Nixon and Trump

by Nomad

Insecurity on Display: Trump's Pompous Parade and Nixon's Palace Guards

by Nomad

Back in January 1970, then-president Richard Nixon took a good look at the White House guard (secret service uniformed division) and made a decision. The attire was not suitably fancy.

It would not do.

And so, he ordered an overhaul of the uniforms to match what he had seen in palaces worn in other countries.

From now on, the president ordered, the guards would be decked out in uniforms which featured a white, double-breasted tunic with gold shoulder trim and a stiff shako hat with peaked front.  

Good and Better: Why Roger Ailes' Fall from Grace Couldn't Happen at a More Appropriate Moment

by Nomad

Rarely has there been much good news to report of late. Here's one item I've found.

According to reports, CEO of FOX News, Roger Ailes, will soon be forced to resign after allegations of workplace sexual harassment. 

The former anchor Gretchen Carlson alleged that Ailes made it crystal clear that if she had sexual relations with him her problems (which included among other things "ostracizing, marginalizing and shunning") would magically disappear.  

Office hanky-panky was the suggested cure-all for what ailed Roger Ailes. 

In the court records, Carlson claimed that Ailes told her :

I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago, and then you'd be good and better and I'd be good and better.

That's about as logical as anything else presented on Fox News, I guess. Good and better was not a standard that Roger Ailes generally aimed for.
Bad and worse was closer to the truth. 

Bust: How the Republicans Lost the War on Drugs 2/5

by Nomad

In Part 1 of this series we examined how  and why President Nixon declared his war on illegal drugs. However, the public learned the moral crusade was being led by a president with dubious moral qualifications.

In the second part of the series we carry on the story with the Ford Administration's efforts to make sense of Nixon's policy.  

That wasn't going to be easy.

Part 2. The Flaw and the Irony 

Ford's Challenge 

In 1974, with a hearty arm wave from the doors of a helicopter, disgraced President Richard Nixon bid farewell to power. The anti-drug warrior was immediately replaced on August 9, by America's first and only unelected president, Gerald Ford. (In less than a year, Ford had gone from congressman  to vice-president to president.)

The Watergate investigation- as it turned out- was just the beginning of the government's distress. If the new president was calling for a "Time of Healing" it was soon clear that some people were not going to let the house cleaning end with Nixon. 

In January 1975, the Church committee, an independent investigation was established by Senate and continued the post-Watergate housecleaning. The target was no longer the president and his staff but CIA and claims of grievous misconduct, The committee's investigation pulled back  the cover on such things as assassination attempts against foreign leaders, covert attempts to subvert foreign governments and the FBI and CIA’s efforts to infiltrate and disrupt organizations here at home. (That's just the short list.) 

Senator Church, after reviewing the evidence of widespread abuse by the FBI, CIA, IRS and NSA, called the intelligence agencies "rogue elephants."

The investigation dragged on throughout most of Ford's time in office, and involved testimony from highest levels in the intelligence community. 

Under those circumstances, any attempt to restore the stability of the nation was going to be a challenge. Nixon's drug war was just another example of the general chaos in government of that time. And much of the problem, the confusion, centered on the policy stance on marijuana.

Bust: How the Republicans Lost the War on Drugs 1/5

by Nomad

Starting with President Nixon, the War on Drugs has been a series of costly mistakes. Sadly, most of the misjudgements might have been avoided if only officials had listened to the experts and to the people most affected.

Part 1. Nixon, Drugs and the Hippie Removal Scheme

Nixon and the Mandate of the Silent Majority 

To understand what went wrong with America's War on Drugs, we have to go back to the days of President Nixon and the time before Watergate. In this turbulent moment in US history, there was a fundamental difference of opinions about the causes of the upheaval in the 60s.

Taking a look at the nation in turmoil at colleges and universities, President Richard Nixon not long after taking office, said:

It's not too strong a statement to declare that this is the way civilizations begin to die... The process is altogether to familiar to those who would survey the wreckage of history. assault and counterassault, one extreme leading to the opposite extreme; the voices of reason and calm discredited.

