This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: We're All Nixonians Now

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics,

 

"People have got to know whether their President is a crook"

Richard M. Nixon

I often wonder who is worse: George W. Bush — the man who turned a projected trillion dollar surplus into the greatest deficits in world history, who bailed out the profligate Wall Street algos and arbitrageurs, who proceeded with two needless, pointless and absurdly costly military occupations (even though he had initially campaigned on the promise of a humble foreign policy), who ignored Michael Scheuer’s warnings about al-Qaeda previous to 9/11, who signed the Constitution-trashing PATRIOT Act  (etc etc ad infinitum) or his successor Barack Obama, the man who retained and expanded the PATRIOT Act powers under the NDAA (2011), who claimed the right to extrajudicially kill American citizens using predator drones, who expanded Bush’s expensive and pointless occupations (all the while having run on a promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and reverse Bush’s civil liberties incursions), who proceeded with Paulson’s Wall Street bailouts, authorised the NSA to record all phone calls and internet activity, and continued the destructive War on Drugs (even though he had in the past been a drug user).

The answer, by the way, is Richard Nixon. For almost forty years after that man’s resignation, it is arguable that almost every single administration (with the possible exception of  Carter as well as Reagan’s first year in office) — but especially that of Bush and Obama — has been cut from his cloth. It was Richard Nixon who inaugurated the War on Drugs — that despicable policy that has empowered the drug gangs and obliterated much of Latin America. It was Richard Nixon who so brazenly corrupted the White House and tarnished the office of the Presidency through the Watergate wiretapping scandal.  It was Nixon’s administration that created the culture of government surveillance that led directly to the PATRIOT Act. It was Nixon who internationalised the fiat dollar, so trampling George Washington’s warnings about not entangling alliances, and of course setting the stage for the gradual destruction of American industry that continued apace under NAFTA and into the present day, where America runs the greatest trade deficits in human history. It was Richard Nixon who set the precedent of pointless, stupid, blowback-inducing militarism, by continuing and expanding the Vietnam war. It was Richard Nixon whose administration authorised the use of chemical weapons (or as George W. Bush might have put it, “weapons of mass destruction”) against the Vietcong.

Presidents since have followed — to a greater or lesser extent — in his mould. This is particularly acute this election cycle; you vote for Obama and you get Richard Nixon, or you vote for Romney and you get Richard Nixon. Nixon’s words: “we’re all Keynesians now” have a powerful resonance; not only has every administration since Nixon retained the petrodollar standard and spent like a drunken sailor in pursuit of Keynesian multipliers, but every President since has followed in the Nixonian tradition on civil liberties, on trade, on foreign policy. Henry Kissinger — the true architect of many Nixonian policies, and Obama’s only real competition for most bizarre Nobel Peace Prize recipient — has to some degree counselled each and every President since.

It is hard to overstate the magnitude of Nixon’s actions. The demonetisation of  gold ended a 5,000 year long tradition. It was a moment of conjuring, a moment of trickery; that instead of producing the goods, and giving up her gold hoard to pay for her consumption habits (specifically, her consumption of foreign energy), America would give the finger to the world, and print money to pay her debts, while retaining her (substantial) gold hoard. The obvious result of this policy has been that America now prints more and more money, and produces less and less of her consumption. She has printed so much that $5 trillion floats around Asia, while the American industrial belt rusts. Industrial production in America is where it was ten years ago, yet America’s debt exposure has ballooned.

America has had not one but two Vietnams in the past ten years.

First, Afghanistan, in the pursuit of the elusive Osama bin Laden (or, “in the name of liberating women”, presumably via blowing their legs off in drone strikes), where young Western soldiers continue to die (for what?), even after bin Laden’s supposed death in a Pakistani compound last year.

Then, Iraq, presumably in the interests of preventing Saddam Hussein from using non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, or liberating more women by blowing their legs off (or as Tom Friedman  put it: “SUCK! ON! THIS!”).

Like Nixon’s Presidency, the Nixonian political system is highly fragile. Debt is fragility, because it enforces the inflexibility of repayment, and the Nixonian political system has created staggering debt, much of it now offshore. The Nixonian economic policy has gutted American industry, leaving America uncompetitive and dependent on foreign productivity and resources. The Nixonian foreign policy has created a world that is deeply antipathetic to America and American interests, which has meant that America has become less and less capable of achieving imperatives via diplomacy.

Future historians may finger George W. Bush as the worst President in history, and the one who broke the American empire. But smarter scholars will pinpoint Nixon. True, the seeds of destruction were sown much earlier with the institution of permanent limited liability corporations. This allowed for the evolution of a permanent corporate aristocracy which eventually bought out the political echelon, and turned the Federal government into an instrument of crony capitalism, military Keynesianism and corporate welfare. Nixonianism has been the corporate aristocracy’s crowning achievement. And to some extent, this period of free lunch economics was a banquet, even for middle class Americans. The masses were kept fat and happy. But now the game is up — like Nixon’s Presidency — its days are numbered.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:19 | 2373255 Peter K
Peter K's picture

Worst president is history? Hint W inning T he  F uture. Obummer :0)

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:25 | 2373274 brewing
brewing's picture

Nixon NOW...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:31 | 2373309 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

brewing

I have that button. I break it out and wear it in public ocassionally.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:39 | 2373343 brewing
brewing's picture

i have it too, but too "precious" to expose to the elements...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:04 | 2373423 Manthong
Manthong's picture

How do you say "I am not a crook" in Kenyan?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:08 | 2373435 brewing
brewing's picture

ask obama...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:01 | 2373545 El Viejo
El Viejo's picture

What? Doesn't Ronnie Reagan get an honorable mention? Sure his dogma was right for the time (80s) but not right now for sure. He empowered corporations then(and now we're seeing the result of the quest for productive capacity gone mad), but now the consumer needs empowering. Thank God Gingrich (by his own admission a Reagan conservative) is out. I like the guy, but we just don't need him now. See graphs below. The divergence in incomes started with Ronnie's term.  I'm not blaming him I'm just saying it started in ernest then. Call it, Trickle down justification for a higher salary for me. After all it will trickle down. I remember complaints from congressmen about the incomes of high paid sports figures.

http://www.cbpp.org/files/7-31-08inc-testimony.pdf

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:57 | 2373911 AnonymousAnarchist
AnonymousAnarchist's picture

Who's more progressive? Nixon or Obama?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:17 | 2373998 Gohn Galt
Gohn Galt's picture

I like Reagan, so I am a little biased.  (even though the fucker promised me he'd get rid of the Dept of Ed.  Reagan and Nancy fell pray to those who wish to rule and harm us all).

