The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewJames Petras Archive
From Richard Nixon to Donald Trump
America’s Great Leap Backwards
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Introduction: For almost 50 years, the US economy and society has taken a great leap backward – accelerating during the past three Presidencies. Not only have we experienced the reversal of past socio-economic legislation, but also our presidents and Congress have dragged us into multiple aggressive wars. Now, the threat of a nuclear attack against our ‘declared enemies’ is ‘on the table’.

Since the end of the Viet Nam war, US military ‘interventions’ have become wars of long duration. These have cost millions of lives overseas, tens of millions of refugees and scores of thousands of American soldier deaths, permanent injury and serious mental and neuropsychiatric damage. There is no ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, to quote the US General William Westmoreland.

In retrospect, and after 50 years of decline, the much-maligned Presidency of Richard Milhous Nixon now stands out as a golden age of social, environmental and inter-racial advances, as well as an era of successful peace negotiations and diplomacy. President Nixon, never an ideologue, accepted the reality of a multi-polar world.

Of course, the Nixon Presidency was characterized by serious crimes against humanity, such as the CIA-sponsored coup d’état against the democratically elected Chilean President Allende, the bombing of Cambodia and the genocidal invasion of the newly independent country of East Timor.

Today, he is best known for the far-less consequential events around the ‘Watergate’ scandal and related domestic civil rights abuses and corruption. It was the mass media and Democratic Party politicos who have grossly inflated the election campaign chicanery, leading up to the bungled break-in of the Watergate Hotel headquarters of the Democratic Party, which led to Nixon’s impeachment and resignation. To today’s media spin-masters, ‘Watergate’ was the defining event of President Nixon’s Presidency.

Ironically, after Nixon resigned from office even greater disasters occurred. This paper will enumerate these and compare them with the Nixon presidency.

Far from pursuing diplomacy and peace, subsequent presidents, both ‘liberal’ Democrats and ‘conservative’ Republicans, invaded Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, and Angola and initiated a dozen other highly destructive and economically devastating wars. The two oligarchic parties took turns in shredding Nixon’s comparatively peaceful legacy.

President Nixon, under the advice of National Security adviser, Henry Kissinger, supported Israel’s invasion of the Arab countries in 1973 as well as the bloody Chilean military coup in 1973.

President Nixon cynically designed the ‘Southern Strategy’, which transformed the Democratic Party-controlled racist fiefdoms of the US South into racist Republican-controlled states.

Progressives, liberals and self-styled democratic-socialists have played a leading role in ignoring Nixon’s ‘golden years’ in terms of domestic and international policy achievements. Instead they focused on inane and infantile name-calling, like “Tricky Dick”, to describe the man. By doing so, they have failed miserably to discuss national and international issues of historic importance. They have deliberately fabricated a distorted picture of the Nixon era to cover-up for the gross failures of subsequent Democratic Party controlled Congresses and Democratic Presidents.

In this essay, we will briefly outline Richard Nixon’s policies and executive initiatives, which justify our designation of the Nixon’s ‘golden years’, especially in comparison to what has followed his era.

President Nixon: The Great Leap Forward

In the sphere of political, economic and social life, President Nixon pursued policies, which ultimately advanced peace in the world and social welfare in the United States.

In foreign policy and diplomacy, Richard Nixon ended both the draft of young Americans into the armed forces, as well as the decade-long US military occupation of Indo-China, effectively ending the war – and acknowledging the hard victory of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front. The war had cost millions of Southeast Asian lives.

Nixon visited Beijing and recognized the ‘existence’ of the People’s Republic of China, effectively ending a quarter century of economic blockades and military threats against the billion-plus population of the PRC under three Democratic (Truman, Kennedy and Johnson) and one Republican (Eisenhower) Presidential Administrations. He established full diplomatic relations with China.

Nixon initiated the Security Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) agreements with the USSR and developed diplomatic policies, which recognized the possibility and necessity of peaceful co-existence between different social systems.

On the domestic front, President Nixon established the Clean Water Act and established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with a Federal Government mandate to fight polluters and hold them accountable for the ‘cleanup’ of the environment.

Nixon proposed a National Health Insurance Program – an expansion of Medicare to cover the health needs of all Americans. This radical proposal (a version of ’single payer’) was attacked and defeated by the Democratic Party, led by Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy who was backed by ‘Big Pharma’, the AMA and the growing corporate ‘health’ industry.

Nixon imposed price and wage controls that constrained inflation and price gouging and actively punished commodity ‘hoarding’. This was a time of rapid inflation and shortages due to the ‘Oil Embargo’. With these measures, he incurred the wrath of Wall Street, big business and the financial press.

Nixon promoted consumer rights, supplemental legislation to expand Social Security, especially for the handicapped, while defending the retirement age for pension eligibility.

Under Nixon, union membership rose to 30% of the workforce – its high point before its precipitous decline to 12% under subsequent US Presidents.

Nixon increased salaries of federal employees and real wages rose. In the following half-century real wages have declined to only 10% of their Nixon era value!

Nixon indexed Social Security to the real rate of inflation.

The Nixon Presidency initiated the Affirmative Action program and used the Federal Government to push for the desegregation of schools, leading to the first large-scale integration of public education in the South. President Nixon created the Office of Minority Business Enterprises (OMBE); the Occupation Safety and Health Agency (OSHA); and the Legacy of Parks Programs.

Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual wage for American workers, which both Democrats and Republicans rejected and defeated! He promoted Keynesian industrial policies against the financial elites with their mania for speculation.

President Nixon appointed four Supreme Court Justices during his term. Three of his appointees supported the groundbreaking ‘Roe versus Wade’ decision protecting women’s reproductive rights.

Under Nixon the voting age was reduced from twenty-one to eighteen years – giving millions of young Americans a greater political voice.

When Nixon spoke in favor of gun control, both the Republican and Democratic Parties opposed his proposals.

President Nixon supported the Equal Employment Opportunity Act and the Endangered Species Act, which have remained critical to social and environmental justice.


Richard Nixon was not a ’single issue’ President. The span and depth of his progressive agenda, included fundamental changes in favor of environmental and racial justice, working class economic security and broad-ranging health issues, peace and co-operation with China and the USSR, women’s rights through Supreme Court decisions; pensioners’ rights, and animal rights advocacy. He reduced economic inequalities between the richest 1% of capitalists and the working class. Under President Nixon inequality and the concentration of wealth in the US were far less than they became with subsequent US Presidents and especially during the Obama Administration.

No President, with the possible exception of President Franklin Roosevelt’s Great Depression Era legislation, even remotely achieved Nixon’s domestic socio-economic successes. President Roosevelt, one must not forget, operated under the immense pressure of massive working class strikes and in preparation for World War II, while President Nixon achieved his policy advances during a time of relative ‘peace’.

The Post-Nixon Bi-Partisan Regression

In the 41 years since Nixon’s resignation (1976-2017) there has been a systematic rollback of virtually all of the Nixon agenda. Congress, the liberals, the mass media and Wall Street immediately switched from denigrating Nixon, to praising Democratic President ‘Jimmy’ Carter’s reversal of Nixon’s foreign policy achievements.

Contrary to his media-polished image as a ‘Bible-thumping champion of human rights’, President Carter dismantled Nixon’s policies promoting peace with the USSR and China, especially when he appointed the rabidly anti-Russian, anti-communist Zbigniew Brzezinski for National Security Adviser. The duet created the public image of Carter mouthing human rights rhetoric while Brzezinski formulated a policy of backing dictators and funding Islamist (jihadi) terrorists to undermine Soviet allies. The two-faced ‘Evangelical Christian’ Carter sent confidential letters of US support for the brutal dictator Somoza to prevent the Sandinista victory in Nicaragua, while issuing platitudes about peace in Central America.

Carter worked closely with the military dictatorship in Pakistan and the ‘head chopping’ monarchs in Saudi Arabia to launch the bloody forty-year war in Afghanistan, a Soviet Ally. The Carter-Brzezinski-promoted mujahidin war against secularism in Afghanistan led directly to the rise of Islamist terrorism, the Taliban and al Qaeda. Carter’s ‘freedom fighters’ systematically massacred secular schoolteachers for ‘the crime’ of educating Afghan girls in the countryside.

In order to undermine the USSR and other socialist or independent secular countries with Muslim populations, the Carter-Brzezinski duet financed and trained the Saudi-indoctrinated Al-Qaeda terrorists. They were delighted when it spread its poison across the Middle East, Asia, Africa, the Balkans and the Soviet Union promoting separatism and ethnic cleansing. Their cheers ceased somewhat on 9/11/2001.

Domestically, Carter’s deregulation of price controls led to double-digit inflation and set in motion the long-term decline in wages and salaries, which still plagues the American lower middle and working classes.

Carter appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volcker, who implemented draconian anti-inflationary ‘austerity’ policies reducing domestic consumption and opening the way for the de-industrialization of the economy.

The seismic change in the US, the ‘financialization’ of the domestic economy started under Jimmy Carter and was deepened and expanded under the subsequent Presidents Ronald Regan, George H W Bush, Sr., ‘Bill’ Clinton, George W. Bush (Jr) and Barack Obama. Poverty and permanent unemployment followed.

