Echoes of the 'Kingfish'
One side appeals to a people who are hurting, with populist attacks on big oil, while the other warns of the dangers to big business. It's familiar enough in Louisiana. The editor of Radio 4's Today programme had the great idea of getting me to look at the career of the Kingfish, Huey Long, and his attack on the oil companies in the 20s and 30s in the light of his old state's current plight, and the mood of ire towards BP. You can hear the results by clicking here.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Until now Huey Long had been a rather peripheral figure in my vision, an off-stage presence or walk-on part in other people's biographies. My hazy image was of a buffoonish comic opera fascist who FDR called "one of the two most dangerous men in America" (the other was General McArthur). After talking to Professor Raphael Cassimere of New Orleans University I wonder if I and others are doing him an injustice.
The professor says that while most politicians "promise the moon and give you sparklers" the Kingfish delivered on his promises, and while he used unconstitutional and illegal means, so did his opponents, who then got to write the history. Chatting to colleagues about Long, one of the most common things that springs to their minds is racism. But my limited research indicates that while he might not have been an early leader of the civil rights movement, racism was one form of populism he disdained.
Still, he was often compared to Mussolini and Hitler at the time, and not without reason. He was a bully and a tyrant - a flamboyant, sinister, comic one. He dragged his state into the 20th Century, building thousands of miles of road, smashing down old buildings and erecting new ones to his greater glory. But I wonder if this slightly misses the point and I wonder whether "Louisiana's Lenin" might be more apt.
I am not suggesting that being like this dictator rather than the other two is any better - simply that the caricature isn't entirely accurate. While Long wasn't a communist, his commitment to socialism was rather more than the skin-deep nod of most fascists. He really did redistribute wealth, tax big business and argued for a 100% tax on all incomes over a million dollars.
I know labels of left and right are shifting and can be fairly pointless when looking at the past, but it does thrown up another question. While populists of the right are two-a-penny in America these days, there are no populists of the left. Left-wingers carefully moderate their language, praise big business and calibrate towards the centre. The right has little hesitation appealing to its own, using only the most threadbare disguise. Why is this?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~50~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This has nothing to do with this thread,but the chorus line says it all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa7evoSWgIY&feature=related
Complain about this comment
Echoes of the Kingfish. Dead silence from President Obama.
Would that Barack Obama was more like Huey Long!
Obama built a formidible political machine in Chicago; Huey did his building in Louisiana – and there the differences begin.
Huey Long had an abdiding distrust, even hatred for those that produce wealth; he firmly believed in his slogan “Everyman is a king, but no one wears a crown.” Obama, seems to be part of the elite establishment, and most certainly has not done much to share the wealth.
Obama makes decisions oh so slowly, and then leaves the public scratching its collective head asking – what the Heck is he doing and why is he doing it? For example, the Obama Administration has declined any and all international assistence to clean up the Gulf spill - including specialized dredge ships from the Netherlands. The Netherlands claims that it could clean the Gulf within 3 or 4 months? Obama’s escuse to decline help and allow the clean up go on for years & years is the Jones Act which forbids foreign ships & crews in American waters. Huey Long would’ve steamrolled the Jones Act. The Netherlands ships would have been chugging away for a month now. Jones Act be damned!
Huey Long implemented a "Share Our Wealth Society" and he meant it. "Every Man a King."
The “Share the Wealth Society” advocated the confiscation of an individual's wealth greater than $5,000,000. He advocated confiscation of an individual's income greater than $1,000,000. What has Obama done? Obama’s administration bailed out the big banks and put the trillion-dollar debt onto the shoulders of the American taxpayers. That was The Obama version of share the wealth!
From Huey’s “Share the Welath Program” came: $5,000.00 cash to every family or "enough for a home, an automobile, a radio, and the ordinary conveniences; a guaranteed minimal annual income; guaranteed pensions for old age; guaranteed grants for everyone's education; free tewxbooks, and bonuses to veterans. Sounds like heaven on earth, right?
You won't find this kind of agenda among Obama’s accomplisments. Let’s just say that each citizen's share of the current American debt is $42,289.15. This debt is increasing and has increased an average of
$4.09B PER DAY since September 28, 2007!
Huey Long moved his butt; Obama threatens to kick ass.
Obama has pledged to punish risk-taking, but the Financial Reform Bill is worth less than the paper it is written on. Obama said he would attack those industries that he does not favor (eg. coal, oil) as relentlessly as Huey Long attacked Standard Oil. Ah…this must be a very quiet attack on Obama’s part because I can't find hide nor hair of it.
Give me Huey Long (rough edges and all). Give me action. Give me promises that count. Give me my kingdom! I don't need a crown...
Complain about this comment
Huey Long is one of those amorphous political figures that the vast majority of people know almost nothing about outside of what someone else told them. Therefore, he becomes a very different person depending on who you ask. He tends to oscillate between being forgotten and being glorified depending on the current political mood.
Outside of Louisiana he tends to be little more than a name that you vaguely remember reading in your grade school history book.
Complain about this comment
"The right has little hesitation appealing to its own, using only the most threadbare disguise. Why is this?"
Because most Americans are convinced that socialized services are evil, inefficient, and expensive; and prefer private enterprise regardless of how fraudulent, greedy and irresponsible they may be.
It is a cultural thing that is not about to change regardless of what BP, ENRON, AIG, Lehman, Bernie Madoff or anyone else does or doesn't do.
A Huey Long today would have as much credibility as the tooth fairy when it comes to economics, but I suspect his handling of SOCONY's affairs would be very popular considering the circumstances.
Complain about this comment
Heuy Long had his rabid supporters for whom he could do no wrong.
He attacked big business while promoting the virtues of big goverment.
although his presentation vastly differs, his attack the opponent of blame someone else is very similar to Obama's
Complain about this comment
Because the left has lost their nerve.
Like most things, it revolves around money.
A few individuals, and the major corporations have it.
For all of the noise about winning elections with small donations, the Democrats (most all Liberals are Democrats) do not want to completely ween themselves from the corporate teat - it would not work. The oil companies are now in the range of 75% of their donations go Republican, 25% Democrat. Independent candidates have very little chance of election. Without that 25%, which the Corporations donate to them for insurance, Democrats would have no chance of election either.
The best ROI in history is a substantial donation to an American (read US) politician running for Congress. They now control trillions a year, and a few thousand can tip it.
We need public financing of elections like desert flowers need rain.
Just to show that they have a sense of humor, our Conservative (read Republican) leaning Supreme Court just reversed decades of electoral reform, and decided that corporations can donate all that they wish to a candidate, because here, legally, a corporation is completely equivalent to a person.