Bush family is the worst.  Complete knowledge of history and personal involvement all the way up through their great grandfather and beyond.  Founding Planned Parenthood aside, the family has been involved in 100's of millions of deaths worldwide, directly and indirectly.  Their family will be responsible for well over a billion lives worldwide and massive suffering amongst all people.

In the old days people like this would be reformed or banished.  Not allowed to cause this much harm.  Now people like this have technology and resources to poison and destroy the whole planet.  It is real tricky to face them, not many people left standing who have.  And of course if you a big tyrant and our able to take them down, then you become the problem.

 

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 16:11 | 2374764 NoClueSneaker
NoClueSneaker's picture

I'll sell you a nice car.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:33 | 2373315 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Annoying that the author can't get through the first couple of sentences without getting his facts wrong. I'm not fan of George W. Bush-- he was an awful RINO-- but he didn't start with a budget surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

"While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets..."

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:42 | 2373351 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

Agreed.  The the author forgets that Nixon had one of two choices -- CLOSE the gold window OR ship all of the remaining gold to other countries.    Nixon didn't create the budget deficits, Vietnam war, the WAR ON POVERTY (ha ha), etc.    And if I remember correctly, both houses of congress were OVERWHELMING populated by democrats.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:28 | 2373521 citta vritti
citta vritti's picture

actually it's all gone downhill since Washington, still our greatest president. as for where to lay blame, each President has inherited the accumulated sins (let's be moral about this) of his predecessors and, more particularly, those of the Congresses of his predecessors -- takes two (or three) to tango. For the income tax and Federal Reserve Acts, blame Wilson. For imperial jingoism, blame the Congress under McKinley. For expanded federal bureaucratic tendencies, blame Lincoln and FDR, and add Truman. For allowing the military-industrial-Congressional complex to grow beyond outside (or inside) control, blame Eisenhower (who did, however, warn about it). and blame JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and the rest for whatever you want. They deserve it, but at least equally deserving are the other real culprits: Congress and the Fed. And, of course, we ourselves who allowed it to happen in the name of patriotism and Amerca, f*ck yeah.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:37 | 2373561 El Viejo
El Viejo's picture

Nixon, could get immediate results. I was in Japan when he devalued the dollar. It went from 360yen / $1.00 to 180yen / $1.00 and continued on for years after that. You simply cannot blame a president for the spend thrift ways of congress. They have been buying votes ever since 1776.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:30 | 2373774 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

Actually there was another choice. 

America could have changed her consumption habits, which is what you do in a free market if your consumption habits leads to a consequence you don't like or are scared by.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:12 | 2374585 Umh
Umh's picture

Nixon and his predecessors could have admitted that inflation had occurred and accurately valued the U.S. dollar.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 20:22 | 2375299 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

To paraphrase Doonesbury:  "Nixon in 2012!  He's tanned, he's rested, he's ready!"

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:48 | 2373367 Rainman
Rainman's picture

Thanks for the link on the Slick Willy Surplus Myth......one of the biggest Democratic fairy tales of all time.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:49 | 2373603 GeorgeHayduke
GeorgeHayduke's picture

Remember, Clinton had a Republican House led by that pompous ass Newt Gingrich for several years. It takes Congress to pass a budget too. BOTH parties are really just one party that exist to carry water for their corporate buddies. All the while enriching themselves of course. After all, that is the American Way.

By its nature, federal politics (and state and often local) attract scumbag salesmen, powerseekers, and avaricious assholes. Once you see how the game works, expecting anyone of integrity to run for office is foolish. After being born in the USA and watching my fellow citizens/consumers for 5 decades, these are exactly the kind of people the majority of Americans deserve in office.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:08 | 2373433 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

Good point about the illusory Clinton surplus.

Nevertheless you have to admit it's a great article. Especially the bit about Kissinger serving as architecht.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:25 | 2373505 hussaifa
hussaifa's picture

Agreed - "Aziz" should get his facts straight before displaying his ignorance. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:19 | 2373735 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

"the man who turned a projected trillion dollar surplus into the greatest deficits in world history"

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:46 | 2373850 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

But as a point of fact, they were not the greatest deficits in history, his successor has passed him by a handy margin.

I really didnt think it was possible, but BO managed to make W look fiscally responsible in caomparison.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:14 | 2373983 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

Correct, but they were the greatest at the time, and had Bush not embarked upon his corporate handout/ military Keynesianism/ surveillance (etc) spending, we would have been much, much nearer those projections. Obama has done a lot of damage since, too. They're both Nixonians.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:03 | 2373653 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

I've used that to point out to my related Liberal/Democrat Bush-haters that they are wrong and that they can't believe everything they hear from the MSM and DNC. I get blank stares and 'Nuh uh!'. Too funny...two parties, one problem.

Old saying: 'Don't fix the blame. Fix the problem'

 

PS. Loved your movie...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:17 | 2373728 Spaceman Spiff
Spaceman Spiff's picture

Amen! Drives me up a wall when I hear the media tout the mythical surplus.

Debt levels never went down. So no surplus. (Some try to counter that surpluses by law must buy treasuries... so they still spent that money to buy debt which funded other spending.)

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:19 | 2373731 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

"the man who turned a projected trillion dollar surplus into the greatest deficits in world history"

Thu, 04/26/2012 - 12:20 | 2374344 hangemhigh
hangemhigh's picture

@BB:

“Annoying that the author can't get through the first couple of sentences without getting his facts wrong. I'm not fan of George W. Bush-- he was an awful RINO-- but he didn't start with a budget surplus.”

the truth about the ‘surpluses’ is even more reckless and destructive than that.  though clinton did have one small $1.9B operating budget surplus in 1999, all of the other ‘surpluses’ were the result of a special brand of budget math that included social security surpluses as part of the  general budget. 

that ‘special math’ was possible because of legislation passed under LBJ  that created something called the ‘unified budget’.  The ‘unified budget’ treated general and social security revenues as a single budget item that conveniently understated Great Society budget shortfalls.  

as for social security, following a series of deficits in the late 70’s-early 80’s, the 1982 greenspan commission on social security recommended a series of tax hikes to increase funding.  the witholding rate was increased from 6.7% to 7.65% (that’s a 15% tax hike under a republican administration) and the income base was raised, too.

in effect, after 1983 everyone paying into social security was charged an upfront premium in the form of a higher tax rate to prefund the escalating costs associated with preserving the systems solvency. 

