Skip to main content

View Diary: Stand with Rand throughout history (19 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't agree with this notion (0+ / 0-)

    that you must never ever agree on anything with anyone who has spouted deplorable views.

    Richard Russell was an arch-segregationist, the leader of the southern caucus, and mastermind behind the filibusters and legislative roadblocks that prevented civil rights legislation from passing during the many decades he was in the U.S. Senate.

    However Hubert Humphrey, who was decidedly from the liberal wing of the party, and who made his name by championing a strong civil rights plank at the 1948 Democratic convention, a plank which directly led to the formation of the Dixiecrat party that year, still managed to work with Russell on matters relating to agriculture.  Together Humphrey and Russell helped to expand the free school lunch program.

    In addition, however deplorable Russell's views on race and ideology, he more than anyone helped to calm the national hysteria that had erupted in the wake of Truman's firing of Gen. Douglas MacArthur in 1950.  Robert Caro recounts this episode well in Master of the Senate, and essentially what happened was that the country was up in arms that Truman fired MacArthur, and anti-communist right wingers (and MacArthur himself) stoked the notion that Truman was holding the military back from all-out victory in Korea.  People were burning Truman in effigy.

    I do not need to spell out how disastrous it would've been had the American people gone the route MacArthur wanted, which was an all-out invasion of China and probably the use of nuclear weapons.  But Russell, who was universally respected on matters of war and foreign policy, subsequently conducted hearings in which he methodically exposed the danger and folly of MacArthur's position, and by the time the hearings were done public opinion had shifted decidedly in Truman's favor.

    I reiterate that Russell was a terrrible, no good, racist sonofabitch.  I would never in a million years have lent my support to such a politician.  But I do not think it improper to credit Russell with regard to his role in expanding the school lunch program and his role in bringing sanity to the debate over the course of the war in Korea at a very crucial moment.

    I do not know if Rand Paul's filibuster rises anywhere to the level of what Russell did with regard to the Truman/MacArthur episode.  But I agree with the need for transparency regarding the drone program, and Paul's filibuster helped to highlight this issue.  I would never support Rand Paul for any elected office, whether president or senator or town dogcatcher.  But he was right on the issue of drones and I don't feel it is improper at all for liberals who agree with him on this one issue alone to express that agreement.  

    “Th’ noise ye hear is not th’ first gun iv a revolution. It’s on’y th’ people iv the United States batin’ a carpet.” - Mr. Dooley

    by puakev on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 01:44:44 PM PDT

    •  it's a very simple point (5+ / 0-)

      The language of limited government/federal-despotism that Rand Paul used in his speech is the classical rhetoric of the neo-confederates.  Make of that what you want.

      I admit though that this is somewhat amusing after 4 years of being lectured that Barack Obama's bipartisan approach was sheer betrayal and that the only plausible political way forward was to make a sharp stand and clear distinction. It turns out that coalition building with people who we mostly disagree is not terrible after all. Who knew.

      self-appointed intellectual cop

      by citizen k on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:10:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think anyone's said bipartisanship itself (0+ / 0-)

        is wrong, I think people had a problem with the President pursuing bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship alone, and for weakening his own reforms in pursuit of bipartisanship while receiving nothing or close to nothing in return.  Health care reform, which got zero Republican votes in Congress, is a case in point.  

        Maybe some folks have made the argument that bipartisanship itself is fundamentally wrong, but I have never felt that way and from what I've seen neither have most liberals.  For instance I am certain that if the President were to take up the breaking up of Too Big to Fail Banks, which at the moment has some bipartisan support, I doubt many liberals would fault him for doing so.

        On the other hand liberals were not so thrilled with the sort of bipartisanship we saw in health care reform, where a national version of Romneycare was made the starting point for reform in order to win over Republicans, only to result in zero Republicans voting for the legislation.

        And as for Rand Paul's "neoconfederate" language in arguing for more transparency in the drone program, again, I do not agree with pretty much 99.9999% of what Rand Paul says or believes in.  But generally speaking I agree with the principle of more transparency with regards to the drone program.  Insofar as that was Rand Paul's goal which I believe to be the case, I agree with him although perhaps not with every component of his argument.  

        “Th’ noise ye hear is not th’ first gun iv a revolution. It’s on’y th’ people iv the United States batin’ a carpet.” - Mr. Dooley

        by puakev on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:26:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  for god's sake (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MrAnon, Larsstephens, Jeff Simpson
          On the other hand liberals were not so thrilled with the sort of bipartisanship we saw in health care reform, where a national version of Romneycare was made the starting point for reform in order to win over Republicans, only to result in zero Republicans voting for the legislation.
          Barbara Lee called the ACA passage as important as the passage of the Voting Rights act.

          I don't know who gave the DKOS progressives the authority to speak for all liberals.

          self-appointed intellectual cop

          by citizen k on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 02:32:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hell I've praised the ACA (0+ / 0-)

            the greatest progressive achievement since Medicare and Medicaid.  Nevertheless there's also no doubt it was modeled on Romneycare, and apparently for no good reason as no Republicans voted for the ACA despite this enormous pre-concession that was made in the hopes of making the ACA bipartisan.

            I believe, as do many liberals, that the ACA would be a superior piece of legislation if it were more progressive, and indeed it likely would've been more progressive had the starting point not been Romneycare but rather single payer, or Hillarycare, or even Nixon's proposed health care legislation, all being decidedly to the left of Romneycare.

            “Th’ noise ye hear is not th’ first gun iv a revolution. It’s on’y th’ people iv the United States batin’ a carpet.” - Mr. Dooley

            by puakev on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:10:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i don't want to debate ACA (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MrAnon, Larsstephens

              Ï just wanted
              "On the other hand liberals were not so thrilled "

              to be amended to
              "some liberals".

              Whether Hillarycare would have been more progressive is not at all clear to me, certainly Hillarycare that did not pass was less progressive.

              In the context of this discussion, however some liberals don't think allying with a sleazeball neo-confederate libertarian who doesn't really oppose US intervention overseas at all is a good method of reducing the US footprint in the middle east.

              self-appointed intellectual cop

              by citizen k on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:21:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't "ally" with Paul on US intervention (0+ / 0-)

                or reducing the US footprint in the Middle East.  I do agree with him on the necessity of more transparency with regard to the drone program, that is all.  Well, actually, I also agree with Paul that weed should be legalized.

                “Th’ noise ye hear is not th’ first gun iv a revolution. It’s on’y th’ people iv the United States batin’ a carpet.” - Mr. Dooley

                by puakev on Thu Mar 28, 2013 at 03:40:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site