With deindustrialization, labor union membership declined from 30% of the private labor force under Nixon to less than 7% today. Organizing workers was no longer a priority: The AFL-CIO leaders were too busy chasing after the Democrats for handouts (and get-out-of jail passes).

After Carter, the Republican President Ronald Reagan doubled military spending, brutally broke the strike of the Air Controller’s union by jailing its leaders, whipped up the revival of US interventionism by invading Grenada and sending Special Forces to join the death squads murdering tens of thousands of peasant activists in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.

President Reagan’s ‘free market’ polices encouraged US multinational corporations to relocate their factories overseas to Mexico, the Caribbean and Asia, costing millions of US workers well-paying jobs and reducing the number of unionized jobs. The stock markets and profits rose while the ‘American Dream’ of lifetime stable employment in industry began to fade.

Reagan’s threats and his huge military build-up forced the USSR to overspend in arms and strangle its growing domestic consumer economy.

The Reagan-Thatcher (British PM) era marked the demise of social welfare. They imposed the doctrine of ‘globalization’ – in essence, the bellicose revival of Anglo-American imperialism and the end of domestic industrial prosperity.

George HW Bush ‘negotiated’ with Russian President Gorbachev the break-up of the USSR. Despite Bush’s promises not to place US-NATO forces in former Soviet-allied countries, the following period saw the huge US-NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Baltic states. President Bush (Sr.) invaded and savaged both Panama and Iraq, restarting the epoch of permanent US wars.

President George HW Bush promulgated the unipolar doctrine of US world domination, known as the ‘Bush Doctrine’.

The Reagan-Bush regimes emptied the content of the Nixon-era progressive agencies in terms of civil rights, consumer and environmental protection, and wage protection. Unionization declined by over a third.

After ‘war-monger’ President ‘Papa’ Bush, the Saxophone-playing President ‘Bill’ Clinton was elected. While crooning the words, ‘I feel your pain’ ,to American workers and racial minorities, Clinton unleashed Wall Street, ending regulation of banks and investment houses. He re-appointed Alan Greenspan to head the Federal Reserve, a proven master of grotesque financial speculation and the godfather of economic crisis (2007-2009).

President Clinton, passions aroused by the animal spirits on Wall Street (and inside his White House office), launched a vicious assault on the social welfare state, and in particular, low-income working families, single parents and African-Americans. Clinton’s promotion of “Workfare” forced single mothers to accept unsustainable minimum wage jobs under the threat of ending any welfare support, while not providing any mechanism for child care! This one policy savaged hundreds of thousands of vulnerable families. Under Clinton, the prison industry exploded as a multi-billion dollar business.

During the 1990’s, Clinton backed the most retrograde pro-business, debt-ridden regimes in Latin America. Hundreds of billions of dollars of Latin American wealth was transferred to the US. Clinton’s ‘Golden Years for Wall Street’ were a decade of infamy for Latin Americans and led directly to major leftist revolts by the end of the Clinton era.


President Clinton deepened and widened the US military drive for domination in Europe and the Middle East. Clinton bombed and invaded Yugoslavia, especially Serbia – destroying large parts of its capital Belgrade. He bombed Iraq on a daily basis and increased the starvation blockade of that nation. He invaded Somalia and backed Israeli land grabbing-settlement expansion in Palestine. He supported the Israeli savaging of Lebanon. He committed treason by submitting to Israeli blackmail over his sex-capers with Monica Lewinsky and trying to release Israeli spy-US Naval analyst Jonathan Pollard. It was only after an open threat of wholesale resignations by the CIA and other security agencies that Clinton withdrew his proposal to free the traitor Pollard.

Finance capital flourished as Clinton repealed the venerable Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 against bank speculation. He promoted the hugely unpopular NAFTA, (North American Free Trade Agreement) leading to the loss of over two million industrial jobs, as US multinationals absconded to Mexico, where wages were less than one-fifth of the US. NAFTA’s savaging of the Mexican agricultural sector and massive bankruptcies of small producers led directly to the flood of desperate Mexican migrants looking for work in the US.

The Georgetown-Harvard-Oxford trained ‘Bill’ Clinton was the grand wizard of talking like a ‘black preacher’ in southern churches while smoothly pursuing the ‘big bucks’ on Wall Street.

After Clinton, regressive policies increased sharply: President George W Bush (Jr), ‘First Black President’ Barack Obama and ‘First Billionaire President’ Donald Trump all supported the most virulent imperial war policies.

The two terms of President George (Jr) Bush (2001 – 2008) saw unending multi-trillion dollar-wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which have destabilized two continents. Junior Bush presided over the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. His anti-Muslim ‘global wars on terror (GWOT)’ was launched under the influence of ‘Israel-First’ militarists who had inundated the Defense Department, National Security staff and Middle East policy and advisory staff in the State Department. Meanwhile, GW Bush deepened unemployment and allowed the mortgage foreclosure on millions of homeowners. The domestic economy was in severe crisis.

By the end of the George W. Bush Presidency, reinvigorated anti-war and social justice movements were gaining strength throughout the country. Arriving on the scene of growing social unrest and with perfect timing, the ‘community organizer’ presidential candidate Barack Obama won the presidency by promising a progressive agenda to undermine the mass popular radicalization against Bush’s unpopular wars, growing inequalities, endless bank swindles, foreclosures and blatant racist policies against Afro-Americans and Hispanics.

Once elected, the ‘First Black’ US President Obama immediately increased Bush’s militarism and handed the criminals on Wall Street a record two-trillion-dollar bailout, ripped out of what remained of public social programs. Elected on a pledge to overhaul the ridiculously inefficient, pro-profit, private health care system, Obama gave the electorate a program of greater complexity and rapidly increasing insurance premiums (’Obama Care’ or the ‘Affordable Care Act’), which ended with a negative impact on the nation’s health.

Under Obama, life expectancy, as well as, the income gaps between the rich and the poor grew at an alarming rate. Inequalities increased with a historic shift of national wealth to the top 1%. The class and health apartheid sharpened in the US. The transfer of jobs abroad accelerated. Multinational corporate tax evasion rose by hundreds of billions of dollars. The gap between African-American wages and white workers increased. Obama deported more immigrants, especially workers from Mexico and Central America, than all four previous presidents combined!

Elected on a pledge to ‘bring the troops home’, President Obama broke the record for waging simultaneous wars of all previous presidents! Obama launched or backed US wars and coups (’regime changes’) in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Honduras and Somalia. After receiving the Nobel ‘Peace’ Prize, President Obama provided advanced weapons to Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Egypt. Obama financed and armed tens of thousands of mercenary terrorists who savaged the secular multiethnic Syrian republic. Furthermore, his administration cynically backed the separatist Kurds occupying Northern Iraq.

Hawaii born and bred, Harvard-educated President Obama had mastered the deep-voiced Southern preacher rhetoric to corrupt the leadership of the social justice and anti-war movements. He coopted the leaders of the mass popular movements to their eternal shame and the movements died. Even the short-lived anti-Wall Street ‘Occupy Movement’ received Obama’s expressions of ’sympathy’ as he backed the unleashing of police dogs and tear gas on the activists!

Obama’s reactionary military encirclement of Russia and China influenced the foreign policy views of a majority of US liberals as well as the mass media – turning them into ‘humanitarian interventionists’ and tools for empire.

Ever duplicitous, Obama signed a ‘unilateral nuclear disarmament agreement with Iran’ and then immediately broke the agreement by imposing new sanctions on Tehran’s banking and oil transactions.

There was great media fanfare when Obama re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba. This move facilitated the entry and funding of pro-imperialist NGO’s committed to ‘regime change’ along the same line as other ‘color revolutions’. Despite the photo-ops with the Cuban leadership, the US trade embargo against the Cuban people remained in place.

Obama’s State Department and Treasury were tasked with sabotaging and overthrowing the elected Chavez-Maduro governments in Venezuela promoting acts of violence, which have thrown the country into chaos. His Secretary of State Clinton orchestrated the violent removal of the presidents of Libya and Honduras and the installation of rabidly reactionary governments whose policies have created hundreds of thousands of refugees and the assassinations of tens of thousands of citizens, human rights and environmental activists.

Obama’s much-promoted corporate for-profit health program brought some degree of insurance coverage to just half of the uninsured poor within its first year. However, after the first year health premiums rose by 25% while deductibles increased beyond the capacity of many working families. Since then, premiums have risen astronomically and coverage is unaffordable or unavailable in many areas of the country. The debt burden of ill health or a sudden medical emergency has increased for the middle and working class under Wall Street’s ‘First Black’ President. No demographic measures of improvement, in terms of life expectancy or life quality, have been documented since the implementation of ‘Obama Care’. Indeed, these public health measures have deteriorated with an epidemic of suicides, opioid-related deaths and premature deaths of all types among the working and rural classes.