Soooo...the left is not being to pushy - even though they rule two of the three branches of our government. The Senate has also agreed among themselves to adopt some rules that make passing legislation very difficult, and it is often not possible for the Democrats to just vote it in themselves.
I am a Liberal/Progressive, and smoke often comes out of my ears. But it is too important a game to abandon to stark corporatism.
Complain about this comment
Huey Long was a genuine threat to the established order, hence the demonization from both parties of our 'established order'. If you have the time, T. Harry Williams 1970 Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Long is quite an eye opener- not only in its historical approach to its subject, but in how it gives the lie to both our supposedly "liberal" and "conservative" media assessments of the man, his time, and the underlying timeless issues we seemingly have always had to face, and seemingly always will have to face (or deny).
Complain about this comment
Mark: '"While populists of the right are two-a-penny in America these days, there are no populists of the left. Left-wingers carefully moderate their language, praise big business and calibrate towards the centre. The right has little hesitation appealing to its own, using only the most threadbare disguise. Why is this?"
As Lance K at #6 has already said, it largely has to do with private funding of campaigns and political parties. Corporations are corrupt and greedy, and unlike corrupt government officials, they at least don't have a paper Ethics committee to fear when deciding whether or not to engage in their illegal behaviors. The Democrats stand for (to borrow a British phrase) fair play and tighter regulations because they realize that noone in power, corporations included, can be trusted to respect others and play by the rules and the Republicans (no matter how many disasters such as this oil spill or the 2008 near-stock market collapse have proven their phelosophy wrong) blindly continuously naively believe in, and push for greater and greater deregulation of corporations' actions. So obviously, naturally, the corporations will side with the Republicans over the Democrats. They will fund Republican candidates around the country, and though - yet - it has not been proven that more money spent on campaigns = a won election, they certainly have a massive leg up in the rase. And now, thanks to the extremely dangerous right-wing ideological Supreme Court's completely out-of-touch with reality ruling that corporations are the same as people (wonder how they figured that,) it has only gotten exponentially worse, with corporations being able to spend unlimitidly on anyone they wish. This will inevitably lead to dictatorship. Just you wait and see. If we don't outlaw private funding of campaigns in - I would say - the next five years as Britain and much of the rest of the western world has already done, corporations will, in the future, literally, publicly, unashamedly buy off any politicians, judges, justices they wish. We can kiss our democracy goodbye.
The other element to the left's silence is because they're scared. Of what I don't know. But they have never been as brave as the right. I don't agree with Saint Dominick at #4's assertion that "most Americans are convinced that social policies are evil and inefficient." Rather I believe that given the facts, the unspun, unembellished hard truth, most open minded, rational, sane Americans can and will see much good in the left's phelosophy on the role of government. But they'll never be able to be presented with such unvarnished facts, because of our practicly undemocratic system of elections, from campaign funding to lobbiests to deliberate fear mongering on the part of the right-wing media. Perhaps the left is afraid -and rightly so - that the right will cast them as commy socialists. But you know what? They're doing, and will do that regardless. So they may as well go full throttle ahead.
It must frustrate you to no end seeing us continuously make a conscious decision to stay out of the civilised world. In no other country on earth are public social policies, if not seen as basic rights then at the very least unnigociable expectations inEurope and Canada so deamonised. Have they ever been so in Britain? Didn't think so. This is so humiliating!!
Complain about this comment
# 5 MagicKirin wrote:
"Heuy (sic) Long had his rabid supporters for whom he could do no wrong.
He attacked big business while promoting the virtues of big goverment.
although his presentation vastly differs, his attack the opponent of blame someone else is very similar to Obama's" [What? That last bit doesn't even merit a 'sic'. That last bit isn't even English. That's worthy of GWB...]
So I read what Mark wrote. No one else had commented. I noted stuff like "he was often compared to Mussolini and Hitler". And I thought to myself 'some extreme right wing Obama-hater is bound to point out that Obama is Huey Long, so I should do the same, in an ironic way." But then I got distracted by something else.
I guess some people are just beyond satire or parody. And as predictable as the sunrise.
The sort of person who rabidly supports the Reps and Israel - for whom both can do no wrong - then pontificates about others blindly following Obama...
Thing I'll go off and back some horses...
Complain about this comment
Mark, there are two books most often associated with Huey P. Long. The first is the Pulitzer prize winning biography noted above, the other is the fictionalized "All the King's Men", which I think may also have won a Pullitzer (easy enough to check, I suppose).
To call him a buffoon, or a comic opera figure is, I think, not the right flavour.
He had a hard-edged political program that would have fit in with the Progressives, combined, particularly as time when on, with the bare knuckle political tactics of a corrupt machine politician of the old style. It was nasty, undemocratic, based on intimidation, arm twisting, and naked patronage, no mistake about it. He ran the place as a fiefdom, and he was vindictive. Comic? No, decidedly not.
But the people he was fighting against, were pretty ugly, too. They ran a corrupt, rigged political system that effectively denied the vote to more than half the state's citizens. They ran it as their own private club, for their own benefit.
But it is pretty hard to argue with the reform's he enacted, in one of the poorest states in the Union, in the depths of the Depression. Before Long, adult literacy in the state was 25 %. He went on a road building boom that created unemployement. Both were undeniably needed.
We also forget, in our times, what it was like in the Depression, before TV. The Depression gave rise to larger-than-life characters, and protest movements that have been forgotten in our times. Huey P. Long was one of them. Father Coughlan. WAC Bennett, "Bible Bill" Aberhart & Social Credit. Strip away the bare-knuckle aspect of Huey P. Long, and you have a legislative program not so far from that of the Tommy Douglas and the CCF.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and I meant to say this on the '"Brit-bashing" thread, but I'll just say it here. You said in that entry that that man's referencing of the expultion of his ansesters some 250 years ago was a joke, but the way you talked about it at the time gave the very clear, unmistakeable impression that you, at the very least, didn't find it funny in the slightest with your informing us that you instantly apologised to him for the British government of the time's actions; disassociating yourself from those actions etc. That entire thread was full of comments from Americans urging you to not take people's angry comments personally and denouncing that man for his rude remarks; myself included at #8 ('cough plug 'cough.) I don't know why you felt the need to play it off as an innocent joke now; perhaps it was to help reenforce your incredibly respectful, objective, and truthful observation that there is in fact no ill will toward Britain from the vast majority of Americans. But we know that that man's statement was perhaps one of the few anti-British things ever uttered, and there is no need to downplay it. Its not as if he's a government official.