Between 1983 and 2008, republican and democratic administrations in the white house and congress used the resulting $1.5t in surplus social security revenues to fund an endless stream of  huge budget deficits caused by tax cuts, foreign wars and out of control spending on special interest/pork programs.

before  clinton left office(6/26/200) he made the mistake of crowing about the alleged ’$1.9t  in budget surpluses that would accrue over the next decade’.  w bush used that statement as leverage to get another massive round of tax cuts passed even though the federal government was already $6t in debt and all of the phantom tax cut funding was surplus  social security revenues.  

There never were any surpluses anywhere other than those in social security retirement funds……all of that money was used as a slush fund and looted by our one party kleptocrats.   

SOCIAL SECURITY…..YOUR NEW ERA CONFEDERATE BANKNOTES……….

SOURCE : The Looting of Social Security by Allen W Smith   ISBN 978-0-9770851-9-4

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 20:20 | 2375298 steve from virginia
steve from virginia's picture

 

Hate to rain on yr parade, Buckaroo, but that paragon of pinko liberalism Alan Greenspan indicated a government surplus during Clinton years:

 

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2001/20010302/default.htm

 

The debt isn't a problem anyway: problems start when the rate of debt expansion slows down.

 

If the govt. debt slows down there are fewer funds available to service private sector debt. The public sector deficit = private sector surplus.

 

Private sector debt is expanding so the wonderful economy is 'growing' and 'recovering'. To fund private debt service the public debt/deficit must expand. Otherwise: bankers from Mars w/ bags of money.

 

Have a nice day :)

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:40 | 2373346 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Humphrey ~ Muskie

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:44 | 2373357 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Take another look at LBJ.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:28 | 2374639 Stroke
Stroke's picture

My blood boils when I think of that piece of shit & how he let 58,000 men & women die so we could get cheap sneakers from VietNam....

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 20:14 | 2375289 Bicycle Repairman
Bicycle Repairman's picture

Cheap sneakers?  That's what it was all about? You're probably right.  Sad.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:03 | 2373418 Assetman
Assetman's picture

Sock It To Me?????????????

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:25 | 2373511 Woodyg
Woodyg's picture

Nixon's trifecta 1. ending bretton woods 2. War on drugs 3. Opening china

Peole say it was the Reagan revolution that irrevocably changed America but the seeds were planted by Nixon.

But let's admit it most of us haven't been alive long enough to see a decent president - And if you are sorry for all your hard work we pissed away into the wind.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:06 | 2373678 Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

What was wrong with opening China?  I am thankful everytime I turn on my price supressed computer, phone, [insert any electronic device or cheap disposable good].

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:32 | 2373781 Woodyg
Woodyg's picture

Race to the bottom - and it allowed us to see that commie bastards are fine IF they help empower the corporation.....

Showing the arms race to be a sham.......

But I'm thinking you know what's wrong w china.... And was meant as sarcasm -

If not pull your head out!

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:29 | 2373284 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

 

 

I would argue that Woodrow Wilson and FDR are the godfathers of the trajectory to the welfare state in the U.S.  The political "system" has complemented (exacerbated?) that trajectory along the way with many stooges and ill-advised chief executives.  But for my (pre-1981) two cents, those two get the prize. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:39 | 2373328 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Really, it all started with Abraham Lincoln-- he is the foundational villain of our sad present-day story. By crushing states' rights, suborning the Constitution, and setting the precedent for unlimited Executive and Federal power, he laid the groundwork for Wilson and FDR's subsequent dirty work.

The Republic died at Appomatox. Lincoln was the Julius Caesar of the modern era. Went out the same way, too. Sic Semper Tyrannus.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:02 | 2373411 TheDriver
TheDriver's picture

As a Virginian and Jeffersonian Democrat, I feel compelled to correct the spelling -- Sic semper tyrannis. Or were you referring to Death to one of the largest land carnivores of all time?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:20 | 2373479 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Of course, the "Republic" itself was but a coup, taking out the Articles of Confederation and replacing them wholesale with a whole new form of centralized goernment. This would be the reason they kept all of the doors and windows closed even though they were in the midst of the sweltering summer heat.

But, as always, winners write the official history, and all is seen as good.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:28 | 2373520 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Indeed. Empirically, it is clear that the Constitution has been an abject failure. It's like Keynesianism: sounds great on paper, but fails in execution due to inherent deficiencies in human nature. A return to the Articles of Confederation (or something very much like them) is realistically the only way out of our present predicament.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:05 | 2373673 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

Until the power of corporations [including banks as a sub-species] is constrained, there is no point.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:13 | 2374312 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Yes, but that is a symptom of the underlying problem (an unworkable Constitution) rather than the problem itself. If you read up on how Corporations were enthroned in the late 19th century, it all happened perfectly legally starting with a Supreme Court decision.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:09 | 2373685 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

we "lost" when the anti-federalists "lost".  The federalists were much better propagandists... as is evidenced in the framing of the discussion... federalist vs. ANTI federalists.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtxorFsZHxk - thougthful clip on the very subject.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:32 | 2373784 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

it is clear that the Constitution has been an abject failure. It's like Keynesianism: sounds great on paper, but fails in execution due to inherent deficiencies in human nature

 

Until now, I'd never imagined one could portray Keynesianism as analagous to the Constitution.  I agree with the human nature point being the enemy of the concept of the Constitution, but I don't agree that Keynesianism sounds great on paper, or ever did.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:54 | 2374300 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

In fairness to Keynes, one of his bedrock assumptions is that government spending can be managed responsibly (increasing in recessions, decreasing in booms). If you accepted his assumption, then his conclusion works.

Obviously, governments are incapable of managing spending responsibly for any sustained period of time-- history is 100% clear about this. So obviously it is a bad assumption.

Similarly, if a centralized government is created on paper that spans a very large constituency, that government will expand into a tyranny given enough time-- no matter what type of limitations you try to put on paper. History is 100% clear on this, as well.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:33 | 2375126 thatthingcanfly
thatthingcanfly's picture

Jefferson recognized the bit about size and scope. It was not anticipated that These United States would grow to span such a large land mass and still consider themselves one "Union." Jefferson also was an advocate of a State's right to secede from this voluntary union. The fact that history books refer to the War of Northern Aggression as "The American Civil War," when it was in fact the polar opposite of a civil war, is a testament to how decisive Linclon the Terrible's victory over the Jeffersonians indeed was.

The Constution worked great for its 1st 70 years.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:04 | 2373671 narapoiddyslexia
narapoiddyslexia's picture

The Republic died aborning, as they used to say, when the drafters of the constitution left out the part about corporations not being people, and about corporations not purchasing the freely available prostitutes in Congress.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:21 | 2374359 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

The problem with your argument is that it implies that the Constitution could be perfected. The problem with the Constitution is not with its specific wording (or lack thereof), but its scope, which was too large. There is a threshold size above which any government will expand to tyranny. Unfortunately the Constitution defined a central government that simply had too large an ambit.