After 8 years, the core of the nation, the so-called ‘Flyover States’, where the downwardly mobile working and lower middle class white majority live, was fed up with Obama’s cant and blatantly elitist policies. In was in this context that the distasteful billionaire buffoon Donald Trump capitalized on mass popular discontent and rallied a populace in revolt against the previous ‘war and bankers’ presidents, by promising to end corporate export of jobs, Wall Street corruption, ‘Obama Care’, competition for jobs with undocumented cheap labor and endless overseas wars. Trump hit a raw nerve among scores of millions of voters when he accused the earlier Bush Administration of fabricating the pretexts for the invasion of Iraq as well as for security failures in the 9/11 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.

Within weeks after taking office President Trump gracefully performed an Obama-style ‘about-face’ and emerged a re-anointed warmonger of the Hillary Clinton variety: He celebrated his transformation by bombing Syria, Afghanistan and the defenseless, starving people of Yemen. He sent warships off the coast of North Korea, placed advanced missile installations in South Korea and threatened nuclear war in Asia.

Trump miserably failed to ‘reform’ the corporate health plan concocted by his smirking predecessor. He shed his promise to seek peaceful relations with Moscow and embraced the policies of the worst anti-Russian liberal warmongers groomed by Clinton and Obama. Obama’s overt war posturing had so deeply influenced African-American politicians that they loudly accused Trump of being ‘too soft on Russia’! Former civil rights leaders-turned politicians were calling for greater US military interventions – a spectacle what would have made our sacred civil rights martyrs rolling in their graves.

Trump, building on the immense power already entrenched in Washington, reinforced and expanded the role of finance capital and the Pentagon in determining US policy. Trump pledged to exceed Obama’s arrest and expulsion of immigrants – from 2.5 million workers in eight years to an additional 5 million in his first four-year term.

The US corporate mass media and the liberal left have been pushing the pro-business President Trump even further to the right – demanding the US escalate its nuclear threat against North Korea, mount a full invasion of Syria (for its ‘crimes against humanity’) and, above all, ‘tighten the military noose’ around Russia and China.


By any measure, the policies of President Richard Milhous Nixon were more socially progressive, less militarist and less servile to Wall Street than any and all of the subsequent US Presidents. This assessment is heresy to the current historical narratives promoted by both political parties and the corporate media-academic nexus.

But even during the Nixon Presidency there were already signs of an allied liberal-rightist attack on his progressive ‘conservative’ agenda. Senator Edward (Ted) Kennedy blocked Nixon’s proposal for a universal national health system built on an expansion of the highly successful ‘Medicare Program’. Nixon’s proposal (a ‘Medicare For All’) would have been far more comprehensive, effective and affordable than the corporate boondoggles cooked up by the Clinton and Obama Administrations.

What accounts for the dramatic shift from the center left to the far right among US Presidents after the 1970’s? What explains the rise and demise of ‘Nixonian’ progressivism and the great leap backward in the subsequent four and half decades?

Personality and personal background are not irrelevant: Nixon’s class and work background and personal experience with the Great Depression framed some of his outlook despite his ‘conservative’ credentials. However, the social and political balance of forces played the decisive role. Richard Nixon came to national attention as a rightwing militarist and aggressive attack dog for Senator Joesph McCarthy during the 1950s and at the beginning of his Presidential term in the late 1960’s. However, the reality of the multi-million-person anti-war movement challenged American society and influenced the armed forces from within. Even sectors of the mass media became highly critical of the permanent war state. This movement filled the streets, divided families and influenced the institutions and communities leading to a dramatic change in Nixon’s politics toward peace and even toward social and racial justice. Nixon truly became a ‘realist’.

In those days, the industrial trade unions were powerful. Manufacturing formed the basis of the economy and determined the direction of the banking-finance sector. Wall Street played ’second fiddle’ to production.

Fed up with the lack of social progress and opportunity in their communities, African American revolts in the streets were far more effective than the tame black Democratic Party politicos in Congress.

The decline of the social movements and militant labor unions, as well as the retreat to electoral politics among the African American and anti-war movements, ended the independent popular pressure and facilitated the rising power of the pro-war, Wall Street-controlled parties linked to money and speculation. Labor unions became the fiefdoms of corrupt millionaire union bosses who bought protection from prosecution with multi-million dollar campaign donations to both Democrats and Republican politicians. They discarded the Nixon’s social agenda, using the ‘Watergate Scandal’ as a pretext to dismantle his advanced programs.

Presidents and Congresses became beholden to the bankers. The rise, dominance and deep corruption of the Wall Street speculators realigned the economy away from domestic manufacturing to international finance – leading to the great relocation of US factories abroad and the permanent marginalization of the once-organized American working class.

Voters were marginalized as active participants in their own public affairs. They alternated their disaffection between parties and candidates, between big and small spenders, indicted and unindicted swindlers, and exposed and unpunished perverts.

The domestic changes in the economy and social structure were the direct outcome of these shifts in the social and political struggles and organizations.

There is a dialectical relationship between socio-economic changes and the rise and fall of socio-political struggles.

These domestic shifts of power and policy were influenced by the major changes in global power, namely the demise of the USSR, the decline of secular-nationalist regimes in the Middle East, the defeat of the left in Latin America and, above all, the rise of the US imperial doctrines of unipolar power and the globalization. The ‘changing times’ explains everything and nothing! While the objective world determines politics, so do the subjective responses of Presidents.

President Richard Nixon could have escalated the Vietnam War up to a nuclear attack on Hanoi: This is what the current Obama-Trump militarist advisors now recommend for the North Koreans. Nixon could have followed the rightwing ‘free market’ ideology of the Republican-Goldwater faction. However, Nixon took a pragmatic, peace and social reformist position – which have brought us some of our most cherished programs – EPA, OSHA, SALT disarmament, relations with China, even Roe versus Wade, and an end to the military draft.


Subsequent Presidents, faced with the shifts in political, social and economic power, chose to re-direct the nation toward greater militarism and the domination of finance capital. They have systematically attacked and dismantled the social welfare programs, environmental protection, pro-industry legislation, diplomacy and peace pacts initiated by Nixon.

The aphorism, ‘man makes history but not of his own doing’, is central to our discussion of the Nixon legacy. The process of regression is a cumulative process, of leaps and steps. In recent years, regression has accelerated with devastating results for the domestic and world populations. Social power, concentrated at the top, weakens but also alienates power at the bottom and middle. The current configuration of power and policies cannot be permanent, even if the trajectory so far has favored the elite. Social classes and groups are not fixed in their orientations.

Twice in recent years, significant majorities voted for jobs, justice and peace (Obama and Trump) and instead got charlatans bringing greater inequality, injustice and endless wars.

Deception and deep commitments to reactionary politics have penetrated widely among the ‘discontented classes’. African-American political leaders and pundits now demand war against Russia following the pronouncements of their ‘Black President’, Barack Obama. Poor marginalized white workers still support their billionaire leader Donald Trump as he waltzes down Wall Street and into possible nuclear war.

The dialectic of discontent and resentment can lead to progressive or reactionary political and social alignments, even, or especially, in the face of history’s great leap backwards!

(Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: American Military, Neoliberalism, Richard Nixon 
Hide 102 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. damn, that is a pretty good article. learned alot.

  2. You left out the war on drugs and its attendant gulag and destruction of constitutional protections. The drug war has been like training wheels for the GWAT and the Police State. You might say Nixon was a Pioneer.

    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
  3. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “which led to Nixon’s impeachment and resignation. ”

    Nixon was never impeached; it was only a possibility, one that motivated him to resign. That sentence should read, “which led to the threat of impeachment and Nixon’s subsequent resignation.” (or anything similar)

    • Replies: @anon
  4. Yes, Nixon became too progressive for the deep state, so they ousted him.

    Nixon also slashed the Pentagon’s budget and approved major enhancements to Social Security, to include major increases to help retirees whose benefits had been eroded by high inflation. One can criticized how he managed to extract our nation from the Vietnam disaster, but he did get it done! We need a Nixon to extract us from the Iraq and Afghanistan disasters, which are very profitable to many powerful Americans. Pentagon waste = high profits.

    This is why “they” ousted Nixon with the Watergate coup. Without his knowledge they sent career CIA fools to get arrested. They openly announced in court the next day that they worked for the CIA, something that is NOT DONE. Then covert CIA officer Bob Woodward took it from there. And they wiretapped his office. From my blog:

    Nov 14, 2011 – The Joints Chiefs of Staff Wiretapped President Nixon

    Our corporate media tries to ignore real news, but Fox News fouled up when it reported that our military’s senior Generals used military aides to spy on President Nixon and his staff. I suspect this continues to this day. This supports the theory that “Watergate” was a CIA/Pentagon plot to oust Nixon.

  5. ” Within weeks after taking office President Trump gracefully performed an Obama-style ‘about-face’ and emerged a re-anointed warmonger of the Hillary Clinton variety:”

    If this is true, then what ?
    The Hillary Trump batle for power now seems the same as many political battles in S American countries: one group of rich battling with another group of rich about power, nothing changes.