Complain about this comment
And, in the continuing spirit of your comment, John_From_Dublin, I feel it's only fair to point out that Mark is wrong about the left and right: the far left dominates the mainstream media in America. Only the beleaguered Fox News struggles on as a voice of freedom and sanity, and how they manage to survive in the face of all those vicious and unprovoked attacks from Jon Stewart I can't imagine. Raving moonbat populists such as Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are rushing the country over a cliff, while decent middle-of-the-road folk like Sarah Palin are unable to make themselves heard. As for right-wing populists, there aren't any, because responsible commentators on the right such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would never stoop to such a thing.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell, please read Robert Penn Warrens "All the Kings Men." You will leave with a better understanding of Long -- and of American politics in general.
Quit looking for coherence in our politics -- or at least our Southern politics: there's no there there. For today's proof, take a look at the current comedy surrounding South Carolina's Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate.
I worry about anyone that can conclude, by some weird logic, that the American left is pro big business. America is pro money, left OR right.
Might be time for some home leave, Mr. Mardell.
Complain about this comment
ref 9
I don't know how much you know about American history.
But LA and Chicago politics have a long history of corruption.
both Long and Obama are products of that system
Complain about this comment
So, is it time to start talking trash about England vs. USA in the World Cup, yet?
Complain about this comment
Travel tips for Mark, since it seems like you're going to be in town soon.
They are going to shut down the City two weeks from now for a big shindig. The government is spending $ 1B on security for three days of meetings. A lot of people think that's a bit much.
Many of us are heading for the hills to avoid the hubbub, or at least are planning to work from home.
Deerhurst is a nice enough place, and the kitchen is ok. Huntsville was chosen because it is in a Conservative minister's riding. The money spent on security includes an upgrade to public washrooms some 20km from the conference site. But why would anybody get the idea that any of this money is being spent on patronage boondoggles?
Black fly season ought to be over at Huntsville by the time you get there. Deer flies are another matter. Most annoying when you can't get them out of your hair.
The journey to Deerhurst from Pearson Airport should take about 2hrs, 20 minutes. You will travel North on Highway 400. North of Barrie the highway splits. You will take Hwy 11. The first 56 km is a ridiculous road that is, in effect, a dual carriageway (on which the average speed is 110 - 130 km/h - don't worry about the posted limit, nobody else seems to, either -) with access from people's driveways, church parking lots, a drive-in theatre, Weber's hamburgers, the Oro Arena, Heidi's RV sales, countless gas stations, bankrupt motels, sporting goods stores, flea markets, and so on. Awful, dangerous road.
On Friday nights going North, and on Sunday nights going south, the road is jammed. Can't wait to see what happens when they interrupt normal traffic on the 400 for the motorcades.
It's been like that forever. There must be politics involved, or this combination death-trap and rural-blight arterial strip eyesore would have been bypassed decades ago. How much do you bet that they remove the crosses and wreaths placed along the road where people have been killed?
It is beyond my understanding why we would want foreign dignitaries to be subject to this journey. What were they thinking? Trying to confirm that we really are just a bunch of beer swilling yokels who think the plural of "deer" is "deers", just like the plural of "Can you bring me back a beer" is "Can you bring me back a few beers?". Perhaps we are going to be requesting foreign aid from them? TVA funds? Or maybe when they see it, they will conclude the there is no point asking us for money?
At Washago you will cross the Severn Bridge (sounds a lot grander than it is, but historically the Trent-Severn waterway was actually quite important as it provided a "secret" water route to the upper lakes that British forces could use to evade observation by the Americans) into the Canadian Shield. The scenery improves.
Eventually this autoroute purgatory ends just South of Gravenhurst. The road takes a sharp right turn and you get back on a proper, limited-access divided highway. This is where you want to pay attention. You will almost immediately cross a bridge. This is Gull Lake Narrows. Slow down. Look North and South. It is one of the most beautiful views in the Muskoka Lakes.
------------
Of course, at the last minute they realized that Huntsville (a town of about 20,000) was far to small to hold the G20 meetings. The only real alternative with adequate hotel space was Toronto. The Conservatives choked on this decision, because their original plan was not to spend a single dollar in Liberal ridings. There are no Conservative ridings in Toronto, though heaven only knows they are trying to buy ethnic and religious votes in Don Valley West.
There are lots of people who think this thing should not be held in the center of the financial district in the largest and busiest city in the country. Better it should have been held at CFB Gagetown, or CFB Cold Lake - miles from nowhere, easy security, no disruption to a major city.
In any case, they are building a multi-million dollar 5m high fence around several blocks downtown to keep the foreign dignitaries and the Press from attacking our local population and various bandana-clad rock-throwing visitors that are coincidentally expected at the same time.
------------
I was going to offer you our extra room, so that you might save money on your expense account, but the Obamas asked first (and, in any case, my wife can't wait to meet Michelle.) You know how it is. Sorry.
No worries, though, you can come again when it isn't such a zoo.
When you are here, you might want to wangle a dinner invitation to the RCYC on Toronto Island. The view from the Island toward downtown as the sun goes down on a Summer's evening is lovely, and the food at the RCYC is good.
Here are some other places to eat downtown:
Bymark (basement of TD Tower, inside the fence, overpriced)
Canoe (54th floor of TD Tower, inside the fence, overpriced)
Rosewater Supper Club (Toronto Street, kitty-corner to Conrad Black's old house)
The Corner House (Spadina, just below Casa Loma)
Mistura (odd location, downtown, north end of Bay, turn left on Davenport(?))
Scaramouche (on Avenue Road on the crest of the old shoreline, lovely restaurant, beautiful evening view of downtown)
Auberge du Pommier. Great place. Outstanding food. West side of Yonge, down the hill south of the 401.
These are all pretty pricy places, but they are all good. If you want cheap good food, quickly, there are plenty of Chinese restarants along Dundas going west from Bay to Spadina, and down Spadina to Front Street. Toronto has some fabulous Chinese restaurants.
For a quick lunch try the Golden Thai restaurant on the SE corner of Richmond and Church. We also like the cafeteria on the 8th (?) floor of the HBC opposite Old City Hall (Queen & Bay) - fast, cheap, pleasant, real food.
The StarFish restaurant on the North side of Adelaide west of Jarvis(?) is pretty good.
Toronto has the third largest theatre district in the English speaking world after London and New York, even without including the Shakespeare festival at Stratford (80 minutes West) or the Shaw Festival at Niagara-on-the-lake (90 minutes around the end of the lake).
There are some good shows on, but your employers will expect you to be working, so none for you this time. You'll have to come back another time.
That's enough.
Complain about this comment
I loved the radio piece. Your pronunciation of "New Orleans" is more accurate than that of most Americans, I suppose because you have not been influenced by hearing it from Americans who have never been there.