The Articles of Confederation, on the other hand, accommodated 13 different states, any of which were too small to effectively grow into the monster that the Federal government has now become.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:20 | 2373738 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Now that is so remarkable to hear. Seen from abroad Lincoln forged the US nation. There is a deep divide that goes back to the civil war which has not healed; if anything it has hardened as an ideological divide between Big Government America, new satan, and old alliance of  near autonomous states who prefered their individual independence.

The confederacy lives on! 

Now although I understand that, I don't see why the REPUBLIC is betrayed by the federal construct, to the extent where universal sufferage is upheld and the Congress makes the laws. What you imply is that Lincoln took away congressional powers and created a dictatorship. Is that what the 1865-1932 period was?

(I assume that many over here, anti-big-state, feel FDR overstepped the old constitution. But Lincoln...?)

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:17 | 2374336 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Read up on your American History. Lincoln overturned the constitution by invoking "emergency powers" and set himself up with almost dictatorial powers. Everything that Bush did regarding "enemy combatants" was derived from the precedents Lincoln set. Woodrow Wilson and FDR also invoked "emergency powers" as well-- emergencies that, to this day, have not been rescinded.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:59 | 2374706 falak pema
falak pema's picture

emergency powers cos the south seceded. And, those powers were rescinded when the new constituency was formed. 

Before Lincoln took office in March, seven southern slave states declared their secession and formed the Confederacy. He wasn't invading another country, just trying to save his own. Difference, and in a civil war, the legalese gets blurred. 

 

Redefining the republic and republicanism

The last high-quality photograph of Lincoln was taken March 1865.

The successful reunification of the states had consequences for the name of the country. The term "the United States" has historically been used, sometimes in the plural ("these United States"), and other times in the singular, without any particular grammatical consistency. The Civil War was a significant force in the eventual dominance of the singular usage by the end of the 19th century.

 

Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

His successors redefined the republic. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 17:04 | 2374913 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Right. He could have preserved the Constitution, and let the southern states secede.

Instead, he chose to destroy the Constitution in order to "save" the union.

Well, we got what we paid for, I guess.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:49 | 2373864 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

Quite so. However, this is why the term RINO is generally incorrect- a Republican who advocates statism and deficit spending is very much in keeping with the principles of the founders of that party and its greatest hero. I would say that in reality a Republican arguing for decentralized power and reduced spending is actually the RINO.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:58 | 2373916 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

There is a "Libertarian wing" of the Republican Party that at one point likely represented a fairly large % of the party.  Mr. Republican Robert Taft and the Barry Goldwaters of the party represented that wing.  Ronald Reagan ran a campaign from that wing of the party, though didn't  govern from there.  That part of the party is non-existent today, save Ron Paul, who most Republicans wish would just go away.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:41 | 2373348 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

If I had to vote, I would vote Woodrow Wilson.... though there is the school of thought that it was FDR who actually pledged us into slavery... so there's that.  I think that celebrating the legacy of FDR is more harmful that what he actually did (much of which was dismantled).  Wilson gave us the federal reserve and WWI and really, WWII through the mishandling of both the war and the aftermath of the war.  Tough call, really.

I do really like the article, however.  The "left" wants to trash Reagan for starting the mess... the "right" loves to pick on Carter (and, of course, the Bush and Obama bashing).  The fact that so much of what is outlined here regarding Nixon is routinely ignored is VERY telling.  Pure fiat, petro dollar BS is the system that is coming to a horrific and destructive end... and nobody really talks about it.  That is a conspiracy... open for anyone to see.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:04 | 2373428 CvlDobd
CvlDobd's picture

These "our problems started with ....." articles are so pointless. History is littered with incompetent world leaders who fucked a lot of shit up. I despise Obama and I didn't vote for him nor will I. But these idiots who blame him for everything drive me nuts! As if shit was just perfect until January 20, 2009. Yeah right. Fuck politicians! They all suck and ruin shit for the rest of us.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:46 | 2373596 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

There are, however, some fairly seminal moments throughout history.  Buckaroo Bonzi correctly states that the "Republic died at Appomattox.  Woodrow Wilson really did give us the Federal Reserve.  Nixon really did close the gold window. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:58 | 2373644 rwe2late
rwe2late's picture

 Analyzing the causes of our current situation, and the "contributions" individuals made to those causes is NOT "pointless".

Instead, it is an ahistorical world view that is pointless

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:34 | 2373789 Woodyg
Woodyg's picture

FDR was the greatest president ever -

The Only president to stand up for the poor against the corporation

But that's probably why you hate him you POS.

You probably think that poor peoples houses and Unemployment checks are the problem in America also.....

Idiot

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:50 | 2373871 kridkrid
kridkrid's picture

What?  FDR placed men from industry into positions to set prices higher and production lower... who did that benefit?  While people were starving, the FDR administration was destroying hogs and cattle by the millions to keep prices high.  Who did that benefit?  FDR wasn't an advocate for the poor against the corporation.  That is pure mythology.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:53 | 2373886 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

FDR sucked and was a statist to the core. Its quite rational and possible to hate him because he laid the foundation for the nanny state and certain insolvency in the future, not to mention his attempt to pack the Supreme Court.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:11 | 2373976 acetinker
acetinker's picture

Hard to believe this community (so far) is givin' you a "pass" on that bit of inanity.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:28 | 2374638 Umh
Umh's picture

FDR presided over the longest depression in the history of the U.S. of A.    They coined the use of recession because they got so bored of the depression.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 16:39 | 2374858 AGuy
AGuy's picture

"FDR was the greatest president ever - The Only president to stand up for the poor against the corporation"

LOL! Yes, by:

1. Confiscating all of there gold, making gold illegal for the poor man to own! Then devaluing the dollar by 1/3. Rich man had the means to get around this by moving gold overseas.

2. Declaring a Banking holiday and stealing all of the money for his New Deal!

3. Creating the worse Depression in history, commonly referred as the "Great Depression"

4. Getting American into WW2 by selling Japan the Steel (in the 1930's) it needed to build its Naval Armada.

5. Deliberately ignored Intelligence reports from decrypted wires to the Japan embasy that Japan was going to attack Perl harbor shortly, in order to force American into WW2, causing the deaths of thousands of sailors to promote his agenda.

 FDR would sell out his mother if it would further his political agenda. FDR was a swell Husband, by having numerious affairs with other Women, such as Lucy Mercer.

