Document:McGovern the Dangerous Decoy: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Document:McGovern the Dangerous Decoy (view source)

Revision as of 17:46, 21 July 2021

439 bytes added ,  21 July 2021
→‎McGovern the Dangerous Decoy
Line 18: Line 18:


And to some extent, he is simply the beneficiary-if that is the right word-of a curious phenomenon that occurs once every 24 years, as precisely as clockwork.
And to some extent, he is simply the beneficiary-if that is the right word-of a curious phenomenon that occurs once every 24 years, as precisely as clockwork.
McGovern's proposed Federal Budget of S350 Billion is viewed as fiscally calamitous ... and so it would be. Meanwhile, Nixon, who campaigned against Kennedy in 1960 on a pledge to hold the Budget under SI 00 Billion, inaugurated hie Ad · ministration only nine years later with a Budget exceeding $200 Billion . .•  and  is now beating his chest and  emitting cries to the effect that he will hold the line at S250 Billion. Judging from this record, there  is little doubt that Nixon will be cloee to the S350 Billion level himself within four yean , if re-elected.
Of course, domestic policy is only part of the package one must consider in .-inga President (or potential Presidentl; foreign policy must also be taken into accounL And here , as on the domestic scene, Nixon', performance offen little more hope than McGovern's promises.
For Nixon has done everything in his power to "build bridges" to the most op­ preuively totalitarian regimes in the world­ thegovernments of Soviet RU111ia and Red China. When he could have used the threat of cutting oU foreign aid fa good idea, in any instancel to hold our mppoeed "friends" in line at the UN, he sat on his hands and let these rented allies un-t theNationalist Chinese delegation, and seat in its place the murderous Pek!n¥. regime. And then, his UN ambassador didn t even have the good grace to follow the lead of the Nationalist Chinese, and walk out of that assemblage of pompous pipsqueaks forever.
In Vietnam, he has punued a policy that combines the wont of two alternati­ neither getting us out as 8000 u he wu inaugurated, nor attempting a military victory. The remit: thousands of livee and billiOlll of dollan thrown away for nothing. No, wone than nothing-for the Nixon Vietnam policy hu relUlted on a destruction of the American peoples' wiU to fight in any future war which might hmlilte Vietnaml be nece?sary for our survival, and hu 1iphoned money out of our domestic defenae Ludget, leaving us sadly behind the Soviet? in miseile stre ngth. And then, to cap it off, he has now virtuaUy conceded the Soviet? pennanent military superiority, in the SALT Talb.


Nobody knows just why it happens, but every 24 years, a sort of populist radicalism seems to sweep the country . . . and those who are infected with its fever seek a champion. And for some reason, this champion inevitably turns out to be a man of the Upper Midwest-William  Jennings Bryan in 1900, Robert LaFollette in 1924, Henry Wallace in 1948, and now McGovern.
Nobody knows just why it happens, but every 24 years, a sort of populist radicalism seems to sweep the country . . . and those who are infected with its fever seek a champion. And for some reason, this champion inevitably turns out to be a man of the Upper Midwest-William  Jennings Bryan in 1900, Robert LaFollette in 1924, Henry Wallace in 1948, and now McGovern.
Line 34: Line 27:
But McGovern cannot be considered ''in vacuo''. What counts is not how radical McGovern is (or is not) relative to some mythical ideal, but How radical he is com pared to Richard Nixon. And the answer, unfortunately, is "not very." For despite their rhetorical difference-and the images they project-there is really very little dif­ference between the two men.
But McGovern cannot be considered ''in vacuo''. What counts is not how radical McGovern is (or is not) relative to some mythical ideal, but How radical he is com pared to Richard Nixon. And the answer, unfortunately, is "not very." For despite their rhetorical difference-and the images they project-there is really very little dif­ference between the two men.


Consider first their re?pective economic proposals. McGovern's proposal for  a guaranteed annual income of Sl,000 per person is being decried by its opponents as socialism-which, indeed, it is. But Nixon's Family Assistance Plan is  essentially the same thing. McGovern's economic proposals are also damned as being certain to cause massive inflation. But Nixon has run up a Budget deficit of nearly SIOO Billion in four years ... a record unmatched since the days of FDR. McGovern's promise to secure "jobs for all"-or, in lieu thereof, 100 percent unemployment compensation-are condemned as being certain to remove incentives for businesses to avoid bankruptcy, and for individuals to remain productive. But then, Nixon bailed out Lockheed. McGovern is blasted as being inimical to the free­ enterprise system-but Nixon has imposed wage-price controls, and nationalized a major industry (railroads).
Consider first their re?pective economic proposals. McGovern's proposal for  a guaranteed annual income of Sl,000 per person is being decried by its opponents as socialism-which, indeed, it is. But Nixon's Family Assistance Plan is  essentially the same thing. McGovern's economic proposals are also damned as being certain to cause massive inflation. But Nixon has run up a Budget deficit of nearly SIOO Billion in four years ... a record unmatched since the days of FDR.  
 
McGovern's promise to secure "jobs for all"-or, in lieu thereof, 100 percent unemployment compensation-are condemned as being certain to remove incentives for businesses to avoid bankruptcy, and for individuals to remain productive. But then, Nixon bailed out Lockheed. McGovern is blasted as being inimical to the free­ enterprise system-but Nixon has imposed wage-price controls, and nationalized a major industry (railroads).
 
McGovern's proposed Federal Budget of S350 Billion is viewed as fiscally calamitous ... and so it would be. Meanwhile, Nixon, who campaigned against Kennedy in 1960 on a pledge to hold the Budget under S100 Billion, inaugurated his Administration only nine years later with a Budget exceeding $200 Billion ...  and  is now beating his chest and emitting cries to the effect that he will hold the line at S250 Billion. Judging from this record, there  is little doubt that Nixon will be cloee to the S350 Billion level himself within four years , if re-elected.
 
Of course, domestic policy is only part of the package one must consider in assessing a President (or potential President); foreign policy must also be taken into account And here, as on the domestic scene, Nixon's, performance offers little more hope than McGovern's promises.
 
For Nixon has done everything in his power to "build bridges" to the most oppressively totalitarian regimes in the world­ the-governments of Soviet Russia and Red China. When he could have used the threat of cutting oU foreign aid (a good idea, in any instance) to hold our supposed "friends" in line at the UN, he sat on his hands and let these rented allies unseat the Nationalist Chinese delegation, and seat in its place the murderous Peking regime. And then, his UN ambassador didn t even have the good grace to follow the lead of the Nationalist Chinese, and walk out of that assemblage of pompous pipsqueaks forever.
 
In Vietnam, he has pursued a policy that combines the worst of two alternati­ves-neither getting us out as soon as he was inaugurated, nor attempting a military victory. The result thousands of lives and billions of dollars thrown away for nothing. No, worse than nothing-for the Nixon Vietnam policy has resulted in a destruction of the American peoples' will to fight in any future war which might (unlike Vietnam) be necessary for our survival, and has siphoned money out of our domestic defense budget, leaving us sadly behind the Soviets in  missile strength. And then, to cap it off, he has now virtuaUy conceded the Soviet's permanentt military superiority, in the SALT Talks.
 
The foregoing should serve to convince all but the blindest Nixonites and crassest "My Party, Right or Wrong"Republicans that the "consider the alternative" argument is fallacious-that a Mcgovern Administration would be no more of a disaster than four more years of Nixon. But even if one still feels that McGovern would be worse, there are some points one should consider be succumbing to the blandishments of the Nixon forces.
Retrieved from "https://lpedia.mywikis.net/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1556415"

Navigation menu