Do Elections Make Any Difference? CAUTION! If you don't like Ed Snowden avoid

[jtuck004]

reading the last paragraph, lest your head does what Richard Pryor's low-fat and pasteurized milk mix did when he dipped the cookie in into it. Bur prior to that is some interesting history from the era of FDR and Kennedy. And he makes an interesting argument against the concept of voting for the lesser of two choices, neither of which may help you in the long run.

But don't read that last paragraph if you can't be kind detached from Snowdenophobia. It might give you a headache b4 bedtime. You have been warned

--An aside. The article mentions what sounds like an interesting text if you want a different look at the New Deal era and, thus, the road to where we are now. The book, "Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time", by author Ira Katznelson. A review is here, "The New Deal We Didn’t Know". We are the product of a lot of revised and hidden history, and it affects the way we look at the world - which is the intention, of course. So books like this which look at things from other than the standard view I find interesting.
--

Anyway...the reason I am posting it is because such articles nearly always bring out comments from people here who have read or experienced history that I have not, and I find their comments interesting.

Excerpted from Counterpunch, article by ANDREW LEVINE, here.

In the run up to the Presidential election of 1960, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Harvard historian and Kennedy courtier, published a book called Kennedy or Nixon: Does It Make Any Difference? Schlesinger had to struggle to find reasons to claim that it was important that Kennedy win.

It came down mainly to noblesse oblige. Lucky for him that JFK’s opponents had started out as poor boys. He’d have had to delve deep into his bag of tricks if Averell Harriman, not Hubert Humphrey, had run against his aspiring Prince in the Wisconsin and West Virginia primaries; or if Nelson Rockefeller, not Richard Nixon, had been the Republican nominee.

Schlesinger’s argument was a stretch, but the question he asked needed answering. In mid-century America, Democrats and Republicans were very much alike, and everyone knew it. So were Kennedy and Nixon.

Kennedy, of course, had style. Everyone now knows about his many ailments, including Addison’s Disease, his addiction to painkillers and his compulsive philandering. However, at the time, he seemed youthful, athletic and vigorous.
...

[geek tragedy]

1. I dunno ask the families of those killed in Iraq. Fuck Counterpunch, nt

[jtuck004]

4. Cracks me up. It's like getting reading tips from Terry "Burn all the Qurans" Jones. Anyway,

FDR and Kennedy were long before Counterpunch ever came along, so I am not sure how reading historical viewpoints about them or the New Deal has anything to do with Counterpunch.

I'm sure you have reasons that are valid to you and I wouldn't try to tell you otherwise. But I read a lot of stuff I may disagree with, because sometimes I need another look at what I think I know. Keeps me from being too much of a cheerleader, which I think is valuable to keep one grounded and useful. For me, Counterpunch is good for that. There are a lot of authors on there, not all agree, and many of them are quite thoughtful and have good information.

Each to their own, of course.

[geek tragedy]

5. You're kinda stepping on your own argument by citing FDR and then asking

if elections matter. FDR was, you know, elected.

Also, FDR was the furthest thing from a civil libertarian--only president to establish racist concentration camps in the US.

[jtuck004]

6. I didn't ask it. The author did. n/t

[RC]

2. It is good to read the truth for a change.

Long live CounterPuntch!

[pnwmom]

3. What does not appreciating everything Snowden has done,

Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 02:04 AM - Edit history (2)

including passing information to foreign countries about our spying on them,
have to do with John Kennedy? None of those "shocking" facts are news, by the way.

And the fact that, policy wise, there may not have been a huge gulf between Nixon and Kennedy tells us nothing about today. The gap between the Paul Ryan/Ayn Rand/libertarian tea baggers who control the party today and almost any Democrat is huge.

[Jamaal510]

7. Even one of my POSCI professors

admitted that the contrast between the 2 major parties is more stark now than ever. People can have their differences with the Democrats--I have mine when it comes to Obama and the TPP, and also the Bay Area's plastic bag law. But considering the numerous differences between the 2 parties nowadays such as starting/stopping wars, expansion of health care, women's rights, gay rights, voting rights, etc., it is among the biggest lies in politics for anyone to claim that voting makes no difference or that both parties are similar.

[pnwmom]

8. Interesting that they see it too. What's happened is that there's virtually

no overlap anymore. No "liberal Republicans" at all; and "conservative Democrats" are not even on the same page as the teabaggers.

I think our system worked better when both parties included a range of ideological positions, so people basically had to work across party lines to form majorities. Not any more.