 

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 17:18 | 2374954 mayhem_korner
mayhem_korner's picture

FDR was the greatest president ever -

 

Better dose-up on you're SSRIs...I think you're psychosis is setting in again.

Since you are merely repeating what you were told each time you repeated 9th grade civics class, I won't bother presenting you with any facts to confuse you.  

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:35 | 2373323 jus_lite_reading
jus_lite_reading's picture

>>"the man who retained and expanded the PATRIOT Act powers under the NDAA (2011), who claimed the right to extrajudicially kill American citizens using predator drones, who expanded Bush’s expensive and pointless occupations (all the while having run on a promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and reverse Bush’s civil liberties incursions), who proceeded with Paulson’s Wall Street bailouts,authorised the NSA to record all phone calls and internet activity, and continued the destructive War on Drugs (even though he had in the past been a drug user)."<<

 

Question- how many true Americans have actually done anything about this atrocity? I have. I have been voting with my wallet...

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:08 | 2373434 midtowng
midtowng's picture

I still have to go with Dubya being the worst president ever. Then there is Grant, and Johnson (the first one, although the 2nd one was pretty bad too), and finally Obama and Nixon.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:12 | 2373706 CEOoftheSOFA
CEOoftheSOFA's picture

Grant? He switched us back from fiat to a gold standard, balanced the budget, improved the credit rating, lowered the debt, made a lot of international treaties, and his civil rights accomplishments were 90 years ahead of his time. He had just enough screw-ups to prove he was human.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 16:26 | 2374824 Paul Bogdanich
Paul Bogdanich's picture

Why Zero Hedge publishes this drivel without even a basic fact check is beyond me.  It was Kennedy not Nixon who started the chemical warfare in Vietnam.  The taping of oval office conversations started under Johnson not Nixon.  And apart from the things mentioned Nixon also offered the democrats single payer universal health insurance whch that dead asshole Ted Kennedy reejected because he thought he could better deal him.  Nixon also actually enforced the de-segregation laws in th South, established the EPA and OSHA, passed the clean air, clean water, national enviornmental policy acts and instituted wage and price controls.  So by any competent reading of history one would conclude that Nixon was our last liberal president.  He was not a "neo-liberal" free-trade president as that baby was born in 1980 with Reagan.          

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 16:54 | 2374893 machinegear
machinegear's picture

The worst president in history is always the next one.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:22 | 2373267 Everybodys All ...
Everybodys All American's picture

You vote for Obama and you have Hugo Chavez and Venezuala here. I'm no fan of Romeny but Obama is a disaster gaurantee.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:29 | 2373295 BlueCollaredOne
BlueCollaredOne's picture

Red vs Blue is FAKE.  Whomever is elected president doesnt matter, the course has already been set and the events that TPTB want to happen, will happen.

Do you really think that with all the money and power that the sociopaths at the top have, that they would give one man so much power to be able to affect the future?

Has ZH taught you nothing about politics?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:38 | 2373339 Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

BlueCollaredOne

Thank god someone else knows what the real problem is.

This partisan bickering sickens me because those participating have been distracted away from the true issues.

The only real question I have is why people think there is a single over riding conspiracy?

I believe there are many jockeying for position. People waiting for some little slip so they can promote their own agendas.

I find it unrealistic that the power brokers of China and Russia intend to follow the power brokers of the US and Europe. As a matter of fact I find unrealistic that those power brokers agree on every action and goal.

But yes, right now, we are locked into a narrative TPTB intends to play out. And that narrative invloves a vast reset of both economic and political powers and freedoms.

It doesn't matter how many guns nor how much gold you have, it only matters how swiftly you can perceive the direction events move in.


Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:52 | 2373382 Hedgetard55
Hedgetard55's picture

spoken like a true Democrat!

 

"There is no difference!".

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:01 | 2373409 BlueCollaredOne
BlueCollaredOne's picture

I've been a Ron Paul supporter for 5 or so years now, I don't buy into partisan BS seeing as how the only that passes in legislation nowadays is something that takes away our freedoms, or a bill that names a library after a dead guy.

I suggest you research who is contributing to your precious Romney campaign, and then compare/contrast to who contributes to Obamas. Im not going to hold your hand and do it for you. 

Also, Go fuck yourself

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:24 | 2373482 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Agree that the Demopublican/Republicrat dichotomy is a false one. And, Romney is pretty much a white Obama. But... there is something truly malevolent and sick about Obama. With his shady, mysterious background (and the mysterious background of his parents as well), he is possibly a modern-day Manchurian Candidate. He might even be a foreign agent (Russian? Chinese?). His close association with Bill Ayers, whose publicly stated lifelong goal has been to bring down the United States, and arguably could be Obama's controller, makes one think that this might actually be possible.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:28 | 2373522 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

One must always exercise caution in the things you might wish for.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:22 | 2373268 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

'Trillion dollars surplus' LMAO fantasyland, had to stop reading on the first sentence.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:16 | 2373458 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Then the idea that Nixon was responsible for Watergate, when the whole thing was a setup to get him out of the way.

As demonstrated by Gary North, the logic is irrefutable.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north383.html

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:18 | 2374339 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Watergate is directly related to the Kennedy assassination.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:21 | 2373741 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

Learn to read:

"the man who turned a projected trillion dollar surplus into the greatest deficits in world history" 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:37 | 2373793 SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

OH I see....so some mythical 'projection' was REAL then? Yea right, same as all the bullshiters that have been 'projecting' that the economy has recovered for about 4 years now?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:49 | 2373865 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

Look, the point is the huge — almost unprecedentedly huge — spending. The CBO's projection (which — and this is the key point — we would be much closer to without Bush's stupid wars, capitalism-wrecking-bailouts, corporate handouts, and expanded welfarism) is mostly a side-detail.

The point of the article is that Romney and Obama are both essentially running on a Nixon platform. In hindsight it was probably pretty stupid of me to use a projection as a point of contrast, especially on an article I submitted to ZH. But that doesn't change anything about Bush's massive spending record.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:26 | 2373277 cpnscarlet
cpnscarlet's picture

Typical for the simple American mind to want to finger W as the worst. No historical perspective AT ALL. Actually it's a pretty easy subject. The two worst Presidents in history both had the same last name - JOHNSON. Sure Nixon closed the gold window, but hey! Look at PMs over the past year - there are more than enough idiots who think ink and paper is still a good store of value. When the nation is made up of morons, fiat is fine!

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:27 | 2373282 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Ahh... Nixon... the true cost of the Southern strategy has become manifest....

It is funny the shit that happens when you sell a little bit of your soul....

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:27 | 2373283 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

This exercise is pointless. Who is worse, the president who takes us off the gold standard or the president who allows that to continue. We are behaving like most empires throughout history and destroying ourselves with greed, ego and corruption. Our leaders, like our nation, will get progressively worse on the ride down. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:26 | 2373512 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Hear, hear. Armorer, extra rations of ammo all 'round. I'm feeling particularly "hasta la vista" today.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:29 | 2373289 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

MITT ROMNEY 1961

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:25 | 2373508 falak pema
falak pema's picture

he even came and lived in France, for the Mormon church as student; he speaks good french.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:29 | 2373527 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

That explains a lot.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:30 | 2373296 Crash N. Burn
Crash N. Burn's picture

Fuck Dick(head) Nixon

 

The gold standard did not collapse. Governments abolished it in order to pave the way for inflation. The whole grim apparatus of oppression and coercion, policemen, customs guards, penal courts, prisons, in some countries even executioners, had to be put into action in order to destroy the gold standard. - Ludwig von Mises

 

But mostly fuck the banksters

Banksters ARE the problem.
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:31 | 2373304 jus_lite_reading
jus_lite_reading's picture

But the banksters have the support and protection of the politicians... What did Thomas Jefferson say about changing the guard?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:09 | 2373436 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

Anybody with a von Mises quote gets a thumbs up. Good one, man

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:44 | 2374480 Thoth
Thoth's picture

Overpopulation I think is the main problem. We have had to come up with all these strategies (fiat etc.) to stretch what we have enough to cover everyones needs. We look at these problems, money shuffles over to China, away from US, and we get pissed, but either way everyones quality of life is decreasing in equal measure globally in my opinion. I think the world has exceeded its carrying capacity for the human race and we will be in for an over correction soon, only this will bring about a more sustainable way of living as a whole. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:56 | 2374530 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

You should take your Malthusian, eugenecist, oft-disproven crap elsewhere or else learn something.

We have enough resources on this planet for everyone and more.

The problem is the people in charge, not any set of circumstances that dictates to them.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:23 | 2374610 Thoth
Thoth's picture

Go drink out of a stream without boiling it first, or a pond. Bet you wouldn't, I wouldn't. All people eat now is cheap shit that comes in a cardboard box, that's not sustainable that's over extending since there isn't enough real stuff to go around.

Also, care to elaborate on what I need to learn? Or are you just going borrow some more catch phrases you don't understand off wikipedia and barf them up on here? 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:08 | 2375060 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Thoth, I never use wickedpedia, and pollution is not a necessity.

Basic math will show you how many resources there are and how many people there are. We've grown enough food in this country alone since the fifties, each year, to feed every person on the planet.

We have the technology to do much, much better with food production.

Malthusians are liars who use their eugenecist arguments to rationalize greed, control, and racism.

The other side of the argument is everywhere.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:27 | 2375111 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

http://surroundedme.com/malthus-population-theory-debunked

http://reason.com/archives/2006/12/22/the-lingering-stench-of-malthu

http://www.economist.com/node/11374623?story_id=11374623

You might have problems with some of the sources, but there are various reasons to debunk Malthus, the eugenecists, and their whole NWO ilk.

Sustainability increases with technology. The technology is simply not allowed to compete in a free and open market. This is about control of the world's population, justification for mass genocide and war, etc. It's not about logically producing enough to sustain a population that will reach 10 billion soon.

Most shortages or high food prices are artificially manufactured. Many people on this site and others can point out to you why policies like the Greenspan put and others--like the US dollar's hegemony--are at the root of creating artificial shortages.

Any technology which intereferes with the status quo or central planning is removed from the equation by TPTB. While I suggest the three readings above for starters, I'm finding them quickly, and there are tons more. Tons.

Peace to you. Don't advocate murder or tyranny. There are multitudes of other paths.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:01 | 2373297 jus_lite_reading
jus_lite_reading's picture

Nixon/Bush/Romney... all one and the same. 

I said it once, I'll say it again. Ron Paul is a rare bird and a true American. 

But, Wall Street, AIPAC, Israel et al won't allow that to happen for their free lunch would be over...

GAME OVER

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:38 | 2373341 notadouche
notadouche's picture

Really never considered LBJ for this list  Shows me how objective this article is and the trillion dollar surplus is a total red herring.  Funny how no one remembers the Nasdaq crashing as Clinton was leaving office and most jobs and wealth were created through phony and to steal from the lastest catch phrase "unsustainable" both associated with the dot com chicanery and the Y2k nonsense.  Of course lets not actually rely on facts, only the "facts" needed to prove your desired point.  Which leads to the biggest problem this country faces.  We choose our desired outcome or objective and then make up the "facts" that appear to lead to the outcome.  We should start at point A to lead to point B not desire point B and manipulate point A to hoodwink the sheeple.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:55 | 2373370 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

LBJ paved the way for Nixon to become president... But it goes way deeper than that (& prior)...

~~~

Everybody wanted Kennedy dead:

- The FED wanted Kennedy dead (for wanting a silver backed currency)

- Big Oil (Clint Murchison, Hunt Bros., etc.) wanted Kennedy dead (over tax exempt laws)

- The CIA wanted Kennedy dead (for Cuba)

- J Edgar Hoover wanted Kennedy dead (they had each other over a barrel)

- The Mafia wanted Kennedy dead

- LBJ wanted Kennedy dead (the Kennedy's were arm twisted to put LBJ on the ticket in the first place)

~~~

When LBJ pulled out (in '68), they had to kill RFK too... We ended up with Nixon... 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:26 | 2373401 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

This whole Kennedy and Silver issue is a myth.    Kennedy merely modified the executive order (EO1110) to allow the Treasury to issue silver backed certificates WITHOUT the President's direct order.   That is all it did.    It is also rarely mentioned that Kennedy issued the order that PROHIBITED US citizens from owning gold overseas.   Forcing Americans to sell their gold holdings or face confiscation, fines and prison.

 

BTW, there were never any silver certificates issued under Kennedy.   The last ones were issued under Eisenhower/NIXON

 

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:00 | 2374537 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Kennedy was printing sovereign money, though. Very different from debt-based FRNs. Maybe not enough to make ZH bugs happy, but enough to make me happy. Until they killed him, of course.

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

Calling it all a "myth," then, is somewhat misleading:

As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated.


Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:27 | 2373764 Polonius
Polonius's picture

Based on that list of enemies one could be forgiven for believing he was the greatest president ever.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:21 | 2374363 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Now you're talkin'.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:43 | 2373354 moonstears
moonstears's picture

IMHO, Nixon's not in the top 3. He (Nixon) took foreign nations off the dollar/gold standard, not 'Mericans, and yes, it was to induce inflations, and yes the OIL fiasco of the early 1970s was likely tied in. I'd Look at W.Wilson, FDR, and Johnson, some might even say Lincoln, to me he was a mixed bag IMO, he printed from thin air to pay for war(good alternative IMO), but why not just print to BUY off slave owners and save many human lives?? History is full of crap leaders.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:02 | 2373410 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

Exactly.   I think it was NIxon that allowed Americans to buy gold in the open markets again. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:22 | 2373747 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

I think it was NIxon that allowed Americans to buy gold in the open markets again.

Close, but no cigar. It was Gerald Ford.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:40 | 2373818 smb12321
smb12321's picture

As a coin collector I'm familiar with the history. Some of the biggest fights in Congress were over coinage since it was one of the few powers granted to the federal government.  The votes on changing the size of coins (ratios of silver & gold changed) were legendary.   Even the use of nickel evoked speeches about debasing our "precious monies."   (How naive that sounds today) 

But paper money was a battle royale.  The opponents recited the failures of the past from the "Continental" to various state paper trash so supporters promised it would be (you guessed it) "temporary".  When it became impossible for the Union to borrow (ungodly interest rates) Lincoln caved in to advisors who swore it was the only way to keep soldiers in the fields.  Who knows what would have happened if he had lived - certainly a more lenient policy toward the South.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:43 | 2373356 TrustWho
TrustWho's picture

My vote is FDR. He used the crisis called great depression to trash the constitution and state powers. For all you gold bugs, he also confiscated physical  gold from the citizens. He created the pathway for the great change: "the ends justify the means" philosophy from a philosophy that the "means" (principles) needs to focus on the common good, not individual outcomes, so individuals can compete and be as free as possible.  

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:16 | 2373459 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

I'll second that. Guy was a menace.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 10:58 | 2373397 GoBadgers
GoBadgers's picture

Incorrect. The correct answer is Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:04 | 2373426 SoNH80
SoNH80's picture

Bingo.  The proximate cause of the abandonment of Bretton Woods/managed Gold Standard was the Vietnam War + Great Society deficit spending = LBJ's big projects.  Nixon played Chinese Checkers to back out of Vietnam, and tore up Bretton Woods to prevent France from carting out all of U.S.' gold reserves.  Johnson could have stayed out of Vietnam as of late '63, but he believed the bullshit of the McNamara's, Rusk's, "Best and Brightest."  Heck of a job, Lyndon.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:22 | 2373495 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Trying to decide who is the worst (LBJ; Nixon; GHW Bush; G Bush; Obama) is the stuff of nightmares and speaks to horrors that the political system has become in the U.S.

But I upvoted you for rightly adding LBJ to the list of legitimate contenders.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:13 | 2373450 Seasmoke
Seasmoke's picture

everyone is a tricky dick

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:14 | 2373453 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Why change dicks in the middle of a screw,

Just vote in twenty one two.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:27 | 2373481 falak pema
falak pema's picture

We are nearly home and dry; Nixon and Pax Americana. But I would vote for 22 November 1963 as the day Pax Americana was truly conceived if not born, when JBJ took power. It is true that Nixon ramped it up from foreign policy to all areas of the political sphere. He and Dear Henry will go down in History for that.

And then there was RR and Reaganomcs and Thatcher big bang...and what a bang that was. 

Good post. Nixon as father of warped hubristic mind set; I'll buy. 

Azizonomics the Gibbons of the US age? 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:49 | 2374169 barroter
barroter's picture

and the neocons have yet to succeed at any of their dreams yet..while crashing this nation.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:23 | 2373488 EmileLargo
EmileLargo's picture

Nixon wasn't the worst. The press just hated him and the people, gullible that they are, swallow everything whole. Do people remember the fabrications of Johnson? What about Harding? Clinton? Bush on WMDs in Iraq? As to the incumbent, I shall let his popularity on ZH speak for itself. :)

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:23 | 2373501 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Nixon was a tremendous politician.  He was crazy, sure, and some of his policies were shit, but the guy was elected in '68.  He was the American Presidential equivalent of Tito.

The only guy who's come close to Nixon's political efficacy has been Clinton. It may be that a "strong" President has to be a psychopath or something, because I certainly don't think either of these guys are great men.

I'm astonished to see Aziz giving such blame for 'Nam on Nixon.  A war started by Kennedy, grossly mismanaged by Johnson, and virtually the ENTIRE COUNTRY demanding a President who wouldn't give up on it.  Of course he was a war criminal--they all are, but it was popular demand that required it.

As horrible as it was that he bombed the shit out of Cambodia, he wouldn't have done so if he'd been elected in '60.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:32 | 2373542 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Do some research.   VietNam was not started by JFK.  The French (supported by the CIA) were there early in the 1950's.  When the French left in 1954, the CIA took over.  JFK inherited a mess in SE Asia.  There wereonly non-combat advisors there during JFK's presidency and he was in the process of withdrawing everyone when he was shot.

LBJ was responsible for the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident that was used as an excuse to introduce Combat Troops, eventually reaching levels of over 500,000 Americans.  Nixon expanded the war after being elected by bombing and Sending S Vietnamese troops into Cambodia and Thailand.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:24 | 2373757 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

Expanded being the key word in the article. That's hardly blaming him for the entire thing.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 13:39 | 2374080 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I agree with just about everything you said, and if you'd said Eisenhower started the Vietnam War, I might agree.  But "starting a war" is not a mathematically-defined phrase. 

Personally I consider sending CIA assets to independent regions to "influence" political developments by killing people, training other fighters, and distributing propaganda to be well-within the "starting a war" category.

We can agree to disagree on that.  If we've never "started a war" in anyplace we've not sent combat troops, it makes the US foreign policy record look hecka lot better.

Oh, forgot to add, RE: [Kennedy] was in the process of withdrawing everyone when he was shot.

This is speculation.  Yes, he may well have proceeded to do this, there's documented evidence that he was pissed at the CIA and not interested in major escalation, but there was no clear command given to shut things down before he was killed.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:29 | 2374411 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Blunderdog blunders again.

Sorry, JFK was dead set on withdrawal, no speculation. Do your research.

This is just the first link I find. There are many others, books. No doubt about it.

 

http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html#.T5hCJNkmHKc

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:33 | 2374427 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

What'd I say that's wrong?  Did you read that?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:03 | 2374550 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

This bunch of crap is wrong, man:

Oh, forgot to add, RE: [Kennedy] was in the process of withdrawing everyone when he was shot.

