--- Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Moreover you PROVED that ignorance by claiming that: > > - containment of communism was anything other than a > driev instigated by democrats and labor unionists
Actually, I disagreed with you that the GOP actively opposed it. Labor unions were a very important part in the containment of Communism. Some Democrats were as well. Some weren't. Have you heard of Henry Wallace? He was a fairly important Democrat - in fact, he was Franklin Roosevelt's third Vice President. He was so far to the left that his publicly declared choices for Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury were (we now know) paid Soviet agents. There is _no equivalent Republican of equal prominence_. None. Some Democrats were not actively in favor of the containment of Communism. Why do you think Arthur Schlesinger and Daniel Aaron founded Americans for Democratic Action? Why do you think there was a group of people _called_ Scoop Jackson Democrats? Those groups existed because there were plenty of Democrats who _didn't agree_ with them on the importance of fighting the Communists. The proudest stand of the Republican party since the Civil War is that it was consistent pretty much through and through on the Cold War. The Democratic Party leadership (with the sad exception of George McGovern, I guess) was too. But the Party as a whole clearly was not to anything near the same degree. Who's proving their point now, Dr. Brin? What I'm trying to drive home is that every major policy success in American history, with the arguable exception of the abolition of slavery, was at least partly, and often exceptionally, bipartisan. Even most of the early New Deal bills got extensive Republican support. Given the structure of our government this is somewhat inevitable. > - that any large part of the GOP played any role in > opposing European fascism or Hitler Do you think Wendell Wilkie would have won the nomination if large parts of the party didn't agree with him on an issue that important? There weren't primaries in those days, you know. > > - that any large part of the GOP played any role in > backing the drives for civil rights, gender rights > or environmental protection. Dr. Brin, it's you, not me, that needs to offer some evidence. You're making some remarkable claims about my ignorance. On that, btw, I challenge you to find _one_ other person on this list who agrees with you. The statement above is an assertion. It is _not_, in fact, backed by anything more concrete than your opinion. In fact large portions of the GOP did play significant roles in all three. As I've mentioned - and you completely ignored - GOP Senators (and Congressmen, I'm virtually certain) were _more_, not less, likely to support the crucial Civil Rights bills than their Democratic counterparts. Without that support, none of those bills could have passed, period. On its face, your earlier claim that the Republican Party - I don't remember the exact words, something like vehemently opposed - Civil Rights is not true. The same with gender rights or environmental protection. Just because someone disagrees with you on any of those issues doesn't mean that they oppose the issue itself. > Instead of actively confronting me with facts, you > have armwaved generalities and credentials to the > effect that your college degree is in government and > you like Condaleeza Rice, therefore her (blithering) > policies must be sagacious. I've never met her, actually, although I'd very much like to, of course. Describing someone's policies as blithering when you wave your arms in airy generalities is not particularly persuasive. If I took your proposal about Iran's role in the war to anyone with any foreign policy experience, Dr. Brin, no offense, but they'd laugh. The government of Iran sponsored the Khobar Towers bombing. Do you think they _like us_? Why would the Mullahs, who are hanging on to power by the skin of their teeth, help us in the invasion of Iran, the act by the United States most likely to strengthen the Iranian opposition against them? > > As long as we are bandying apologies, let me remind > you that YOU started making personal remarks aimed > at > me before I ever aimed one at you. I don't believe that is the case, but will not debate it. > > Moreover, I am the one who has made peace gestures. > As I am doing right now by calling you a feisty good > fellow, despite being a clueless arguer! ;-) > > db I'm sorry that I called your American history very poor, although it does seem to have gotten my point across. I studied American history with Bill Gienapp (may he rest in peace) - he ain't Rush Limbaugh. Would you care to cite a serious historical work that supports your assertion that the Party of Lincoln has contributed little or nothing to American politics? And I don't mean something written by Gore Vidal or Noam Chomsky. I am not an historian, but American political history, at least, I have some background in. If there is something that makes a plausible case, I would of course be interested in reading it. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