The Huey P. Long bridge, however, is not a "suspension" bridge. It is a cantilever truss. A small point not relevant to your theme, I know, but bridges are one of my interests.
Complain about this comment
Echoes of the 'Kingfish' indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwdqeeuGc6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbyMeMApC3U&feature=related
Complain about this comment
Andy Post, the final result of the FIFA match between the US and England is a 1-1 tie. : )
Geaux USA!
Complain about this comment
# 12 vagueofgodalming
I must admit, for a second or two, being a tad distracted, I thought you were serious.
Then I laughed out loud.
In my defence, there are people who post here who not only write this stuff [albeit not so well], but are probably reading it and thinking 'at last, as if by Magic, someone is telling the truth.'
The sort of person who is somewhere to the right of Cheney and still sees themself as a moderate centrist...
Complain about this comment
re. 16. Interestedforeigner:
Is there still a Moroccan restaurant at Bay and Bloor? I haven't been there in decades, but I still remember the food.
And the AGO is opening an interesting exhibition on art and theater soon.
Complain about this comment
# 14 MagicKirin wrote:
"ref 9
I don't know how much you know about American history.
But LA and Chicago politics have a long history of corruption.
both Long and Obama are products of that system"
Not a vast amount. Enough. As much, I suspect, as you, if not more.
I have seen the tired smears against Obama - 'product of the corrupt Chicago machine' etc etc etc - since before he was even nominated.
I rather suspect that, if the Reps had had any real evidence, they would have used it. High-minded though they are.
I am also familiar with the practice of guilt by association. Smears without proof.
Why not try 'Giuliani is Italian-American. Like La Cosa Nostra. And Schwarzenegger comes from Austria. Like Hitler'
I also happened across the following in the current 'Time' -
"Dirty politics has a rich history in South Carolina, where trickery is regularly embraced as innovation, libelous falsehoods are spread through anonymous leaflets, and even straw polls can end in bonfires. It's a culture that dates back to at least 1980, when local political consultant Lee Atwater leaked word that a rival who once suffered from depression got "hooked up to jumper cables" in college. Politics, explained Terry Sullivan, one of Mitt Romney's local aides, "is a little different here. It's kind of a knife fight."
Link here - http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1995597,00.html
So presumably any Republican who comes from SC will be smeared as 'product of the corrupt SC machine'?
Or perhaps that trick only applies to Democrats?
Complain about this comment
Re: Left-wing populism in America.
To paraphrase an East London ditty from the blitz, paraphrased in turn from Rudyard Kipling:
So it's "lefties" this/
and "Lefties" that/
and "Lefties you're all rot"./
But it "Lefties, you're our heroes"/
when there's nothing in the pot.
Complain about this comment
Tim:
1) re: Morroccan Restaurant at Bay & Bloor
Don't know.
2) I don't remember which, but one or the other of the AGO and the ROM (probably the ROM) has a return of the Chinese Terra Cotta warrior display. It has been at the ROM before, and it is spectacular.
On the other hand, the AGO is a pretty good art museum, and it almost always has some featured visiting display.
Complain about this comment
re. 24. Interestedforeigner:
1) Moroccan restaurant: I just googled it. It used to be in the upper level of a strip mall, but it seems to have been gentrified. Sic transit... Hope the food is still good. I'd love to get to Toronto again; haven't been there in years. Wonderful civilized city.
2) The ROM is my favorite, but the AGO's exhibition sounds like fun. My memory is that among other things the AGO has a wonderful collection of Henry Moore maquettes donated by the artist.
Complain about this comment
#22
John, you don't know a lot of it. Most of the political scandals here don't have much to do with the Republican Party, though Republicans were involved. (The Republican Party didn't tell our ex-Agriculture Secretary to get involved in cockfighting, our ex-Treasurer to do cocaine or our Governor to fall in love with an Argentine woman.) On the other hand, the Republican Party has been involved in several scandals, many of which don't get reported. The racist attacks on a candidate were an exception in that they got condemned. Most people didn't condemn the attacks on McCain in 2000. A candidate in my State House district was the target of rumors based on her Hispanic heritage- and she was forced out. Her successor was never condemned for some statements she made or condoned. Our Lieutenant Governor was condemned when his supporter alleged he had an affair with the aforementioned candidate, but not so much for his reckless driving and misrepresenting himself in his earlier campaign. (Fortunately, he lost the primary for the Governor's race.) Our (soon to retire) Adjutant General broke military law by endorsing George W. Bush over John McCain in 2000. He was also alleged to have extorted campaign funds from subordinates. He never got prosecuted or even seriously challenged- and McCain was perfectly willing to accept his endorsement in 2008. Finally, our current Attorney General was state Republican Chairman in 2000 when 1/5 the polling places were closed in spite of federal civil rights laws and a court order to open them- or at least give 24 hours notice of the closings. Nobody even brought that up when he ran for AG. (Fortunately, he also lost the primary for the Governor's nomination.)
And Mr. Mardell? Greg Palast beat you by a few years.
http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-strafes-new-orleansrnwhere-is-our-huey-long/
Complain about this comment
If only Mr Obama and USA inc. applied the same fervour towards other multinational companies doing the same kind of thing. Union Carbide and the Bhopal "incident" is a good example. How many thousands died in that yet the head management retreated to USA well out of reach of any regulations etc. Only now, 25 years later, are there any signs of punishment happening (even these will get appealed to and the usual thing of nothing worthwhile or meaning to the survivors of the whole thing will happen). So, Mr Obama, why not look into that whilst you're at it? I have no idea how the anti-British side of things came about because all I see and hear is criticism of the individuals involved and the company. I haven't heard of any criticism of UK as a whole being responsible. It seems the big boys in UK plc are beating up a lather based on nothing.
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell wrote:
"Left-wingers carefully moderate their language, praise big business and calibrate towards the centre."
That's because the left in the West is all about political correctness and are afraid of appearing extreme for simply speaking the truth. That is something that never turns out well. Why do you think America and Europe have the problems they have with immigrants, for example, legal and illegal?
But yet in the end such an attitude will always lead to extreme conditions, such as the case of millions of illegals from Mexico in America, and the more extreme measures that will likely be needed to deal with it.
When one calibrates their thinking and actions "to the centre" then truths can not be seen, expressed and addressed. Problems can not be solved.
You lost me on the "praise of big business" part since most people on the left rarely do that.
"The right has little hesitation appealing to its own, using only the most threadbare disguise. Why is this?"
I don't entirely buy that, as the right is also guilty of practicing political correctness and acting in ways that only benefit their political careers.
Basically most politicians in the West have been deballed to a state of worthlessness, to use a Michael Savage term.