(As it turned out, it was a oddly accurate assessment and it is even more true today than then.) 

At the time many people, especially conservatives, considered the liberal policies of the 1960s, particularly, domestic programs of the Great Society, to be a failure. The Supreme Court decisions, on abortion and civil rights, combined with liberal idealism had opened a Pandora's box. That was what a lot of middle class people across the country genuinely believed.   

The rebellious counter-culture, which included the hippies, the yippies, the anti-war protesters, the bra burners, the liberationists, the anarchists, the Communists,  was fueled not by resentment or by anger at injustice. Drugs had to be behind it all. What else could make kids from well-off backgrounds, drop out of society, throw away all of the material advantages and live like gypsies? What else could make them so wild and violent?
That view was both widespread and often propagated by the mainstream news media. The conventional wisdom said that the widespread use of illegal drugs was just another example of the general breakdown of law and order.  

TheTruth Behind Obama's Use of Ambassador Posts as Political Rewards 2/2

by Nomad

In Part One of this two-part series, I told you about the recent embarrassing confirmation hearing for one of Obama's ambassadors. The quality of the president choices has been called into question. More importantly some on the Right have been asking whether the president isn't simply rewarding his top dollar campaign contributors with these positions. 

It's a good question. In this part we will look at the more recent history of this practice and how it has evolved in the last forty years.

A Look Back: Carter, Bush and Son

Candidates that have run on a reformist platform - like Obama- have fallen into the same trap. President Carter, for example, came under fire in 1977 for exactly the same thing. An article in The Telegraph reported at the time that four top ambassadors were high dollar contributors to Carter campaign in the Georgia governor's race in 1970. 

But, of all the presidents, Carter holds the record for the most number of career appointees, meaning people who have spent their lives working for the Foreign Service- not friends or political contributors. 

In 1980 Congress actually attempted to restrict the practice with The Foreign Service Act. It stated that the Foreign Service, which of course includes ambassadors, should be operated on the basis of merit principles. Merit naturally requires some kind of career in the diplomatic service. More specifically, the Act states that ''contributions to political campaigns should not be a factor in the appointment of an individual as a chief of mission.'' 
Upon signing of the bill into law in October of that year, President Carter said:

This bill provides the first comprehensive revision of personnel legislation for the United States Foreign Service in 34 years. It is an important step in the reform, simplification, and improvement of personnel administration in the Government, a top priority of my administration.

It didn't take too long for the Reagan administration to ignore that. According to a 1983 study by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan tied for the number of political ambassadors they appointed, at 32 percent each, according to a 1983 study by the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA). That figure is just above an average of roughly 30 percent since World War II.

By the time George H.W. Bush became president, it was as if the reforms of 1980 had never been written . In 1989 one report found that half Bush's administration's 26 reported ambassadors-designate were President Bush's enthusiastic campaigners, or direct Republican campaign contributors or old friends of the family. At that time, President Bush had set a new standard for the spoils system. 

Deconstructing the Meme: “The Worst President Since Carter”

by Nomad

If you are unlucky enough to encounter a die-hard neo-conservative or tea-party member, you are quite likely to hear them use this phrase to castigate President Obama.

"Obama? He’s the worst president since Carter.”

Its use has all of the hallmarks of Rovian propaganda. As a phrase, it is mindlessly repeated without any clarification, and dropped into a discussion like a finely-rolled ball of manure as if these twin statements were facts beyond question or debate.

According to its own logic, Obama is a terrible president just like Jimmy Carter was a terrible president. They rarely elaborate or feel the need to, since it is, they seem to think, a matter of common knowledge.

Lately even Candidate Romney has been attempting to put this comparison into use. Recently Romney said. “Who would’ve guessed we’d look back at the Carter years as the good ol’ days, you know?” To some, that kind of talk smacks of desperation.

Given the disastrous interval between the years 2000 and 2008, I thought the phrase "the worst president" deserved a closer look.