This is speculation.  Yes, he may well have proceeded to do this, there's documented evidence that he was pissed at the CIA and not interested in major escalation, but there was no clear command given to shut things down before he was killed.

Yes, he wanted all troops out by the end of 65, and there is a paper trail for this and for the reversal of this strategy IMMEDIATELY after the Johnson/Nixon backers shot him. I see someone else is also pointing this out to you.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 15:55 | 2374709 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Fair enough, but it looks to me like this is just different interpretations of the same facts.  One of the problems with "history."

A 2-year phased disengagement plan could have *changed* before it was enacted, that's why I say it's speculation that he was "in the process" of disengaging.

Why do you think he didn't want to announce the plan?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:10 | 2375066 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

It did change before it was enacted--because they knew JFK was going to withdraw and killed him.

He didn't want to announce the plan b/c the Repugnicunt war mongers would have used it against him in the elections.

Look at what happened to RP when he said bombing Iran was stupid.

Americans are stupid. If a politician doesn't want to go to war, they see it as a weakness. Kennedy would have been attacked by the politicians and the media as a communist sympathizer.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:11 | 2375070 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

There was an election coming up in 64, remember. He wanted to wait until after the election to fully implement the policy.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:12 | 2375074 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

What you're saying is that the plan is speculation. It isn't. It's down in black and white.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:18 | 2375088 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Is Obama "in the process" of closing Gitmo, too?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:31 | 2375119 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Clearly not. I'llbombya is simply a liar and a puppet for the bankster/satanic NWO. Johnson was the same and a Freemason.

Comparing I'llbombya to JFK is atrocious, man.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 18:36 | 2375134 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I don't see how you know Kennedy was "in the process" of withdrawing from 'Nam if Obama isn't "in the process" of closing Gitmo.

There are documented plans in black and white.  For the past 3 years. 

You win, though, I'm done with ya.  Doesn't seem like you really need other posters, anyway.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 20:43 | 2375317 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Please don't be "done with" me. That would hurt my feelings. ;)

Look, show me a national security action memorandum or some other proof besides empty campaign promises that such action has been planned or ordered, and I'll learn something from you.

But my original interaction w/you borders on your misrepresentation of history surrounding the JFK hit. He was withdrawing from Vietnam, and all of the generals knew it. The Rockefellers, Bushes, Harrimans, and Rothschilds knew it, too.

Bundy certainly knew it.

The situations are certainly very different.

Seriously, I wish you blessings.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:34 | 2374437 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

NSAM 263.

Also read Robert McNamara's memoirs.

JFK chose the non-military path in every confrontation he faced in his admin (and before).

He did this in the face of fierce resistance from his own Joint Chiefs of Staff, who considered him a coward for refusing to send in the troops.

In Laos, in the Congo, in the Cuban Missilie Crisis, in Berlin, in the Bay of Pigs, in every one of thos  instances he opted out of using U. S. Combat troops in the conflict. He was in the process of the same type of settlement in Vietnam.

Within a week of JFK's death, Johnson issued NSAM 273 that effectively reversed Kennedy's withdrawal plan from Vietnam.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:41 | 2373576 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

I'm astonished to see Aziz giving such blame for 'Nam on Nixon.

After checking his blog About page  - "I am John Aziz. I’m 24. I live in England." - I am not.

 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 14:27 | 2374396 Clashfan
Clashfan's picture

Sorry, blunderdog, but that's a blunderous post. Vietnam (according to Prouty) started after WWII. Certainly it was escalated by Eisenhower and was going to be stopped by JFK. It was the CIA's war, so I would advise that you look to the likes of Harriman, PBush, and Dulles.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:23 | 2373503 WillyGroper
WillyGroper's picture

I'd say "Bring Back Dick" but it's already firmly planted in our collective colon.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:25 | 2373510 Vince Clortho
Vince Clortho's picture

Woodrow Wilson should also be included for his slimeball role in letting the Central Bank into the house.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:26 | 2373513 tictawk
tictawk's picture

I stopped reading when the author of the above stupid post wrote " George W. Bush — the man who turned a PROJECTED trillion dollar surplus into the greatest deficits in world history"

Clinton's "projected" surplus is as fictitious as my twelve inch dick (or the authors for that matter).

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:35 | 2373792 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

I think the key point is that Bush's huge spending broke the budget. The projected surplus is merely a background detail. 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:31 | 2373539 Judge
Judge's picture

There is so much factually wrong with this post, it's embarrassing to see it.   Zero is becoming a propaganda site now???  Where's George Washington's rants when you need them....

Seriously....  some standards please.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:36 | 2373799 spiral_eyes
spiral_eyes's picture

Propaganda for what? The fact that both parties are running off a Nixonian platform?

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:36 | 2373559 Joebloinvestor
Joebloinvestor's picture

Found this for all of you who can remember:

http://archive.org/details/orson_welles_the_begatting_of_the_president 

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:42 | 2373583 buzzsaw99
buzzsaw99's picture

"Can't be as bad as the cabbage role at the Terra-Phelevo Pen.

Or that oatmeal at the Cook County slammer.

Well, they're all pretty bad.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:42 | 2373584 FreeNewEnergy
FreeNewEnergy's picture

I give all past presidents prior to Lincoln +100 on the suck-o-meter along with 90% of all other politicians.

The best times of my life were when I was in business and didn't care who the president was (1970s-1990s). Now, all we get on TV (forget newspapers, they're dead) is politics, politics and more politics, as if that's the only thing that matters.

Politicians are scum, lower vermin than priests or pederasts (same thing) and the world would be better off without the likes of Obama, Romney, Sarkozy, Netanahu, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

All politicians do is make up more laws and taxes for me and other freedom-lovers to evade. Who the fuck needs them and who the fuck cares. Give me a business that makes cash money and fuck the rest.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:02 | 2373664 BeetleBailey
BeetleBailey's picture

+50...well said.

Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:23 | 2373753 smb12321
smb12321's picture

"...didn't care who the President was..."   That is what Americans thought for most of our history.  DC was this magic city (I still recall my first visit and how in awe I was) but if you wanted to get something down, that was left to the states.  Now we seek fed approval for any human action from toilet seats to the size of Swiss cheese holes (I kid you not).  

I disagree that all politicians are evil, venal folks. Most start out sincerely wanting to make a change for good.  After all, they are us - teachers, lawyers, farmers, housewives, etc.  (The only group underrepresented is business folks.) The problem is that they grew up in a system where all power flowed to DC and they know no other way.  So we have the spectacle of Congress lecturing us on financial prudence or passing instant laws in response to accidents that do more harm than good or trying to handle any possible situation.  And of course, irreversible debt.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!