Oh wait, I forgot the famous American radio talk show host, who speaks the truth, is actually banned from the UK. :)
Complain about this comment
John_From_Dublin wrote:
"Not a vast amount. Enough. As much, I suspect, as you, if not more."
_______________________________________________________________________
Yes, I'm sure you know more about America than even Americans do.
Boy if I had a buck for every Brit or so-called European who acted that way I'd be rich. It is amusing though. :)
"Link here - http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1995597,00.html
So presumably any Republican who comes from SC will be smeared as 'product of the corrupt SC machine'?
Or perhaps that trick only applies to Democrats?"
______________________________________________________________________
How about you tell us Americans, seeing as you think you know more than we do about our own country.
Complain about this comment
BP refuses to seal its ocean floor well. They remove petroleum with a funnel device to sell it as fuel. A new sea rig would incur a great cost to the company. America must be patient and allow the Gulf to fill with excess oil regardless of damage to the delicate eco-system.
Complain about this comment
Ref 28, Allen
"But yet in the end such an attitude will always lead to extreme conditions, such as the case of millions of illegals from Mexico in America, and the more extreme measures that will likely be needed to deal with it."
The reason for our failure to correct the illegal immigration problem has nothing to do with political correctness, the real reason is business priorities and the pressure that big business exert in Washington. Large corporations, particularly agri-business, are benefiting from what is nothing more than a semi-slave pool of workers and they are not about to let it go. Not only are they getting away with paying less than minimum wage, they often don't pay their share of Social Security and MEDICARE. Another improtant fact is that most Americans are not interested in doing the kind of work most illegal immigrants do.
Former President Bush and Sen. McCain may have been sincere in proposing the guest worker program but make no mistake the main reason for that proposal is to protect the interests of our business community.
Complain about this comment
Ref 26, Orville
"On the other hand, the Republican Party has been involved in several scandals, many of which don't get reported."
And when they are reported they are downplayed or ignored. In Florida we have a candidate running for public office that was fined $1.7B for defrauding MEDICARE. How did GOP members react? He is leading in the polls.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Go USA!!! :)
Guess both USA and England won. Lol. I am surprised they don't have a tiebreaker for soccer.
As to the appealing sides,
The majority of the far left supports giving citizenship to illegal immigrants.
These of the far left desires their cheap labor and votes.
The majority of the far right does not support giving citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Except for Bush, Cheney and their cronies, who also desire their cheap labor and votes.
All our big news channels have showed vast coverage of the illegal immigrants' point of view, especially using children.
Our big news channels have shown very little coverage of people in opposition to illegal immigrants. If they do, they try to make them look as bad as possible or take quotes out of context. It is a game they are trying to play with our minds. Definite propaganda.
Fox is the only news channel that will tell you the legal Americans' who are against illegal immigration's point of view. Fox is the only news channel that will report if there is something negative about illegal immigrants. Unfortantely, our other big news channels are extremely biased in favor of illegal immigrants, who are not even citizens. They rarely if ever show anything negative about illegal immigrants and instead, try to show anything positive. It is extremley biased.
But many of the American people can make up our minds for ourselves, no matter how much left-wing and even some right-wing (Bush and Cheney) propaganda in favor of illegals is bombarding us.
We will not budge on our beliefs.
I cannot help but look at the situation in Kyrgyrnstan and wonder if USA could ever have ethnic clashes between the Americans and the illegal immigrants the way that the Kyrygs and Uzbekis are doing. People try to live together in peace, but sometimes there are too many differences. Or too little resources. I could definitely see it happening here.
It would be best to deport the illegal immigrants rather than have a civil war.
Complain about this comment
# 29 AllenT2 wrote:
"Yes, I'm sure you know more about America than even Americans do.
Boy if I had a buck for every Brit or so-called European who acted that way I'd be rich. It is amusing though. :)"
"How about you tell us Americans, seeing as you think you know more than we do about our own country."
Ho hum
OK - I'll try to explain this, for the 97th million time, as simply as I possibly can, even though I know you will ignore it.
There are c 310,000,000 inhabitants of the USA.
You - apparently - are one
MagicKirin - apparently - is another.
Neither of you has, to the best of my knowledge, been elected, or appointed, to speak for the 310m. Any more than I have been elected, or appointed, to speak for the c 4m inhabitants of this State.
On the more than one occasion that either of you has been asked to justify your sweeping assertions of behalf of the people of the USA, the silence has been deafening.
If you would care to take the time and trouble to attempt to read my relatively short posting at #22, you will see that I was addressing MK, and replying to his question. I said I suspected that I knew as much US history as him, and possibly even more. This was, clearly, a guess. [The clue is in my use of the word 'suspect'.] I don't know how much US history MK knows, or thinks he knows. However, having seen many of his interminable postings, I have been able to make an educated guess at his educational level. [And in any event, as I went on to clarify, the question was largely irrelevant to the matter at issue.]
However, the fact that I suspected I knew as much US history as, if not more than, ONE PARTICULAR American, did not mean that I was saying that that I suspected I knew as much US history as, if not more than, ALL 310m Americans.
See?
Now, I do realise that these concepts of, eg, 'one', 'some', 'many' and 'all' are complex and difficult ones. However, I feel sure that, with careful study, you will be able to grasp them.
"It is amusing though. :)"
Well, I am glad that you amuse somebody.
Complain about this comment
It is sad that our leaders care more about illegal immigrants' cheap labor and votes than they do Americans and America.
This is why we must change the current makeup in Nov. The ones who are in office now are terrible. All they want to do is spend money and promote their far-left views, instead of going down the middle.
The truth is, Top Kill should have been done in the first week. But it was not tried until four or five weeks after the spill. I believe there were other things BP and USA could have done within the first two weeks to stop the spill. Obama and the Dems could have contained the oil leak, but they did not care until things became bad. Now it is very difficult to stop the oil leaks. They waited too long and things get worse every day. Shame on BP and Obama/Dems for not stopping the oil leak sooner.
Americans must take America back in Nov., before its too late.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark, to return to your question, "...there are no populists of the left... why is this?" I would offer this: the populists of the left are not heard, at least not much beyond lecture halls and college owned radio stations with weak signals. In the larger media, when they or their perspectives are mentioned, they are distorted beyond recognition and serve as straw men to further the corporate agenda of the media owners or sponsors. Many have written corporate sponsored media off as largely an entity designed to create an illusion of information to its consumers for profit- generally, I count myself among this crowd.
When the media provides most of us with our images of politicians, and its sponsors are also the funders of the campaigns for candidates of both parties, it takes either a very brave soul (and one likely doomed to failure), or the rare individual whose history and connection with the public runs deeper than anything a media campaign can distort, for a populist of the left to emerge on a large stage.