    Yet the analysis of prof Laslo Maracs, Amsterdam University, UVA, does seem true:
    eight years Obama has brought the USA to the brink of ruin, financially, politically.
    China and Russia were driven to close cooperation.
    One sees how Russia, Iran, and Turkey conclude a deal about Syria.
    Resistance in Europe against the USA puppet EU increased all the time.
    Suspicions about what NATO is up to also.

    So, is Trump continuing USA suicide policies, leading maybe to suicide of the whole world, or does he have an agenda for drastically changing USA policies, especially foreign policies, that is hidden ?

    • Agree: bluedog
  6. In other words, Nixon was the best Democrat President America ever had.

    BTW …

    “… supported Israel’s invasion of the Arab countries in 1973 ….”

    One of the few wars they didn’t start, so this was not wholly untoward.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  7. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Also, Nixon resigned on 9th August 1974. The Indonesian invasion of East Timor happened in September 1975, during the Ford Administration

    • Replies: @Logan
    , @Wizard of Oz
  8. Mention might also have been made of Nixon closing the gold window in ’71. Arguably a gigantic historical turning point….

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  9. “Since the end of the Viet Nam war, US military ‘interventions’ have become wars of long duration. These have cost millions of lives overseas, tens of millions of refugees and scores of thousands of American soldier deaths, permanent injury and serious mental and neuropsychiatric damage. There is no ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, to quote the US General William Westmoreland.”

    Meanwhile “history finest” military failed to win almost every war since 1945. But majority of US population still believes this because this BS is being served in bright and consistently repeated package with heavy load of patriotic sous at the top. Not to be forgotten that USA “won” WW2 in Europe despite not winning a single war turning battle and the fact that some 85-90% of all KIA Germans were in the Eastern Europe in the most decisive period of the war and that all those war turning battles like Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration and many smaller ones by some magical reason were won by Soviet army. But of course, those Rysskie and we all know that Russia is not exceptional and indispensable country like USA for which loss is somehow always a win. Russia cannot afford to lose wars on the other hand.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    , @Johann
  10. @animalogic

    “For almost 50 years, the US economy and society has taken a great leap backward – accelerating during the past three Presidencies. Not only have we experienced the reversal of past socio-economic legislation, but also our presidents and Congress have dragged us into multiple aggressive wars. ”

    Lots of things that happened to USA can be described in Stalin words ” Vertigo from success”-“Головокружение от успехов”. Having obtained global supremacy along USSR so cheaply clearly got to US elites collective head. They obviously did not want to think the way that US coming to the top was mostly the last man standing syndrome and amazing luck when the rest of major power lied ruined and morally exhausted after two world wars with USA only thanks to very favorable geographic location staying intact. Then all this exceptionalism came to US collective head and instead of spending capital wisely USA turned to increasingly dangerous, profligate and crazy international and internal policies with the whole trend which started after WW2 is culminating with US basically turning into what it is now. Soviet Union collapse due to internal reasons absolutely went to USA elites head and removed last limitation on US behavior.
    Like every teenager which is what USA basically is, discipline and control by adults is sorely needed and without adults anywhere in sight teenager got into drugs, heavy drinking, gambling and drunken brawls which has irrevocably undermined USA future and current prospects of ever becoming respectable and healthy adult. USA has wasted huge opportunities that have been offered by sheer luck. Unlike nations like China or Russia , USA simply does not posses what is needed to come back namely uniformity of population, history, culture and all that makes nation a nation. It is basically not even nation but some motley crew which is becoming stranger by the day. The only thing that holds USA in place for now is force of habit which can be destroyed quite quickly if USA miscalculate against those where miscalculation might bring hubris back home big way and financial system built around $US. Take this two away and the king is naked.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
  11. Petras fails to mention that Nixon ushered in globalisation by signing up to the Kennedy Round of GATT, which came into force in 1973. The US initially suffered massive import penetration, loss of whole sectors, eg TV manufacturing, and massive loss of jobs. Ultimately, this has led to the offshoring and outsourcing of much of the remaining manufacturing sector. Nixon could have stopped this, but he failed to do so.
    Secondly, Petras makes no mention of massive 3rd World immigration into the US as a consequence of the 1965 Immigration Act. This has resulted in massive downward pressure on native Americans’ wages as well as loss of jobs to low-paid immigrants. Again, Nixon did nothing, when it would have been a lot easier to do so.
    Unsurprisingly, the US Full Time Median Wage peaked in real terms as long ago as 1973, the year of the Kennedy Round. See
    Already, in 1973, the forces were in place that would squeeze American workers jobs and incomes, and Nixon was supporting these forces.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  12. Logan says:

    Also not entirely sure why this invasion is our fault anyway.

    The author’s subtext seems to be that anything that happens anywhere in the world is our fault. This is because we are capable, if we decide to bestir ourselves, of preventing it. This is more or
    less true. Though more so now than in Nixon’s time.

    Meanwhile, the author also appears to believe it’s wrong for us to be constantly interfering in other countries’ affairs.

    There is a pretty clear conflict between these two opinions, since the only way we can prevent bad things from happening is by interfering with other countries.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  13. Logan says:

    “Since the end of the Viet Nam war, US military ‘interventions’ have become wars of long duration.”

    Seems to me the Viet Nam war was itself of pretty long duration. Also, technically, the Korean War never ended.

  14. @Sergey Krieger

    ” by some magical reason were won by Soviet army”

    Fact is they were won with American weaponry, and without the US assistance of millions of tons of war supplies, the Russians would have been fighting the state of the art equipped Germans with pitchforks and single-shot rifles.

    My own heroic mother, a so-called ” Rosie the riveter” worked a midnight shift in Detroit assembling Bazookas for the red army, and she told me about Russian Officers going through the plant escorted by Americans.

    YOU are distorting history as you are ommitting the fact of how the Russians occured such heavy losses, namely how Russians officers, with total disregard for hopeless situations, forced their untrained troups into battle regardless of the odds, and the superior German strategy, then inevitibly resulting in such horrendous casualties.
    You are propagating Lies and BS yourself, and not every American is a clueless ignoramous, such as you are assuming.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” Society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @CK
    , @bluedog
    , @Sergey Krieger
  15. ” And acknowledging the hard victory of the Vietnamese National liberation Front”

    Strange way of defining a ” Hard victory” seeing as the VLNF suffered ca 2.5 million fatalities and the US forces : 55 thousand.

    The author of this rambling, confused article is trying hard to camoflage his leftist standpoint, but he will have to get up much earlier in order to BS me.

    Authenticjazzman ” Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @CK
    , @bluedog
    , @MarkinLA
  16. @The Alarmist

    The one and only war Israel did not begin.
    Kissinger rescued Israel by large numbers of the new wire guided TOW anti tank missiles, hundreds of Egyptian tank crews perished.

  17. annamaria says:

    “Ever duplicitous…”
    Oh yea, the “hope we can believe in” has gifted some truly fantastic staff that is working like a mad-caw disease on the feeble “liberal” brains of Hollywood celebrities and presstitutes:
    “Al-Qaeda Leader Praises Syria White Helmets as “Hidden Soldiers of the Revolution”
    “… the leader of Tahrir al-Sham (al-Qaeda in Syria), Abu Jaber” praises the White Helmets: “… a message of thanks and gratitude to the hidden soldiers of our revolution,” Jaber said. “On top of the list are the parents of the martyrs and the men of the White Helmets.”
    Beautiful. Should not the leader of Al-Qaeda in Syria also praised the financiers of White Helmets? – “At an April 27 press conference, U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner acknowledged the organization has received $23 million from the U.S. Agency for International Development. Additionally, the White Helmets receives millions of dollars from billionaire financier George Soros, the Netherlands and the British Foreign Office. Equipment and vehicles come through Turkey. The U.S. brought White Helmets’ leader Raed Saleh to the U.N. Security Council in 2014 to testify against the Syrian government and to lobby for a U.N. resolution approving a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone…”
    Stinks Oded Yinon Plan.
    Hence the special treatment for the profiteering patsies: “Orlando von Einsiedel and Joanna Natasegara took home an Academy Award for best documentary short. … this was not a conventional documentary film. The footage was provided by a terrorist-affiliated NGO based in Turkey… The film, funded and distributed by Netflix, seems to be an extension of that remit.”
    The Top 3 Netflix Shareholders (Know your leading presstituting propagandists by name:)
    1. Reed Hasting: The CEO and founder of Netflix, Reed Hastings is also a board member of Facebook Inc.
    2. Jay C. Hoag: Hoag is the general partner at Team Crossover Ventures (TCV), a venture capital and management firm for technology companies. TCV led investments in Facebook Inc, Groupon Inc.
    3. Neil D. Hunt: Hunt is the chief product officer (CPO) at Netflix. He is also a nonexecutive board member of Logitech Inc.”

  18. @Verymuchalive

    Also in the 70ties the idea began that private enterprise was always better than state organisations.
    It often takes very long for completely wrong ideas to be recognised as such.
    Just this morning the proposed Labour program for the next GB elections became known, striking was the proposal to renationalise British railways.
    It seems that even pro EU Labour sees that EU universal neoliberalism is wrong.
    Tony Judt, ‘Ill Fares the Land’, London 2010, already knew.

