass industrial sell-offs. In the USSR there was no homelessness and no joblessness, everyone got free education, health care, and pensions, and strict price controls ensured that the necessities of life were available and affordable to everyone. Today homelessness and destitution abound, HIV, Tuberculosis, and a host of other diseases (Typhus, for God's sake!) are epidemic; these were unheard of in Soviet times. Human trafficking is the largest in the former Eastern Bloc, mostly because the police are hopelessly corrupt and the economy in such shambles that people take their chances on risky jobs in other countries. Racism and anti-Semitism are also major problems which were unknown under the Druzhba Narodov of the Soviet Union and similar protective policies of Eastern Bloc nations.

It's no coincidence that many people in Eastern Europe, and a majority in the former USSR, regret the transition to capitalism and the dissolution of the USSR, something they never voted for in the first place.

And also in Romania a majority, but in most other Eastern Bloc nations, a plurality.

Cheezy the Wiz said:

The ones who had their welfare state gutted, their industries sold off and shut down, and inequality through the roof? Hardly. The countries' GDPs might be higher, but that is a mask for the economic distress of the country.

Click to expand...

Please...
I've spent a lot of time there, and asked a lot of questions.
The nations now in the EU are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better off than they were.

The former Soviet Union itself is a demographic catastrophe. Life expectancy fell by a decade when the social welfare net was gutted and tens of millions of people lost their jobs when the economy tanked following mass industrial sell-offs. In the USSR there was no homelessness and no joblessness, everyone got free education, health care, and pensions, and strict price controls ensured that the necessities of life were available and affordable to everyone.

Click to expand...

They also got disappeared, had to wait in bread lines, etc.

It's no coincidence that many people in Eastern Europe, and a majority in the former USSR, regret the transition to capitalism and the dissolution of the USSR, something they never voted for in the first place.

And also in Romania a majority, but in most other Eastern Bloc nations, a plurality.

Click to expand...

Jeez, nostalgia as a government plan? Hardly.
Surely you are aware of the BS involving looking at the "good old days"?

And, for the record, Romania was the least affiliated with the USSR, and didn't get raped as hard... Ceacescu and his cronies did the raping, and they were executed in the street after a bloody revolution where the army eventually sided with the citizenry.

The revolted because they were starving.

You attempting to dress this system up as though it was awesome is really ridiculous.
It couldn't even support itself, was defined by being a police state, and millions of citizens died at the hands of the governments involved.

kochman said:

Please...
I've spent a lot of time there, and asked a lot of questions.
The nations now in the EU are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better off than they were.

Click to expand...

The EU is an imperialist organization France, Germany, and the UK use to prey upon the rest of the Europe. It operates fist-in-glove with the IMF to radically enforce pro-free-market structures, which always work to the benefit of Western European bankers.

They also got disappeared, had to wait in bread lines, etc.

Click to expand...

"Got disappeared"...you know that the entirety of communist history does not consist of repeating the 1937-38 time frame over and over again, right?

As for bread lines* and empty supermarkets, those were mostly a characteristic of the mid-late 1980s, after restructuring began. At any rate, a line where you still get bread that is affordable is better than having a full supermarket but being unable to buy any of it because you are unemployed or poorly paid, and things are so expensive.

*not so often bread lines as sausage lines. Bread lines are a typically 1920s-40s thing.

Jeez, nostalgia as a government plan? Hardly.

Click to expand...

Erm, what? I pointed out that people regret the transformation, that they observed that the grass was not greener on the other side, and suddenly my political programme is "go back to the good old days?" Do you ever tire of strawmen?

Surely you are aware of the BS involving looking at the "good old days"?

Click to expand...

And just like that, the opinions of people who lived through it are dismissed...

And, for the record, Romania was the least affiliated with the USSR, and didn't get raped as hard... Ceacescu and his cronies did the raping, and they were executed in the street after a bloody revolution where the army eventually sided with the citizenry.

The revolted because they were starving.

You attempting to dress this system up as though it was awesome is really ridiculous.
It couldn't even support itself, was defined by being a police state, and millions of citizens died at the hands of the governments involved.

Click to expand...

I very well the details of the Romanian revolution. I interviewed my Romanian friend's mother for a class project, who lived in Bucharesti in 1989 and described the revolution in vivid detail, what it was like, what it meant to see Ceausescu booed by the crowd on national television, and how the news of the riots in Timisoara made her feel. But I also know that Iliescu and his cohorts were the victors of the revolution, and that things changed little, but the little they did change was for the worse, apart from a few simple things like press freedom and ridiculous regulations like typewriter ownership (hey, nobody said Ceausescu was a brilliant guy). As I just noted above, a majority of Romanians today (or in 2012 at least, which is post-EU entry mind you) believe their lives were better under communism. All your vague EU-is-so-great-it-doesn't-disappear-people rhetoric doesn't change how the people in the country who have lived through it feel.

I provided data. Now prove that Eastern and Central Europeans are better off now than under communism with something other than vague rhetoric.

Cheezy the Wiz said:

The EU is an imperialist organization France, Germany, and the UK use to prey upon the rest of the Europe. It operates fist-in-glove with the IMF to radically enforce pro-free-market structures, which always work to the benefit of Western European bankers.

Click to expand...

Ummm, yeah, that's a fairly ridiculous way of looking at the EU, but that's ok.

"Got disappeared"...you know that the entirety of communist history does not consist of repeating the 1937-38 time frame over and over again, right?

Click to expand...

You think that's the only time it happened? Hahahahaha
Have you seen "The Lives of Others" per chance?

As for bread lines* and empty supermarkets, those were mostly a characteristic of the mid-late 1980s, after restructuring began. At any rate, a line where you still get bread that is affordable is better than having a full supermarket but being unable to buy any of it because you are unemployed or poorly paid, and things are so expensive.

*not so often bread lines as sausage lines. Bread lines are a typically 1920s-40s thing.

Click to expand...

Depends on the country, regarding bread.
It wasn't just Russia that had problems.

Erm, what? I pointed out that people regret the transformation, that they observed that the grass was not greener on the other side, and suddenly my political programme is "go back to the good old days?" Do you ever tire of strawmen?

And just like that, the opinions of people who lived through it are dismissed...

Click to expand...

Ok, so you aren't aware that "good old day" opinions are generally flawed. I suggest you look into this. It's a well documented phenomenon.

I very well the details of the Romanian revolution. I interviewed my Romanian friend's mother for a class project, who lived in Bucharesti in 1989 and described the revolution in vivid detail, what it was like, what it meant to see Ceausescu booed by the crowd on national television, and how the news of the riots in Timisoara made her feel. But I also know that Iliescu and his cohorts were the victors of the revolution, and that things changed little, but the little they did change was for the worse, apart from a few simple things like press freedom and ridiculous regulations like typewriter ownership (hey, nobody said Ceausescu was a brilliant guy). As I just noted above, a majority of Romanians today (or in 2012 at least, which is post-EU entry mind you) believe their lives were better under communism. All your vague EU-is-so-great-it-doesn't-disappear-people rhetoric doesn't change how the people in the country who have lived through it feel.
I was married to a Romanian, that I met during my repeated trips there. Was a part of her huge family, etc. I know about Romania.
I know they had money to buy bread, but couldn't...
Her parents took part in the Revolution.

I provided data. Now prove that Eastern and Central Europeans are better off now than under communism with something other than vague rhetoric.

Click to expand...

GDP, life expectancy, incarceration rates, ability to vote, not having to fear the Stasi, etc.

Sorry man, getting to be on the skoda list for a few years just isn't going to be able to compete.

There's also this fact... that system you tout fell completely apart, often due to internal revolt because things were so bad.
So some old idiots think things were better under the CCCP/communists... they also think Mussolini made the trains run on time.
I don't see a lot of these countries today having anything near a revolt.

Click to expand...

kochman said:

It couldn't even support itself, was defined by being a police state, and millions of citizens died at the hands of the governments involved.

Click to expand...

It 'couldn't support itself' while trying to maintain military parity with a hostile power. I don't really take that as evidence of a flaw in the system itself, unless you can show that they started off on an even footing with the hostile power and that the hostile power fared much better from their own efforts to maintain a military advantage.

In this case neither support for the assertion is present.

The US started the arms race from the position of being the only major industrial power on the planet with no damage to their manufacturing base. The USSR started from having their industrial base destroyed by invasion and anything left standing destroyed in the course of reclamation.

WW II and the subsequent arms race has (permanently?) attached the Keysian dynamic to the defense industry above all other segments of the US economy. While this hasn't destroyed the US yet, it may well prove out that the US fared no better from participation in the arms race than the USSR did. Unless we find a way out from under the bond between prosperity and defense spending this will remain an open question.

kochman said:

GDP, life expectancy, incarceration rates, ability to vote, not having to fear the Stasi, etc.

Click to expand...

Might want to be really careful with that one.

Or with GDP, which I already explained is not an indicator of the distribution of that wealth, or of life expectancy, which I already noted dropped by a decade in Russia after dissolution, and even further with men.

"Not having to fear the Stasi" - I guess you don't know what our own country is like these days, or what it's ever been like to live as a dissident in capitalist society? Our government murders, deports, incarcerates, and harasses the people who dare to question it in meaningful ways, although these days, it's not even in meaningful ways, it's those who dare to question at all...

People in the Eastern Bloc always had the right to vote. They voted the communists into power in almost every country, in fact. Women got the vote in Soviet Russia before they did in the United States!

Cheezy the Wiz said:

Or with GDP, which I already explained is not an indicator of the distribution of that wealth, or of life expectancy, which I already noted dropped by a decade in Russia after dissolution, and even further with men.

"Not having to fear the Stasi" - I guess you don't know what our own country is like these days, or what it's ever been like to live as a dissident in capitalist society? Our government murders, deports, incarcerates, and harasses the people who dare to question it in meaningful ways, although these days, it's not even in meaningful ways, it's those who dare to question at all...

People in the Eastern Bloc always had the right to vote. They voted the communists into power in almost every country, in fact. Women got the vote in Soviet Russia before they did in the United States!

Click to expand...

Jeesus man, they voted in elections that ONLY let you vote Communist.
That's not a vote, that's an act for an audience.

My country is nowhere near Stasi level... sorry.

We're nowhere near a violent civil war/revolution because we aren't so totally busted as that system was.

Per capita income is also higher, not just GDP.

How can you just ignore such obviousness?

It's almost a sickness, at this point, to think the CCCP was a nice system.

Well, they probably COULD vote for someone else. But then it sucks ending up in a coffin somewhere in Siberia never to be found again...

(note: That was hyperbolic to a degree. I'm sure they were decent enough to mark the locations.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_legislative_election,_1937

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_legislative_election,_1950

Seems legit.

It is very nearly impossible to live in the US without participating. The possibility that not participating can easily land you in jail is a significant part of that. Since you are an active participant at an even higher level than most you may not notice. But is that not something close to 'Stasi level'?