Money has won, and 'populists' of the right serve to channel regular peoples' frustration with the status quo into actions which serve it.
Complain about this comment
OK - 3rd time's a charm.
Essentially I referred to the following -
"# 28 AT2
"I don't entirely buy that, as the right is also guilty of practicing political correctness and acting in ways that only benefit their political careers./Basically most politicians in the West have been deballed to a state of worthlessness, to use a Michael Savage term./Oh wait, I forgot the famous American radio talk show host, who speaks the truth, is actually banned from the UK. :)"
I then had a brief look at what AT2 considers 'the truth', by referring to several quotations from his friend Savage, which I found on Wikipedia at the following link -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savage_%28commentator%29.
[If someone wishes to disprove the claims at the link, feel free - I note however that it has c 99 separate references, which is c 99 more than AT2 is wont to provide.]
The Mods referred to the following rule - "likely to provoke, attack or offend others; are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable."
Unfortunately, it is difficult if not impossible to quote Savage and not contravene these rules.
Therefore I won't bother, but will let those who wish check my link, and of course any other sources they wish to choose, to see Mr Savage's 'thoughts' on such issues as
- Why female students do voluntary work with the homeless
- What the US should do to 100m Muslims
- What autism really is.
I then suggested that the above tells us about as much about AllenT2 as we really need to know...
Complain about this comment
27. At 03:46am on 13 Jun 2010, Soupstrainer wrote:
"If only Mr Obama and USA inc. applied the same fervour towards other multinational companies doing the same kind of thing. Union Carbide and the Bhopal "incident" is a good example."
As reported, the Union Carbide of India management were at fault, and as Union Carbide of India was prosecuted in India, what is the point of attacking U.C. of the U.S. in this forum? As to the relevence, it remains to be seen if the American division of BP [whether or not still named Amoco] will be treated as gently or as tardily as the Indian government has treated Union Carbide of India.
Most of the ire of the American public is directed at the big companies and at their corrupt relations with the US and state governments. I hope the people of the US will finally understand that this is the root of most if not all of our problems.
Note to Teapartiers, these corporatistrs are the people you think most fit to control our health, our food supply and other aspects of our lives! We need a general house [and senate] cleaning and the severing of the corrupt connections between the companies and the government.
Complain about this comment
36. At 4:52pm on 13 Jun 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"It is sad that our leaders care more about illegal immigrants' cheap labor and votes than they do Americans and America."
31. At 2:52pm on 13 Jun 2010, SaintDominick wrote:
"The reason for our failure to correct the illegal immigration problem has nothing to do with political correctness, the real reason is business priorities and the pressure that big business exert in Washington. Large corporations, particularly agri-business, are benefiting from what is nothing more than a semi-slave pool of workers and they are not about to let it go. Not only are they getting away with paying less than minimum wage, they often don't pay their share of Social Security and MEDICARE. Another improtant fact is that most Americans are not interested in doing the kind of work most illegal immigrants do."
____________
It isn't only "big business", and it isn't that America's leaders have this great empathy for illegal immigrants.
How many people do you know who employ a live-in nanny for their children? Or live in help for their parents? Or a maid, or a gardener, or..., or..., or...
[[ One of the things that constantly amazes me is the number of times a prospective government appointee gets tripped up in Senate confirmation hearings because (a) they cheat on taxes; or (b) they hire illegal aliens. Just how common are these phenomena? There must be people who have done research on this stuff. ]]
------------
The thing is that the American economy needs a pool of young, low skilled labour.
The population is aging, native born Americans (and Canadian, and Brits, and Germans, and French, and Italians, and Japanese ...) are having fewer and fewer children, and the avenues for legal immigration generally admit only highly skilled workers. By and large, native born Americans (and Canadians, etc.,) have been raised with a huge set of expectations of an easy affluent lifestyle where you don't have to do well in school, and you don't have to work hard. So they don't want these low skill, low wage jobs.
------------
This trend is amplified by the vastly increased rates of participation of women in the workforce.
When I was a child, there were all sorts of social stigmas related to women working. If a woman continued working after marriage, it meant that the man in the house had failed in being unable to earn enough to support his household. If a woman chose to have a career instead of marriage she was alternately characterized as (take your pick) (a) sexually cold; (b) a libertine, and therefore scandalous; (c) a lesbian (although such a word would never have been used in those days in polite company); (c) an unwanted spinster unable to attract a man, and therefore something of a blight and a burden on her family, etc., etc.. Many of these attitudes persist to this day in relatively traditional or patriarchal societies.
In any case, as compared to earlier times, far more women are in the wage-earning workforce, and far fewer women are at home, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, as the saying used to be.
It is the norm for household income to be based on the assumption of two (or more?) adults in the household bringing in cash income. Thus households are smaller, but tend to have more cash. That cash may tend to be used to pay for domestic tasks we formerly did ourselves, e.g., gardening, cleaning, providing day-care for pre-school children, providing care for aged parents.
------------
The net result is that the economy has a huge unmet demand for low wage, low skilled workers, even in times of recession.
On the other side of the ledger, America has a neighbour with a large supply of young, low skill, low wage labour. There are plenty of people in Mexico (and elsewhere) who consider it preferable to move to the relative safety and wealth of the United States (or any other country where the rule of law tends to prevail) to work for low pay - even if they are subjected to the abuses of living in the black economy - because it is better than their prospects in an even lower wage (or unemployed) situation in a country where corruption and violence are deeply entrenched.
The solution is obvious, and the economic pressures driving that solution are irresistible.
-----------
It is an enduring truth that when the laws of economics run up against the man-made laws of the legislature, the laws of economics generally win, and worse, the efforts of our legislatures, and the legislators themselves, end up being the objects of ridicule.
That is why ill-considered laws against drinking alcohol, prostitution, gambling, smuggling, the use of soft drugs, and many other things tend to be problematic: they consume very significant public resources, but don't generally solve the problem. They often make the problem worse, or give rise to new problems that are just as bad as, or worse than, the problem they were intended to solve in the first place.
The public policy exercise in futility that is the "War on Drugs" is a prime example of this phenomenon: very nearly a complete waste of money, a large effort that has not in forty(?) years made any discernible progress in achieving its stated goals, and that has given worse to greater and enduring evils.
And if inadequate public resources are allocated to enforcement, then (a) the law becomes a thing of ridicule; and (b) selective, quixotic enforcement itself becomes a tool of injustice. So too, illegal immigration.