  19. Anonymous [AKA "Tony Upton"] says:

    IT’s interesting watching the ideological development of James Petras. If my own ideological development is any guide (and I should say that James and I have much in common), he will next have to revisit the Civil Rights Movement and its legacy. If he does do this, he will undoubtedly located the reason for the loss of optimism about what it was supposed to mean in the waning of US northern manufacturing strength, but I think he will draw the right conclusions — or at least highlight the salient human devastation.

    We wait with anticipation.

  20. Parsifal says:

    Well, people…Considering this article and the ever growing number of Trump-Nixon comparisons, I suggest we help Trump become a successful Nixon instead of crying “he sold out” every time things don’t go as planned.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
  21. @anon

    Indeed. And you charitably witheld the comment I was about to attach to the same point, namely that it does nothing for the author’s credibility that he is so careless about the facts.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  22. @Wizard of Oz

    It gets worse. He has clearly confused the 1973 Yom Kippur war in which Israel was caught by surprise with the 1967 6 Day War which consensus seems to accept was launched by Israel.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  23. dearieme says:

    “such as the CIA-sponsored coup d’état against the democratically elected Chilean President Allende”: no. It’s my understanding that an earlier CIA-sponsored coup failed; the successful one was not CIA-sponsored. That seems to be consistent with the CIA’s customary standard of competence.

    ” the genocidal invasion of the newly independent country of East Timor”: I’m baffled. What’s that got to do with Nixon?

  24. Agent76 says:


    APRIL 12, 2017 World War I and the Bill of Rights

    Historians talked about American motivations for entering World War I, how the country mobilized for war, and government restrictions on free speech and the press in response to protests.

    “Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot.” Vladimir Lenin

  25. @Logan

    Too much alas is happening in the world for which the USA must be blamed, wholly or partially.
    North Korea, GB at the time did not want to interfere.
    Taiwan, the USA’s puppet fled there.
    Islamic Iran, in 1953 the USA overthrew the democratic government.
    Iraq, the USA brought Saddam to power, to subjugate Iran.
    Kuwait, the USA gave Saddam permission to annex it.
    Communist E Europe until 1990, Roosevelt cooperated with Stalin.
    Pearl Harbour and the war with Japan, Roosevelt deliberately provoked it.
    Hitler’s attack on Poland, this is not absolutely clear, Roosevelt in august 1939 also gave a guarantee to Poland, so Poland refused to negotiate about Danzig and the Korridor.
    This provoked Hitler to attack, what made it possible for GB and France to declare war.
    Afghan drugs, the CIA initiated it.
    Sept 11, made by USA.
    The Pakistani atomic bomb, the USA asked us not to arrest the spy who got the ultra centrifuge secrets.
    The mainframe in Islamabad university for the bomb calculation, USA gift.
    S America, the Monroe Declaration.
    Then there is Allende and Pinochet, Cuba, Panama, just a few S American USA involvements.
    And of course Dresden, Hiroshima en Nagasaki, all militarily completely irrelevant.
    Or the deliberate mistake at Bikini, the radio active clouds over inhabited islands.
    If the use of depleted uranium munition in Iraq was deliberate, to make large parts uninhabitable for five thousand years, I do not know.
    For the time being enough, I think, a few minor problems I do not mention.

    • Agree: truthtellerAryan
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    , @Logan
  26. Agent76 says:

    Apr 23, 2017 Exposing The Creature From Jekyll Island

    G. Edward Griffin, the author of the seminal book on the formation of the Federal Reserve, The Creature of Jekyll Island, joins the podcast this week to add his perspective to our ongoing critical examination of the Fed and the impact its actions are having on society.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  27. CK says:

    Victory in war is the ability to control the land over which was the war was fought after the fighting stops. The USA lost the Vietnam war. By way of analogy, Hillary won the popular vote which is not what gives one the presidency, the USA won the body count which is not what gives one a win in a war in Asia.

    • Replies: @OutWest
    , @Authenticjazzman
  28. CK says:

    The USA lent a lot of second rate war stuff to Russia. The Russians used the American stuff and their own stuff and won WWII in Europe. Then they turned around and (in less than 90 days) won the war in Manchuria, and took half of Korea, all of Sakhalin Island, and the Kurils, and were preparing to invade Hokkaido before the Americans could claim victory in the Pacific.

  29. OutWest says:

    Why would we want to control –be responsible- for Viet Nam? The Kennan strategy even before Eisenhower was to contain and stress the Soviet Union, a strategy that was longstanding and ultimately successful. Thank goodness we didn’t “win” Viet Nam like Teddy won Porto Rico and the Philippines.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    , @MarkinLA
  30. @Parsifal

    Perhaps the best Trump-Nixon comparison is the one that realizes that neither one of them were ever really on the side that many of their more vocal supporters thought they were on. I don’t consider Nixon to ever have sold out, but modulo the ideology of those who wish to claim him as one of their own, a lot of his decisions are mystifying. Trump’s supporters, on the other hand, seem like a host of Dufflepuds who will acclaim everything he does and follow him no matter which way his wind is blowing.

  31. Excellent article. I knew about Nixon and China, but did not know about Nixon’s plans for universal healthcare. How strange that it should have been the Democrats who sank it.

    (At the time of the Nixon Presidency I was not yet a US citizen and had no plans to travel to the US.)

    • Replies: @anon
  32. @CK

    Never read in German accounts of the war in the east that the Russians used inferior USA weapons.
    The only thing I remember was a fighter plane with the engine right behind the pilot.
    USA pilots did not like it, Russian pilots loved it.
    B52’s the USA refused to ‘Lend’, as well as certain armor piercing munitions.

  33. Johann says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    World War II ended for Germany in 1942,at the battle of Stalingrad where they lost almost a half million battle hardened German soldiers; the next three years were a painful and bloody retreat back to the Vaterland. The Americans and their buddy Churchill continued to bellow about that the Germans lost the war at Normandy due to the wasteful slaughter of young naive ill trained American soldiers who poured their guts out on the beaches of Normandy. By the time Normandy occurred the German Eastern Front had totally collapsed and the Wehrmacht had attempted to kill Hitler. For the past few decades slimy American politicians and their British poodles never fai to show up at Normandy for the D Day BBQ avec vin bloviating about their great victory. In 2015 the Russian held a victory parade on the 70th anniversary of the end of the war and milquetoast president Obama snubbed President Putin by boycotting the occasion. The Korean War has never officially ended so there is no victory there, Vietnamese guerillas handed the Americans a solid defeat in spite of the wasteful spilling of over fifty thousand American draftees guts in the jungles of Indo-China, the Middle East has been one failure after another and the ill chosen Afghanistan war is slated to run forever. Of course the Americans will never let their own civil war end; it has been going on for over a century. Americans really do love being at war and they continue to elect warmongers for president.

    • Agree: bluedog
  34. @OutWest

    In vain already in the thirties Kennan warned about Stalin.
    Ambassador Davies, a nephew of Morgenthau, refused to see the Stalin show trials, where Kennan was his interpreter.
    That USA high military did not like the Russians already during the war one can read with Bohlen.

    Kennan and Bohlen were the only two Russian speaking USA diplomats until after WWII.
    Kennan got his chance to get heard in Washington just after WWII, when relations between USA and USSR rapidly deteriorated.Roosevelt and Churchill possibly knew this already in early 1945, the destruction of Dresden a few weeks before the German capitulation is explained by the need to threaten Stalin.

    I suppose Stalin was not at all impressed, he already knew about the USA building the atomic bomb, and was informed on how to do it.
    He also knew that his ‘allies’ kept him ignorant about the bomb.

  35. @Agent76

    The only two countries in the world not having a state owned central bank are USA and GB.
    Since the euro was introduced no member of the euro zone has an own central bank, Draghi in fact is his own boss.
    The euro mess partially is the result of this.
    There seems to be close cooperation between former Goldman Sachs man Draghi and the Fed.

    • Replies: @Agent76
  36. @CK

    ” The US won the body count which is not what gives one a win in a war in Asia”

    First they, the Americans, won the “body count” and then they won the minds of the Vietnamese, which is evident when one observes the American style of living there now, complete with McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts : Land control.
    Of course I know that you will disagree with this simple definition of “winning”, so let’s just agree to disagree, as you of course know everything better than I do in spite of my forty-plus years of “Mensa” membership, ( touche’)

    Look of course you leftists want to uphold the notion of the US having lost the VN war, as in tune with your abject hatred for everything American, you couldn’t ever admit anything which goes against your indoctrination.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @CK
  37. bluedog says:

    Which in your mind is more important the weapons we shipped them or the American lives they saved, funny how stupid people can be or perhaps cross grained is a better term as they whine that without us all would have been lost..

  38. bluedog says:

    Yep 55 thousand killed and thousands of other who committed suicide after they returned( Kill Anything That Moves Nick Turse) and a few thousand maimed for life,wonderful time was it not?…

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  39. @CK

    ” The US lent a lot of second rate war stuff to Russia”.

    Bullshit : The US supplied the Russians with millions of tons of FACTORY NEW material, and as I stated earlier my own mother was in war production, assembling tank destroying tubes and projectiles, and there was no such animal as “Second rate” rocket tubes or ammo.

    You do not know what the hell you are blathering about, and you are only upholding your twisted, misinformed anti-American leftist talking points.

    Authenticjazzman, “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Alden
  40. @Johann

    ” bloviating about their great victory”

    My own uncle, a marvelous piano player and nineteen years of age, left both of his legs on the beach on June 6 1944, while the covered heroic Germans were firing straight down the cliffs at the uncovered Americans, who spilled their blood in the pandemonia which ultimately resulted in the Germans ending up being in the position to criticize them, the Americans, day and night for the last seventytwo years.

    Your great victories in Russia were nothing more than a farsical duck-shooting extravaganzas as the totally unprepared, untrained Russian farm kids simply had no chance, and the German commanders knew this and took advantage of it.

    Look we Americans know how much you Germans hate us and we also know what cowards you folks are in reality.
    Your ingratitude for the three hundred thousand young American Kids lying in France,
    Luxembourg, speaks tomes about your character as a nation, as a people.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @Vasilios
    , @jilles dykstra
  41. @bluedog

    ” Few thousand maimed for life, wonderful time was it not”

    Listen apparently you are inflicted with a reading impairment, as NOWHERE did I glorify the tragic loss of thousands of Americans, and Vietnamese for that matter, rather the issue is just how the hell can the loss of 2.5 million Vietnamese, as compared to the loss of 55 thousand Americans be defined as a “Hard victory” for the Vietnamese, period, and you are attempting to twist my words around and put words into my mouth.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    • Replies: @bluedog
  42. Agent76 says:

    MARCH 23, 2016 Former Nixon Aide Admits War On Drugs Was A Big Lie; Was Never About Drugs

    To clarify, it was not Nixon’s police state that was a lie. That was very real. It was the justification used for the war, the fearmongering, and the panic-inducing hype produced by the White House that was a monumental obfuscation.

  43. Richard Nixon’s sponsorship of the coup d’etat in Chile was modest by today’s standards – no use of U.S. forces to do what Chilean generals were intent on doing to save their country from rule by Marxist ideologues. Venezuelans today are wishing they were that fortunate.

    The bombing in Cambodia was pursued on the same premises of President Obama’s bombing raids upon Taliban resources in Pakistan, not to mention his midnight raid to take out Osama bin Laden, who was responsible for fewer U.S. deaths than the Viet Cong drawing supplies along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Had Nixon been impeached on those grounds Obama would have been similarly confronted.

    East Timor? According to Wikipedia, it achieved brief independence in December of 1975, before being subjected to Indonesian rule until G.W. Bush was President. But this was long after Richard Nixon left office. Why would ascribe the fate of this obscure country to him?

  44. Agent76 says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Thank you viewing and commenting. This is what I learned some time back and verified in this article about the Euro.

    Sep 19, 2000 Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state.

  45. annamaria says:

    “In 2015 the Russian held a victory parade on the 70th anniversary of the end of the war and milquetoast president Obama snubbed President Putin by boycotting the occasion.”

    That was also a boycott of the memory of those Americans that perished in Normandy and elsewhere during the WWII. To add insult to injury, the Obama administration has “liberated” Ukraine from any respect for the fighters with and victims of Nazism by promoting and financing the Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Only recently the US Congress has decided to stop paying the neo-Nazi Azov battalion; the battalion also used to be financed by the leader of Ukrainian Jewish community Kolomojsky.
    The pattern of selective memory fits perfect with the US support for Al Qaeda; see AL Qaeda’ promotional videos under the rubrics “White Helmets.”
    In short, “support the troops!” the corporate & Israel-first ways.

    “There were NO international aid organisations on the ground in East Aleppo prior to the liberation [by Syrian army], all of the mainstream media reporting was written, and in the case of the White Helmets, filmed, by terrorists & armed extremists and spoon fed to lazy mainstream media regime-change tools.”

  46. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    It sounds eerie but that whats Ted Kennedy did .

  47. A very good and informative article. It has a biased side though. Nixon was intelligent, sensible, some good intentions, but also bad choices, Kissinger being the peak of what “evil” was done under Dick. You mentioned Chile and other South American countries that suffered, what about Cambodia and Laos?

  48. Also Nixon presided over the IQ testing ban. Maybe he really thought all people were created equal. “Griggs v. Duke Power Co.”
    Maybe he was afraid of more rioting in the skreetz.

  49. Alden says:

    As well as war materiel we sent vast amounts of farm and construction equipment, medical equipment, electrical and phone equipment, machine tools and turn key factories all ready to assemble.

  50. @Authenticjazzman

    So, we basically agree that the side which won all major battles of the war and destroyed up to 90% of German manpower in the most critical period of the war clearly is the major winner.
    Now, regaridng nonsese you posted.

    Here check numbers. Not only USSR produced more tanks, SPGs and artillery pieces than Germany but even more than USA. Some pitchforks buddy.
    While your mommy might have seen bazookas made for Soviet army it clearly doe snot mean that Soviet army fought only with USA made bazookas.

    Regarding lend lease, it started arriving in serious quantities only in 1043 with maximum in 1945. The most critical 1941-1943 USSR fought mostly with own resources.
    USA assistance was mostly helpful not with weapons but food, raw materials, trucks and fire engines. For which we could heartily thank USA were it not for the fact that Russian blood worth far more that what you sent and the fact acknowledged is that USSR would have won even without Lend Lease albeit it would take up to a year longer but with whole of Europe being liberated by Soviet army. On the other hand, without Soviet army USA and UK had 0 chance of winning.

    You should have checked numbers before posting this sort of garbage. Soviet Union managed all this with half of European territory destroyed and 90 million under occupation against the whole of Europe. USA was working unmolested. I guess your mother was going for dancing parties on weekends and definitely did not suffer from hunger.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  51. @Johann

    Agree. They want Russian people to show respect for Lend Lease while disrespecting terrible and bloody sacrifice by the whole Soviet people and very consistently trying to rewrite history and basically steal victory.
    While Soviet Union entered WW2 in Pacific by moving against Japan in China and crashing Kwantung army Japan most potent land force within 11 days, there is no claims that USSR won Pacific war…
    It is pathetic what USA has been doing and does not deserve country which calls herself super duper hyper power which she is clearly not neither in military nor in moral department.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  52. Vasilios says:

    Jazzman is spot on…even if he brags about “Mensa” a sorry lot of asses for the most part 🙂 The biggest thing they sent was thousands and thousands of Ford/Chrysler Trucks, which the Red Army was sorely in need of. They also sent clothes, food, supplies…all the things the American consumer economy could produce (at that time) in unimaginable quantities. That is not to say Russia could not have won without US help, they could and would…but it could have gotten really ugly. And if anyone thinks the US would have sacrificed to win like Russia would have…you have no idea…

  53. Vasilios says:

    Are you sure Johann is a German? I have him pegged as a Swede. You know, the ones that looked the other way while we fought.

  54. @jilles dykstra

    James Petras. And looking at the way you toss factoids round like confetti as in #25 my criticisms could be extended to you. One example of careless nonsense is your suggestion that Saddam Hussein was brought to power by thw USA to “subjugate” Iran. He became president of Iraq after may years of de facto power in July 1979. The hostage crisìs started in November and you may remember President Carter’s much derided efforts to free them which had nothing to do with Iraq.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  55. Vasilios says:
    @jilles dykstra

    The bulk of the material was not directly combat related…Trucks, Clothing, Food, Medicine…that sort of thing. Sorely needed but not combat gear.

  56. @jilles dykstra

    Now you must be trying to earn the title of Top Troll. What other reason could there be for nominating the B52 as a World War 2 aircraft? If you didn’t do that as deliberate knowing provocation (trolling) then you have shown yourself so careless or ignorant about facts that your posts have to be prima facie disguarded as so unreliable as to be time wasting. It’s ñot as though you haven’t had fair warning. Passing it off as a slip or typo won’t wash.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  57. @jilles dykstra

    Now you must be trying to earn the title of Top Troll. What other reason could there be for nominating the B52 as a World War 2 aircraft? If you didn’t do that as deliberate knowing provocation (trolling) then you have shown yourself so careless or ignorant about facts that your posts have to be prima facie disguarded as so unreliable as to be time wasting. It’s ñot as though you haven’t had fair warning. Passing it off as a slip or typo won’t wash.

  58. aaaa says:

    USA was the only country unaffected in-theater. The Americans could overproduce everybody. The Russians, however, bore the brunt of the Allied effort.
    But let’s forget about that stupid war and the stupid war+famines that came before it.

    I don’t know how much Nixon had to do with Chile or the bombing raids in Viet, or the airlift to Israel or whatever else. I don’t know how much Carter had to do with Brzenski’s ruthless vendetta against the USSR either. I just know that they, and maybe Reagan, where seemingly representatives of hte last generation of Americans that could manage the country in a semi-sane manner. I don’t even want to know what we’ll get when the millennials inherit the throne. I’m a late GenXer and think the worst is yet to come

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @jilles dykstra
  59. MarkinLA says:

    And I am reminded of an interview I saw with an American officer, who during the peace talks, said to General Vo Nguyen Giap: “You know we never lost a battle” to which Giap replied “That is irrelevant”.

    • Replies: @mcohen
  60. MarkinLA says:

    I don’t think Kennan was for direct military intervention – especially when vital US interests were not directly at stake.

    • Replies: @OutWest
  61. MarkinLA says:
    @jilles dykstra

    The Russians used their own weapons. Their 7.62X54 rimmed cartridge is comparable to the rimless Garand’s 30-06. If the US was making a lot of the rifles and ammo for these guns there would have been tons of US made versions and ammo available in the surplus markets and there isn’t.

    As an example, there are plenty of P14s and P17s around. The P-14 is a British design that was manufactured chambered in the .303 British and made in the US and rechambered for the 30-06 as the P17 and given to US WWI troops to make up for the lack of M1903 Springfields. Both of these were plentiful in the surplus market.

    The Russian standard side arm ammo was a 7.62X25 necked cartridge versus the US .45 ACP. There is also no US manufactured surplus of this or the Tokarev pistol that used it.

    The US did send the Russians some P-40s which, as bad as it was, was probably better than what the Russians had at the time.

    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
  62. MarkinLA says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    The real power in Japan was the Imperial Navy. The Japanese were already in a stalemate against a very poorly equipped Chinese Army even before Pearl Harbor. The homeland was being starved to death by the US Navy once the Imperial Navy was at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean so beating the Kwantung Army wasn’t that big of a deal. FDR was just too afraid of the casualties of a main island invasion and Stalin didn’t care how many Russians died to get what he wanted or the US would have kept the Soviets out of the Pacific Theater.

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  63. MarkinLA says:

    Reaganomics was ultimately a disaster for the US. It was hardly semi-sane. It was the real start of the Us verses Them mentality in the economy.

    • Agree: bluedog
    • Replies: @aaaa
  64. mcohen says:

    I agree.pushback by china starting in Vietnam has led the usa down a slippery slope.once china dominates the middle east it will be all over.war is policy by other means.

  65. @MarkinLA

    On how beginning in 1933 the USA supported the USSR with regard to planes:
    Franz Kurowski, ‘Balkenkreuz und Roter Stern, Der Luftkrieg über Russland 1941 – 1944’, 1984, Friedberg
    In any German account of the war in the east one finds references to USA planes
    Willi Kubik, ‘Erinnerungen eines Panzerschützen 1941 – 1945, Tagebuchaufzeichnung eines Panzerschützen der Pz. Aufkl. Abt. 13 im Russlandfeldzug’, Würzburg 2006

  66. @aaaa

    Do not underestimate Russian tank production

  67. @Wizard of Oz

    I meant the Flying Fortresses

  68. @Sergey Krieger

    Indeed USA military production just in 1943 was effective, it takes time to start weapons production, you can read about the difficulties Ford had in producing bombers with
    Charles A. Lindbergh, ´The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh’, New York, 1970

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  69. @Wizard of Oz

    Alan Friedman, ‘Spider’s Web, Bush, Saddam, Thatcher and the Decade of Deceit’, London, 1993

  70. @Authenticjazzman

    Why should there be gratitude in Germany towards the USA ?
    As USA historian Charles A Beard demonstrates Roosevelt wanted war.
    As Taylor shows, Hitler never wanted war.
    Even today Germany is occupied, there are some 170.000 USA troops in Germany.
    Some ten million Germans died in WWII, the country was devastated, millions of Germans lost anything fleeing before the Red Armies.

    Charles A. Beard, ‘American Foreign Policy in the Making, 1932 – 1940, A study in responsibilities’, New Haven, 1946

    A J P Taylor, ‘The Origins of the Second World War’, 1961, 1967, Londen

    John Charmley,’Churchill’s Grand Alliance, A provocative reassessment of the “Special relationship” between England and the U.S. from 1940 to 1957’, 1995, London

  71. @jilles dykstra

    One more thing, did not the USA cause the German capitulation in 1918, and so created Hitler ?

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  72. @jilles dykstra

    Of course. Now imagine doing this under far worse condition and still out manufacturing everybody else. Plants and factories had to be moved thousand miles under bombing raids with workers beyond Ural mountains often reassembled and production restarted in Siberian winter pretty much under the skies.

  73. @MarkinLA

    Not a big deal? Actually it was a big deal as US army was not capable of such a fit. US military command already went through this and most probably came to conclusion that it was not in US army capabilities to dislodge and destroy Kwantung army within acceptable time and human causalities limits. In short no, US had to ask for help from Stalin. Firstly you should have seen terrain in those areas. I was riding trains over there you know, inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and so forth. It is not France or Germany. Hellish condition and often terrain hardly passable. Japanese always were tough too. You know, it is always not a big deal for Americans but somehow USA fails to prove it when time is to walk the walk. I recommend you watch Unknown war part devoted to Manchurian operation. I tis mutually made USA/ USSR film of 1975.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  74. @jilles dykstra

    That sounds as though it might be interesting and I shall attempy yo follow it up, but it can’t rescue your claim that the US put Saddam Hussein into power to subjugate Iran. He was in power while the US friendly Shah was on tbe throne for almost 12 years.

  75. @jilles dykstra

    Quite right, Hitler should be numbered amongst the pacific heroes who were only forced into war because of wicked resistance to their plans. Caesar in Gaul comes to mind, Ghenghis Khan and family, Timur, Alexander the Great, Hannibal …. there are just so many misunderstood peacelovers in recorded history who couldn’t persusde everyone to share their vision. And see how carefully PC I hsve been in leaving Mohammed and Ottoman rulers kut of my lizt.

    • Agree: MBlanc46
  76. @jilles dykstra

    Why not choose to blame the snipers who failed to kill Corporal Hitler as he ran his messages? Or his mother who gave birth to him? Or those who failed to buy his early paintings and set him up as a contented little bourgeois in Vienna?

  77. bluedog says:

    The problem was we were in a place that we had no business being ,and when we got our ass handed to us on a platter we simply didn’t know how to handle it, much if not most of it due to our own military, the officers Corp clear to the top were incompetent(About Face by Colonel David Hackworth ,USMC Fight for the DMZ Operation Buffalo DMZ Albany), most officers there to punch their ticket while telling lies to the people on how well it was going..

    The M-16 was junk which would jam more often then fire, lack of the basics, gun oil patch’s footwear cleaning rods lack of proper training before they were shipped there, and as those who were there will tell you the VC regulars were damn fine troops, they run the Japs out they run the French out and they run us out and that about sums it up, and the sad part is we didn’t learn a damn thing as Iraq Afghanistan shows..

    • Replies: @bluedog
  78. @jilles dykstra

    Oh yes, that old story. But you are getting into StoC’s bad habit of sliding away from the point that is to bs answered. (I refrain from associating you with some of the mad and totally unscrupulous to be found on UR threads). It only shows that US leaders opportunistically supported Saddam Hussein’s opportunistic war against Iran well after SH had establshed himself in power. So… not to any point of relevance to your original error.

  79. CK says:

    I have no problem with your definition of winning.
    Using it, the Germans and the Japanese won the second world war.
    Indeed unified Vietnam is still communist and as do most communist states has
    McDonalds and Buicks and Starbucks.
    42 years after the USA lost the Vietnam war, what was it like 42 years after the USA won the second world war? America had Mercedes Benz and BMW and Toyota and …

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
  80. OutWest says:

    Kennan was not much respected in general, by the U.S. or the Soviets. His containment strategy was subject to interpretation. The main thrust was avoiding a military showdown with the Soviets since they would self-destruct.

    Remember Asia was viewed as falling to the Soviets as had China. While Ho’s intentions were suspect, Viet Nam had a longstanding aversion to China which was enhanced during the Viet Nam war. Asia did not make for good followers as was shown by Nixon’s success in opening China and driving a wedge between them and the Soviets.

    Just one view -nobody knows for sure what was planned and what was dumb luck.

  81. aaaa says:

    Raeganomics did begin many of the policies that are now viewed upon as contributing to the ruination our society, but possibly, it was necessary, at least in the minds of economists.

    USA has benefited mightily from converting future growth (debt) into real-time stimulus, but also from having a massive collaborative effort from rest of the world to maintain economic stability.

    Obviously we’re reaching the end of the line, unless technology can somehow save us.

    I was focusing more on Raegan’s bad-but-less-bad foreign policy when compared to his successors

  82. @jilles dykstra

    Why should there be gratitude in Germany towards the US”

    Well how about starting with the thousands of young fallen American guys interred in France, Luxembourg etc,whose sacrifice resulted in the current freedom enjoyed in Germany.
    Then we can progress to the millions of care packages sent to the Germans who were literally eating out of garbage cans, and then maybe move to the Marshall plan which was inacted in lieu of the Morgantau concept, which in my opinion would have been the best option for the German ingrates, who have done nothing but criticize, disparage and vilify everything American for the last seventytwo years.
    The great majority of Germans hate Americans and everything American with a purple passion, and their media does nothing but attack the US 24/7, regardless of the issue, however they love the US Democrats and they hate the US Republicans, and they worship BO and kiss the ground he walks upon.

