Can the U.S. Recover From Obama's Ravages?

[jbg]

The answer to my self-posed question is that we've done it before, after a disastrous policy run from Eisenhower through Carter, and we can do it again.

During the period from January 20, 1953, when Eisenhower opened his terms by caving to the Communists in Korea, and then in Hungary, and then to the Islamists in Egypt (the list goes on) until January 19, 1981, when Carter closed out his ignominious four years in office, America suffered a string of craven surrenders:

• Korean armistice (Eisenhower);
• Stand-down in regard to Hungarian Revolution of 1956(Eisenhower);
• Forcing Britain, France and Israel to back off in regaining control over Suez(Eisenhower);
• Fueling harmful African and Asian "independence" under West's financial tutelage and no-strings attached aid (Eisenhower);
• Standing down on Quemoy, Matsu and other South China Sea boundary issues (Eisenhower);
• Allowing Castro takeover within Cuba, clearly within American "zone of influence" from Monroe's days (Eisenhower);
• Bay of Pigs (Kennedy);
• Cuban missile crisis agreements involving removal of missiles from Turkey and allowing Soviet domination to stand within American

  "zone of influence" from Monroe's days (Kennedy);

• Merely rhetorical response to Berlin Wall construction (Kennedy);
• Test Ban Treaty (Kennedy);
• Assassination of Diem (Kennedy);
• Giving Aleksi Kosygin photo ops in Marlboro, New Jersey (Johnson);
• Allowing end of Czech Spring (Johnson);
• Allowing nationalization by Arabs of U.S. oil properties, and other expropriations of Western interests (Nixon);
• Trip to Peking and de facto recognition of Red China in return, for, literally, what? (Nixon);
• Trip to Moscow and SALT I in return, for, literally, what? (Nixon);
• Vietnam "peace" agreement with no accounting for POW's, no real peace for South Vietnam, dressed up as fair treaty (probably should have been called what it was, a decision that Vietnam was just not sufficiently important for involvement) (Nixon);
• Waiting until last minute to rearm Israel during 1973 War, and then forcing one-sided "disengagement" by Israel to curry favor with Arab potentates (Nixon);
• Panama Canal Treaty (Carter);
• Abandonment of Shah (similar to Obama abandonment of Mubarak (Carter);
• Rhetorical response to Iran hostage seizure and then ineffectual rescue mission (Carter);

During this period, the likes of Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, and Stokely Carmichael hijacked a civil rights movement that was quintessentially American, and in the process destroyed the one opportunity underclass blacks may have had to integrate into American society in a peaceful and orderly way. Welfare grants that encouraged serial reproduction didn't help.

Peaceful protest movements evolved into two malignant paths: 1) the acid and drug fueled "hippy" movement (think Woodstock and the violent Altamont) and the campus violence, culminating in four needless deaths at Kent State; and 2) the destruction of universities as serious citadels of higher learning.

Meanwhile the economy was wracked by stubborn inflation fueled by wage-pattern bargaining, politically motivated inflation of the money supply, wage-price controls that blew up, culminating in lines at the gas pump, high unemployment and ultimately double-digit inflation. Politically, the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon did much to diminish the awe that Americans once held that office. In plain terms, they were thugs who hired other thugs. Nixon made an art form of dressing up surrenders as positive events. See surrender list above.

Ford's major offense was the "reassessment" of the U.S.'s relationship with Israel. I supported the Nixon pardon and still feel that was the right thing. Carter's main contribution was to add to the surrender list, and create more inflation and unemployment. And more gas lines.

Reagan brought the swill and rot to a crashing end. Within days he ended price controls on the petroleum industry. Crude and product prices, including prices at the gas pump plummeted. Despite the howls of the "nuclear freeze" movement hard-line policies towards the Soviet "evil empire" Union continued and the Soviet Union fell. Inflation dropped to insignificant levels. The economy boomed. The Soviet Union fell, as did the Berlin Wall, shortly after he left office. No one attributes those events, though, to Bush I. Reagan gets the credit. Bush I managed to do limited damage to Reagan's luster, and the Democrats were even forced to nominate and the nation elect Bill Clinton, who was about as far to the right as a Democrat could be. I happen to think Clinton was a good President.

So, to respond to my own question, things were far worse ion 1979-80 in terms of U.S. domestic conditions and the rest of the world. We've recovered once. We can recover again. We'll be back. With the help of fracking and energy independence, stronger than ever

[Black Dog]

Nice to see you've dispensed with the fiction of being liberal and fully accepted that you're just a conservative crank.

*sits backs, waits for inevitable story about McGovern campaign*

[cybercoma]

I get it. Ravages rhymes with savages. More dog-whistle politics from the American right.

[On Guard for Thee]

I didn't see a dern thing in there about Iraq!

[bush_cheney2004]

So, to respond to my own question, things were far worse ion 1979-80 in terms of U.S. domestic conditions and the rest of the world. We've recovered once. We can recover again. We'll be back. With the help of fracking and energy independence, stronger than ever

I agree with your assessment, having lived through all of that and knowing that America endured far worse before then as well. Methinks that younger folk of today really have no perspective on such things, with only 9/11 and The Great Recession as benchmarks. America is the same as it ever was.

[Shady]

They can recover. It's just going to take a few years. Like Reagan after Carter.

[bush_cheney2004]

The most devastating event in U.S. history was a self inflicted "civil war". The nation emerged from that conflagration stronger and better prepared to persevere through all future challenges. The U.S. is far more robust than many people realize.

[Bonam]

The most devastating event in U.S. history was a self inflicted "civil war". The nation emerged from that conflagration stronger and better prepared to persevere through all future challenges. The U.S. is far more robust than many people realize.

That may be true but the civil war was 150 years ago and much has changed since then. Many nations in history have undergone civil wars in their formative years that have made them stronger, only to nevertheless decline centuries later. Sadly, the robustness demonstrated by the US in the civil war does not speak to its robustness today. As with economic matters, past performance is not indicative of future results.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....Sadly, the robustness demonstrated by the US in the civil war does not speak to its robustness today. As with economic matters, past performance is not indicative of future results.

Very well...pick your favorite economic calamity in U.S. history, as there have been many since the Civil War. As member jbg has alluded to, the most recent "Great Recession" did not have the same impact as the 1970's, which actually spawned its own "Misery Index" for unemployment, inflation, and interest rates. Member August1991 has stated it best...the United States has nobody else to run to, not even China. It is robust when it has to be, and can also take far greater risks. Its pending demise has been exaggerated....many times before.

Edited September 2, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[The_Squid]

lol

Funny topic given the last president and his disastrous reign. This president has had to clean up a lot of crap and with a congress that has passed the least amount of legislation ever in US history.

Edited September 2, 2014 by The_Squid

[bush_cheney2004]

Not passing a lot of legislation can be a good thing.

[PIK]

America will go with the repubs again and get out of this mess, while canada goes with trudeau and we have to get into a mess.

[jbg]

That may be true but the civil war was 150 years ago and much has changed since then. Many nations in history have undergone civil wars in their formative years that have made them stronger, only to nevertheless decline centuries later. Sadly, the robustness demonstrated by the US in the civil war does not speak to its robustness today. As with economic matters, past performance is not indicative of future results.

The example I used is far more current than the U.S. Civil War. The Reagan years were approximately 30 years ago; current enough for me.

[dre]

They can recover. It's just going to take a few years. Like Reagan after Carter.

They ARE slowly recovering and it HAS taken a few years.

[Remiel]

Some people are just not happy unless they are killing people to ensure their own supremacy.

[overthere]

So, to respond to my own question, things were far worse ion 1979-80 in terms of U.S. domestic conditions and the rest of the world. We've recovered once. We can recover again. We'll be back. With the help of fracking and energy independence, stronger than ever

I love your optimism and wish you well, but.....

I reckon the worm has turned. You'll be exporting energy to a country(China) to fuel their Industrial revolution. 35 years ago was the heart of the Cold War, when you thought your enemy(Russia) was far stronger than they actually were. That is not the case with China.

[Moonlight Graham]

The US is still by far the most powerful country in the world, though has lost power post-9/11 and post housing crash.

US military power is still very strong, and is only limited by the drop in US economic power hurt by debt from stupid wars and the economic crash.

Minor to moderate foreign policy flubs here and there aren't going to significantly reduce US power, IMO it comes down to how the US keeps its finances in check. What also matters is the US's grand foreign policy strategy. The US has lost massive "soft power" since Bush Jr. came to office. If the US had more credibility and respect worldwide instead of being a jerk that bullies every non-western country and treats them like crap then I think it would have a much easier time deterring anti-Western sentiment and preventing anti-Western enemies like Russia, Iran, and jihadists in the middle-east. People & leaders in Russia and the ME don't want democracy and western-style capitalism in part as a rebellion against western (mostly US) aggression and all things western.

[bush_cheney2004]

"Soft power" is way overrated....just look at Canada.

[On Guard for Thee]

Between phony wars like Iraq and Afghanistan and then the housing mortgage scandal I reckon the thread title here should reflect Bush more than Obama. He's the guy who inhereted this "agenda from hell" remember?

[Hal 9000]

Between phony wars like Iraq and Afghanistan and then the housing mortgage scandal I reckon the thread title here should reflect Bush more than Obama. He's the guy who inhereted this "agenda from hell" remember?

[Argus]

They can recover. It's just going to take a few years. Like Reagan after Carter.

Or Obama after Bush?

[Shady]

Or Obama after Bush?

Obama's policies have actually made things worse in almost all aspects. So no.

[Shady]

Exactly. It's already been well documented that Democrats refused to even acknowledge there was even a mortgage problem. Even when Republicans sought to propose fixes to the problems twice, in 2004 and 2006. They framed it as an attack on the poor and minorities. It's their policies of insisting that mortgages be given to people that wouldn't otherwise qualifty, and lowering mortgage standards in the first place, that almost brought down the economy. It's the bad consequences of good intentions. And some people still try to claim it was Bush's fault. It's Orwellian.

[waldo]

Even when Republicans sought to propose fixes to the problems twice, in 2004 and 2006.

your revisionism nowithstanding, there's pleny of academic scrutiny that places blame on both sides of the Republican-Democrat divide. Your 2006 revisionism, of course, aligns with the image of a crusading McCain intent on reigning in 'Freddie-Fannie':

But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill "while Mr. Obama was notably silent" oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it.

By the time McCain signed on to the legislation, it was too late to prevent the crisis anyway. McCain added his name on May 25, 2006, when the housing bubble had already nearly peaked.

[On Guard for Thee]

Obama's policies have actually made things worse in almost all aspects. So no.

So in your view starting two wars, opening up illegal prisons, and getting convicted of war crimes is better than winding down two wars and instituting social healthcare?