Gambling, the consumption of alcohol and recreational drugs, the use of tobacco, and so on, give rise to very significant societal costs in terms of addictive and self-destructive behaviour.
It is therefore appropriate that measures be taken to address those harms. But in each case it is important accurately to identify the harm, and the cause of the harm; carefully to target the remedial measures against the causes of the harm (focused measures tend to work better than diffuse scatter-gun approaches); and to make sure that the remedial measures do not do more harm than the original problem they are intended to address.
Unfortunately, this is not as easy as it sounds. Our history is full of examples of how well intentioned remedies fell afoul of the law of unintended consequences. And, in a democracy, it can sometimes be tragically difficult to get people to do things that are clearly in their own best interest - the big to-do, and the shameless scare-mongering, about national health care is an absolute classic in this regard. In the end, the scare tactics were so effective that the very people who stood to gain most by a single-payer national health care system tended to be strongly opposed to it. Oh, the paradoxes and contradictions of public opinion in a democracy.
------------
In many cases, for example, permitting but then regulating or heavily taxing, an activity that has large societal costs is a much better approach than attempting to prohibit the activity. Further, by taxing these activities there is perhaps some hope that the negative externalities raised by the activity may thereby be internalised.
It seems to me that about 20 years ago Cass Sunstein wrote a book or a series of influential papers on this subject.
------------
In any case, unless Americans start having large families again, or American immigration law changes to permit America to have access to a fairly large pool of low skilled, low wage workers, this problem is going to persist for quite some time yet, because the economic factors driving it haven't gone away.
And, in some ways, you should be glad:
The problem would end immediately if Mexico were richer than the United States on a per capita basis. My guess is that most Americans faced with that choice would prefer a problem with illegal immigration.
Complain about this comment
Ref 34, Lucy
"The majority of the far right does not support giving citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Except for Bush, Cheney and their cronies, who also desire their cheap labor and votes."
Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden and most politicians from the right and left do not support amnesty or paving the way to citizenship. The guest worker program that was proposed by members of both parties in the past does not mean citizenship. It simply acknowledges the reality that we need low skilled workers to work in farms, meat packing plants, the garment industry, construction, landscaping and as nannies or cooks.
In spite of the flaws of our education system the level of education of most Americans has improved tremendously in recent decades and most of us do not have the slightest interest in doing the back breaking and low paying work work that illegal immigrants usually do. The fact that both husbands and wives work to achieve our financial goals and meet our requirements means that many American families depend on nannies to take care of their children and that to make it worth it the best alternative is to hire an illegal immigrant willing to work for peanuts.
The problem is, indeed, exacerbated by immigration laws that favor the entry of skilled workers and shuns low skilled labor.
In my opinion, there are parallels between our immigrantion and drug problems. We love to blame those that break the law, ignoring the fact that one of the most important reasons for them doing so is to satisfy our lifestyle and our demand for the services and products they give us.
Stop hiring illegal immigrants and stop buying illegal drugs and the problem will evaporate instantly.
Regarding your assertion that President Obama and the Democrats could have stopped the oil leak long ago, would you care to explain how. I am guessing you are referring to their failure to re-establish the offshore drilling ban put in place by former President George H. W. Bush, which was not only lifted by his son, but followed by a dramatic relaxation in safety standards, but I am not sure.
Complain about this comment
There will always be a majority of 'have nots' willing to believe that all 'haves' got that way by being dishonest or by stealing from the have nots. And there will always be sleazy politicians who can feed that resentment for political gain. Most journalists and news organizations are lefties so the concept of a moderate or right-leaning news org that acts as a counterweight is a practical solution to the lefty bias that has existed for decades. The bad news is they often act so cartoonishly outrageous that they lose a lot of credibility with the moderates watching their coverage. The good news is, moderates are far less likely to be fooled by left or right-leaning propaghanda after watching both sides exaggerate their points. Sadly, the US and UK live in an entertainment culture that wants the theatrics.
Complain about this comment
What happens when the "left" and "right" media are really the media of the very same special interests that finance them (or political parties for that matter)? Do we sometimes get the impression, because we've seen so many stations, channels, pages or public officials covering the same subject that we're being told what is most relavent or true? In spite of the 'cartoonish' outrage or manner of hosts, I suspect the industry is amply sophisticated to use its 'support' of a cause to undermine it- I've seen it done for ages in print and broadcast.
Most news organizations are lefties? No, mostly they're corporate interests niether left or right, who drag themselves up as one or the other, or revel in denying what they are not for the purpose of leaving the opposite impression, all in a show for consumers.
Complain about this comment
#15.Andy Post:
"So, is it time to start talking trash about England vs. USA in the World Cup, yet?"
It's always trash talking time!
Complain about this comment
Definetely time!
Gee, it's taken a full-time professional English team 60 years to get as good as a part-time American team! :-)
Complain about this comment
Or for the US team to get as bad as the overpaid, overrated underachieving England team?
Complain about this comment
John_From_Dublin wrote:
"[If someone wishes to disprove the claims at the link, feel free - I note however that it has c 99 separate references, which is c 99 more than AT2 is wont to provide.]"
______________________________________________________________________
Uh, what exactly was I supposed to be providing "references" for??
You are you asking people to go to another web page to "disprove" what exactly?
________________________________________________________________________
"The Mods referred to the following rule - "likely to provoke, attack or offend others; are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable."
Unfortunately, it is difficult if not impossible to quote Savage and not contravene these rules."
________________________________________________________________________
Wrong! It is "impossible" for any group of people to discuss anything, to have freedom of speech, if they are to be barred from saying things that could "offend" others or be seen as "otherwise objectionable!"
That's the kind of thinking the Nazis and the Communists used, and still use, in the case of many socialist and all communist governments.
Those are the kinds of moderating policies that forums such as these use to arbitrarily edit or eliminate posts they do not agree with.
________________________________________________________________________
"Therefore I won't bother, but will let those who wish check my link, and of course any other sources they wish to choose, to see Mr Savage's 'thoughts' on such issues as
- Why female students do voluntary work with the homeless
- What the US should do to 100m Muslims
- What autism really is.
I then suggested that the above tells us about as much about AllenT2 as we really need to know..."
________________________________________________________________________
I don't know what his views are on the first two so I can't comment on them.
On the autism part I know a bit about it and I agree with his general view that along with things like depression such conditions are more about the medical, psychiatric and pharmaceutical industries creating illnesses where none exist.
These are also things that Dr. Savage would know much more about than you or I would. After all, he holds these degrees:
Ph.D., Nutritional Ethnomedicine
M.A., Anthropology
M.A., Ethnobotany
B.A., Sociology and Education
Source: Wikipedia
Now as for your comment where you say that "tells us about as much about AllenT2 as we really need to know," how is that logical?