    Authenticjazzman ” Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz artist.

  83. @CK

    ” Indeed inified Vietnam is still communist and as most communist states has McDonalds and Starbuck”

    BS, Vietnam and China are further away from communism than California or NY.
    Look friend appparently you have no clue as to the nature of authentic communism.

    I have been behind the “Iron curtain” on several occasions long before the fall of the Berlin wall, and I can remember as if it were yesterday, the morbid, morgue-like atmosphere of the cities, and the dead look in the eyes of the hopelessly disheartened natives, and these images remain with me after almost half a century.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

  84. MarkinLA says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    You obviously are missing the point that the Kwantung Army was in in a place totally useless to Japan at the time. If the US invades the home islands and Japan surrenders so does the Kwantung army. FDR was just afraid of the estimated casualties and the politics. There would have been stories about how much better it would have been to let the Japanese starve to death rather than invade.

    There was a big fight between the US Navy and the US Army. The Navy said wasting troops on the Philippines was stupid when they were cut off from their supplies and priority should be given to the island hopping the Navy was doing. The government didn’t want to embarrass MacArther after he made the claim “I shall return”.

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  85. Logan says:
    @jilles dykstra

    Leaving aside the accuracy and evenhandedness of assigning USA the sole responsibility for all of these events, the list does nothing at all to address my contention that it is a contradiction to hold the US responsible for not preventing bad things and at the same time criticize it for interfering in the affairs of others.

    The Monroe Doctrine. Really? A purely defensive proclamation against European interference in the Western Hemisphere at a time Spain and others were considering reconquest of former colonies? Why include it? Was it being too mean to Spain and France?

    Now the Roosevelt Corollary you’d have a point, but that was 1904.

  86. @MarkinLA

    I am not saying it was somehow possible to use, but it has to be cleaned somehow and by someone. USA decided to use nukes in Japan and asked Stalin for help in China. The point is, US army command most probably had no illusions about own land forces fighting abikity.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  87. annamaria says:

    Undressing the deciders, one piece at a time:
    “3. The comparison with President Richard Nixon‘s firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox is a red herring (a media diversion) because it was not president Trump who took the decision to fire James Comey. Moreover, the alleged collusion between Moscow and Trump is FAKE. It cannot reasonably be compared to the Watergate investigation, which Nixon attempted to block.
    4. A pro-forma letter was sent by President Trump to FBI Director James Comey, which casually endorsed the recommendation of the office of the Attorney General. Trump did not express his opinion other than supporting the recommendations drafted by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (see screen shot of Trump’s letter below and letter of Jeff Sessions to Trump).”

    On a relevant matter: Who gave orders to murder Seth Rich?

  88. MBlanc46 says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    The jealousy is just eating away at your insides, isn’t it Sergey?

    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
  89. annamaria says:

    There is an interesting observation re the global cyber attack and various security breaches:
    The US was largely spared, whereas Israel was not touched at all by the attack

  90. @MBlanc46

    Wow, just wow. USA has been working 24/7 since 1945 to rewrite history and steal Soviet Union victory in Europe. Europe was major theater of operation if you don’t know this, with your Pacific theater being very distant second having no real importance in overall WW2 outcome.
    FYI, we do not give a damn about US victory in Pacific and USSR never made any attempts to even get credit for Manchurian operation. Keep that victory for yourself. Jealousy my ars., You have not win a war on your own since 1945 without others carrying nuts from fire for you first.
    I just stated the fact. USA could not conduct and win land operations with same speed and efficiency as Soviet army circa 1945 could. Hence you asked for help in China and had to nuke Japan. Nobody is stealing your victory in Pacific. You can have it. Just do not rewrite history to get unearned credits yourself. You have been jealous since 1945.

    • Agree: bluedog
  91. MarkinLA says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    The Japanese are very orderly and will follow the orders of their government. While there were a few officers wanting to resist American occupation, there is very little of any guerrilla type attacks in Japan against American forces. Once the Emperor ordered all Japanese forces to surrender, I would have expected any Japanese force in radio contact to immediately do so.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  92. Che Guava says:
    @jilles dykstra

    I am sure that readers of Dutch (and I read a little) will have little interest. I am more interested in your lies on history. You post so frequently, you must be paid by some Israeli Agency for it.

  93. Che Guava says:

    You are not a good reader of history. japanese soldiers who were refusing to believe in the stand-down were emerging for many years, from many places. A few had miltary advisor roles, not pro-US.

    The last of the many failed and earlier, half successful, coups d’etat of that earler time was intended to stop broadcast of the Emperor’s statement. Failed, but real, and dramatic. The statement was not a surrender.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  94. MarkinLA says:
    @Che Guava

    There is a difference between the military trying to stop the Emperor’s broadcast (of which I was aware) and continuing to fight a guerilla style war in Japan (which to my knowledge did not happen). As for a few incidents of Japanese soldier’s left behind (usually on island outposts cut off from Japan) who did not hear of the Emperor’s surrender or did not believe it, they were of no consequence and there are very few incidents where they actually harmed anybody.

    I would be interested if you had a list.

  95. Che Guava says:

    I will leave it to you to find, several cases where stranded Japanese soldiers or units were to be advisors.

  96. Che Guava says:

    You misinterpet my words, which is reflecting a lack, not on my part.

    Must sleepimg now. May posting a little relevant education in 24 hrs or so.

  97. MarkinLA says:

    The statement was not a surrender.

    For all intents and purposes it was. The civilian authorities and the military ones were deadlocked. The Emperor was the deciding vote and he voted for surrender.

  98. Some good points in this piece. Mr. Petras is correct, of course, in critiquing the New Left/ GOPe support of pointless wars and the the importation of cheap labor. The Carter/ Brzezinski combination is indeed a strange one, that is difficult to explain in terms of the mainstream narrative.

    A lot of of the Vietnam War analysis reads like stereotypical hippie boomerposting, though, in its overly-romantic view of the Viet Cong, and its failure to even attempt to disentangle reasonable strategic considerations from the issue of whether, and to what degree, we should have been involved in the war in the first place.
    “…acknowledging the hard victory of the Vietnamese National Liberation Front.”

    Meaningless Jane Fonda-tier propaganda.

    Saigon didn’t fall to the much-idealized bands of guerrillas in black pajamas, but to multiple NVA armored and infantry divisions coming down straight down Highway 1 after the Dems cut off all arm supplies to the Republic of Vietnam. Tet finished off the the Cong as an independent force in 1968– it was all NVA infiltration, and later large force intrusions after that.

    One could certainly argue that this was not an unwelcome outcome for Ho Cho Minh– compare to Stalin’s treatment of leftist groups in Spain that were not entirely under his control.

    The objection to the bombing of Cambodia is similar. Given that we were involved in Vietnam in the first place, it was idiotic to ignore infiltration via Cambodia and Laos, that allowed the NVA to approach unhindered right up to the delta region. Look at a map. That’s not a defensible line. Choosing to defend an 800 mile long border along its entire length, rather than establish a much shorter line farther north, makes zero sense militarily.

    That’s not to say that escalating the war to the extent of involving the Russians or the Chinese directly, would have made any sense, of course. It is interesting to note, though, that the single most effective action of the war, in terms of cost-benefit, was mining Haiphong harbor. A single mission, with zero losses, stopped Soviet resupply cold.

    The idea that the author seems to have, that “true progressive” = non-interventionist, and that, if we could just get some “true progressives” in there, everything would be fine, is rather problematic. Wilson? FDR? LBJ? Hmm… Progressivism, like any moral crusade that focuses too much on their ever-changing, but ever-distant utopian model, tends to be far too accepting of breaking just a few more eggs in pursuit of that unattainable omelet, whether at home, or abroad.

    The last mainstream major US politician who was a committed non-interventionist was probably Senator Robert Taft– no one’s idea of a progressive. The last mainstream legacy media outlet with a similar stance was the Chicago Tribune under Robert McCormick– the same.

    Ron Paul is probably the best known political opponent of neocon wars currently. (Though Tulsa Gabbard deserves some credit.) Neither gets much support on this issue from their reapective parties. And of course, the closest thing to a MSM non-interventionist is… Pat Buchanan.

    Also, McCarthy was right– read the Venona decrypts, or “Blacklisted by History.” A related point is that one major underlying reason for the establishment’s hatred of Nixon, that went unmentioned in this piece, was his prominent role in the prosecution of the Communist traitor Alger Hiss. They never forgave him for that.

    I’m not really sure why the author objects to the Republican Party attempting to appeal to Southern white Democrats after their party chose to abandon them, either. Sounds like an argument that the only “correct” thing to do would be to ignore, and effectively disenfranchise, this group of voters. Doesn’t really make much sense.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All James Petras Comments via RSS