Because I said he speaks the truth that somehow means I have to agree with and believe everything he says??
I agree with most people on the left when I say I support a woman's right to abortion. Does that then make me want to have government run health care?
Complain about this comment
John_From_Dublin wrote:
______________________________________________________________________
"Ho hum OK - I'll try to explain this, for the 97th million time, as simply as I possibly can, even though I know you will ignore it.
There are c 310,000,000 inhabitants of the USA.
You - apparently - are one MagicKirin - apparently - is another.
Neither of you has, to the best of my knowledge, been elected, or appointed, to speak for the 310m. Any more than I have been elected, or appointed, to speak for the c 4m inhabitants of this State."
_________________________________________________________________________
No, of course not, but it takes an incredible amount of arrogance and hubris to think you would know more about a country than its inhabitants would.
I almost feel embarrassed for you.
________________________________________________________________________
"On the more than one occasion that either of you has been asked to justify your sweeping assertions of behalf of the people of the USA, the silence has been deafening."
________________________________________________________________________
Oh really? That's news to me. Such as?
_______________________________________________________________________
"If you would care to take the time and trouble to attempt to read my relatively short posting at #22, you will see that I was addressing MK, and replying to his question. I said I suspected that I knew as much US history as him, and possibly even more. This was, clearly, a guess."
[The clue is in my use of the word 'suspect'.]"
________________________________________________________________________
Which brought my reply then, and now.
Like I said, it takes an incredible amount of arrogance and hubris to even think that. Why would you logically presume to know more about another country than its inhabitants would, especially obviously educated ones.
_______________________________________________________________________
"I don't know how much US history MK knows, or thinks he knows. However, having seen many of his interminable postings, I have been able to make an educated guess at his educational level. [And in any event, as I went on to clarify, the question was largely irrelevant to the matter at issue.]"
________________________________________________________________________
My remark was clearly to do with you presuming to know more about America than Americans would.
________________________________________________________________________
"However, the fact that I suspected I knew as much US history as, if not more than, ONE PARTICULAR American, did not mean that I was saying that that I suspected I knew as much US history as, if not more than, ALL 310m Americans."
_________________________________________________________________________
I've read enough of your posts to know that your presumptuous attitude towards Americans and their country is not isolated to just "ONE PARTICULAR" American.
In fact, your attitude is quite common among the many anti-Americans from your part of the world and in this forum.
________________________________________________________________________
"Now, I do realise that these concepts of, eg, 'one', 'some', 'many' and 'all' are complex and difficult ones. However, I feel sure that, with careful study, you will be able to grasp them."
________________________________________________________________________
Ah, sarcasm.
Oh wait, you Brits confuse that irony. It conveniently makes it more easier to insult people with, huh?
________________________________________________________________________
"Well, I am glad that you amuse somebody."
________________________________________________________________________
Freedom of speech is a great thing but it doesn't guarantee to "amuse" or please everyone.
________________________________________________________________________
Complain about this comment
LucyJ wrote:
"It would be best to deport the illegal immigrants rather than have a civil war."
The wisest comment I've read all day.
Complain about this comment
# 49 AT2
There is a new thread so I won't waste much time on this
Essentially, I tell you what I think, then you tell me what I think. Then you call me arrogant.
If you wish to know Savage's views on the topics mentioned, go to the page I linked to. It isn't that long.
Complain about this comment
While populists of the right are two-a-penny in America these days, there are no populists of the left. Left-wingers carefully moderate their language, praise big business and calibrate towards the centre. The right has little hesitation appealing to its own, using only the most threadbare disguise. Why is this?
I don't know, but I've noticed this as well.
Perhaps our extreme left folks are divided between the ecology extremists and the economy extremists.
Or, perhaps the extreme leftward groups are blogging, txting and gathering together in venues that aren't in the public spotlights. (I've gotten plenty of information from 'Progressive Democrats' and 'Green Advocates' - but maybe that's just the political ghetto I ride in.)
Either way, by the time they reach the big stage (your Washingtonian Bubble) we only hear the moderates who want to get things done.
You know, I'm not really sure that having a few clowns in your side show compliments the balancing act it the center ring or whether it upstages from the spotlight.
[cue 'green party' v. 'tea party' mud wrestling in 3... 2... ]
Complain about this comment
At the risk of posting on the original topic: Huey Long is one of those larger than life characters in American history who should be required reading in every high school civics class.
Complain about this comment
There is an idea circulating around the web on how to stop the whole so-called anchor baby situation.
The idea is to create a new law which would ban illegal immigrants, foreigners, and non-citizens from raising American children in America, unless one of the parents is a legal American citizen.
It would be enforced at the child's birth- whether by hospital, 9/11 responder- or if it is discovered by any American agency, which would have to enforce it by law or be shut down.
The illegal immigrant parents would have the choice to
A) Keep the child and go back to their homeland. The child would have either dual citizenship until 18 or their parents' homelands'citizenship.
B) Give up the child to foster care or a legal relative/friend. In this case, the child would have American citizenship and the illegal immigrants' parents would be deported.
There is no reason why illegal immigrants should be allowed to raise American children in America. It is the same thing as giving up our children to foreigners/non-citizens in our own country.
The illegal immigrant parents are the ones committing the crime of illegally crossing the border and they should not be allowed the privilege of raising American children.
American children should not be allowed to be raised by non-citizens in America unless at least one parent is an American.
American children should belong to Americans in America, not to illegals.
Complain about this comment
We studied Huey Long in school in New Orleans (Louisiana State History). He was very sharp and completed college in much less than 3 years.
He would remember names and refresh himself (his memory from notes) before visiting communities. It was not hard to appreciate an important man than remembered your name, your wife, and how many children you had.
He hard a good grasp of psychology and could play the ego of the elite against themselves. He was corrupt, but not at the expense of the common people. He attacked people he felt were corrupt that damaged the common people.
He was portrayed as a capable and powerful man that was abruptly stopped when he showed interest in going to Washington. He was not necessarily portrayed as a good man while I was in school (1960's).
I do not remember that he was a violent "racist" by the standards of the day. He did, however, not spend as much time in black communities.
We did not study his business/political dealings.
Complain about this comment
Regarding populism, Obama himself would then seem to be the exception to the rule, if according to you Mr. Mardell, the US right wing has the monopoly regarding populist politics. The US President seems to bend over backwards trying to please 'all of the people' all of the time, which of course is impossible, and so far the results have made an already massive debt far worse. The administration thus seems to have reached a situation where further serious commitment (certainly regarding foreign affairs) is, in principle, beyond the means of the USA.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS