The Power of Spin
by Anonymous at 7/07/2004 10:47:00 AM
(As usual I apologize for the Length. I did considerable research on this, so I hope someone at least skims it. John, quite understandably, missed the point of my conclusion, mostly because I communicated it very poorly. This error I have tried to rectify below)
A While ago John posted in earnest, accusing President Bush of all sorts of things. However, with all of the historical reading I have done lately I realized that John must have had the name wrong... it appears he was in fact talking about Thomas Jefferson…
[Jefferson] made our nation more vulnerable to terrorism, damaged the ability of our armed forces to defend us, ruined our international credibility, put young men and women at unnecessary risk for the foreseeable future,
Jefferson launched a war against Muslim Terrorists (back then they called them the Barbary Pirates) who demanded the United States pay protection money for their shipping in the Mediterranean. During this effort against the terrorists he was simultaneously cutting military (Army and Navy) spending that supported the effort, and putting the Seamen and small Navy America had at risk.
Jefferson tried to create an “International Task Force” to police the region, but failed to build a consensus among the other Nations of Europe. Obviously our “international credibility” during the Napoleonic Wars was low, and this encouraged both the English and the French to impress our soldiers during the Napoleanic Wars.
Our “International Credibility” was strained further when Jefferson introduced the ineffectual embargo act, that had no effect on either power, but devistated the economy at home.
Jefferson’s lack of military preparedness and use of policies that were ineffective against our enemies and harmful to the American economy put the entire country in peril (including women and children) in 1812.
[Jefferson] threatened our constitutional freedoms in the name of security, abused and expanded the power of the Executive Branch, dangerously mismanaged the occupation of a foreign nation,
Jefferson leaned on Republican Governors in selected states to bring up libel charges against Federalist newspaper editors. The State libel laws required statements had only to be damaging to one’s character(The Federalist Sedition Acts required the statements to be false) in so doing Jefferson restricted Freedom of the Press for his political enemies
Jefferson carried out a prolonged attack on the federally packed judiciary, bringing unfounded impeachment charges against Justice Samuel Chase for enforcing the Sedition acts. He was acquitted.
In trying to enforce the Embargo against England and France, Jefferson introduced measures that included the ability to seize of property and to prevent the departure of vessels.
Jefferson contracted for the Louisiana purchase, which was outside of his Constitutional Purview. The Republican Congress retroactively voted Jefferson the funds to cover the purchase after the signed treaty was already on its way to France.
Once the Louisiana purchase was signed, Jefferson set up a despotic government for the Territory, appointing a Magistrate and a council of “notables”. Louisiana was essentially a Foreign country with a diverse population of English, French, Spanish and Creole. Jefferson believed they were “as yet incapable of self-government as children” and ignored delegations and petitions from the territory asking for representative government.
Jefferson also refused to turn over documents for cases pending against the Federal Government involving their public duties (delivery of Commissions)and not National Security concerns. The case of Marbury vs. Madison established that the President could not be forced to turn over such documents, thereby increasing the power of the executive.
[Jefferson] [deferred] record deficits, substantially increased government spending,
The Jefferson administration DID NOT create huge deficits; it deferred them on to the next President, James Madison. Jefferson and Albert Gallatin instigated a plan to pay off the debt over 16 years. In order to do this Jefferson and his Secretary of the treasury Albert Gallatin :
1) Called for the repeal of the (unpopular) excise taxes that Hamilton put in place to retire the public debt. This left the Federal Government completely dependant upon Import Tariffs, which were reduced to almost nothing with the establishment of the Embargo Act.
2) Called for vast cuts in military spending that resulted in a United States Army of 7000 men that was undisciplined, reluctant to leave their home states and in need of good officers (Almost every land battle fought in the War of 1812 was was a humiliating defeat.) Likewise the U.S. Navy consisted of Seven Frigates, nine lesser craft (sloops) and 170 gunboats to confront the British Navy’s 600 warships.
3) Sold Public lands (some with questionable titles which required reparations to the original owners)
Through these policies Jefferson avoided the cost of a military buildup which may have avoided the War of 1812. In effect, he merely deferred the cost of a military buildup into the next administration, which then also had to pay additonal costs of War in money and in human lives. The cost of the War of 1812 more than doubled the public Debt to around $120 million during Madison’s tenure.
[Jefferson] widened the political and cultural divisions among Americans
Before and After Jefferson was elected he supported and aided a vicious Republican Press whose sole purpose was to slander and malign Federalists. in some cases he comissioned work directly designed to spead malicious lies about his political enemies. (The Prospect before us).
The Federalists say “we lied them out of power and they openly vow to do the same by us” , Jefferson once commented on the Federal press.
[Jefferson] mislead the nation both deliberately and negligently in pursuit of [his] goals,and demonstrated dubious ethics and morality throughout.
Jefferson deliberately kept the Negotiations with France over the Louisiana purchase secret to avoid constitutional entanglements.
Jefferson publicly disavowed any relationship with scandal-monger James Callender. Jefferson was proved to have colluded and supported Callender by letters written in his own hand.
Jefferson’s long-standing dislike of the English due to personal snubs he had received at their hands influenced and hampered his foreign policy with a Pro-French bias.
Jefferson lied to the public about his long-term sexual relationship with his Slave Sally Hemmings, 30 years his junior. DNA testing has proven he fathered at least one child by her.
Jefferson secretly financed, leaked information to, and encouraged the Anti-Federalist Press while part of the Federalist Washington and Adams Administrations.
Jefferson Retained his slaves despite earlier declamations against slavery and set only a few (the Children of Sally Hemmings) free at the end of his life.
Jefferson sponsored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that opposed the Adams Administrations Sedition acts while serving as Vice President in that administration
Jefferson was an adulterer who made advances upon the Wives of others both in Virginia and in Paris
And there's more.
How about Stole the Presidential Election?
Aaron Burr through various intrigues and cajolements, secured the New York state electoral voters for Jefferson. In return, Burr was put on the ticket for Vice President.
Jefferson also would NOT have been elected president if the infamous federal ratio (3/5 clause) were not part of the Constitution.
How about running a secretive administration?
The Jefferson Administration told very little to the public about what it was doing. No one had official opportunities to meet with the President except members of Congress and those invited to dinner (where political topics were banned). He held no public addresses or levees and almost never made public statements. Jefferson’s State of the union Addresses were published and sent to congress in writing -- his only public speaches were his inaugural addresses.
How about being a poor public speaker?
Jefferson was a horrible orator who was horrible at Ad-Lib comments of improvisation.
How about War Mongering and Imperialism?
Throughout his Presidency Jefferson was continually on the lookout for ways to take the Floridas from Spain and establish the principle of manifest Destiny (including removal of the "aboriginal inhabitants" ) as it concerned western lands...
Jefferson said, “I had rather have war against Spain than not, if we go to war against England. Our Southern Defensive
force can take the Floridas, volunteers for a Mexican army will flock to our standard, and a rich pabulum will be offered to
our privateers in the plunder of their commerce and coasts. Probably Cuba would add itself to our confederation”
How about a conclusion finally?
Jefferson is universally hailed by both the right and the left as the most enlightened founding father, and one of top three Presidents. Jefferson really did these things, but in many places I omitted the historical context or other pertinent facts (Like the Jefferson Administration paid off over $45 million in debt even with the Louisiana purchase, and only failed to have a surplus in one year.) Some of it is historical supposition and spin (like the war of 1812 could have been avoided, or Jefferson let his Anti-British bias get in the way of good policy) that requires me to have Omnipotent knowledge of Jefferson's state of mind or the powers of the Oracle to forsee the consequences of actions that might have been. (Such statements can be argued, but by their character all are circumstantial.) Some of the decisions Jefferson made involved unconstitional actions and lies, but were ultimately good for the country (Louisiana purchase). Jefferson provided me with a good opportunity to demonstrate the amount of spin-able events available, the purposes to which they can be turned, and the difficulty of sifting through the result. I suspect I could provide similar treatment for any American President who has presided over the very real and very messy affairs of the United States, rather than the mythical, ideal country some appear to think we govern.
The details and historical context of each charge are important in deciding on President's performance and place in History. We lack this historical context and must muddle through a pile of spin and lies to unearth and distiguish the Diamonds of Fact from the Rhinestones of Fiction, and then string these gems together to form a chain of reasoning leading in some direction, and then waiting years to discover if this direction was the correct one. John, for some reason, seems to feel that an argument devoid of these strands of thought would be convincing,and substituted polemic for reason.
Jefferson set the right expectations for a Presidential candidate in his first inaugural address:
“I have learned to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire from his station with the reputation and the favor that bring him into it…. I shall often go wrong through defect of Judgment. When right I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions that will not command the view of the whole ground. I ask for your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional; and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts”
I thank you all for your attention. You can now go back to chanting the Kerry rally cry, "He's Not Bush!,He's Not Bush!,He's Not Bush!!!! Yaaay!!!"
A While ago John posted in earnest, accusing President Bush of all sorts of things. However, with all of the historical reading I have done lately I realized that John must have had the name wrong... it appears he was in fact talking about Thomas Jefferson…
[Jefferson] made our nation more vulnerable to terrorism, damaged the ability of our armed forces to defend us, ruined our international credibility, put young men and women at unnecessary risk for the foreseeable future,
Jefferson launched a war against Muslim Terrorists (back then they called them the Barbary Pirates) who demanded the United States pay protection money for their shipping in the Mediterranean. During this effort against the terrorists he was simultaneously cutting military (Army and Navy) spending that supported the effort, and putting the Seamen and small Navy America had at risk.
Jefferson tried to create an “International Task Force” to police the region, but failed to build a consensus among the other Nations of Europe. Obviously our “international credibility” during the Napoleonic Wars was low, and this encouraged both the English and the French to impress our soldiers during the Napoleanic Wars.
Our “International Credibility” was strained further when Jefferson introduced the ineffectual embargo act, that had no effect on either power, but devistated the economy at home.
Jefferson’s lack of military preparedness and use of policies that were ineffective against our enemies and harmful to the American economy put the entire country in peril (including women and children) in 1812.
[Jefferson] threatened our constitutional freedoms in the name of security, abused and expanded the power of the Executive Branch, dangerously mismanaged the occupation of a foreign nation,
Jefferson leaned on Republican Governors in selected states to bring up libel charges against Federalist newspaper editors. The State libel laws required statements had only to be damaging to one’s character(The Federalist Sedition Acts required the statements to be false) in so doing Jefferson restricted Freedom of the Press for his political enemies
Jefferson carried out a prolonged attack on the federally packed judiciary, bringing unfounded impeachment charges against Justice Samuel Chase for enforcing the Sedition acts. He was acquitted.
In trying to enforce the Embargo against England and France, Jefferson introduced measures that included the ability to seize of property and to prevent the departure of vessels.
Jefferson contracted for the Louisiana purchase, which was outside of his Constitutional Purview. The Republican Congress retroactively voted Jefferson the funds to cover the purchase after the signed treaty was already on its way to France.
Once the Louisiana purchase was signed, Jefferson set up a despotic government for the Territory, appointing a Magistrate and a council of “notables”. Louisiana was essentially a Foreign country with a diverse population of English, French, Spanish and Creole. Jefferson believed they were “as yet incapable of self-government as children” and ignored delegations and petitions from the territory asking for representative government.
Jefferson also refused to turn over documents for cases pending against the Federal Government involving their public duties (delivery of Commissions)and not National Security concerns. The case of Marbury vs. Madison established that the President could not be forced to turn over such documents, thereby increasing the power of the executive.
[Jefferson] [deferred] record deficits, substantially increased government spending,
The Jefferson administration DID NOT create huge deficits; it deferred them on to the next President, James Madison. Jefferson and Albert Gallatin instigated a plan to pay off the debt over 16 years. In order to do this Jefferson and his Secretary of the treasury Albert Gallatin :
1) Called for the repeal of the (unpopular) excise taxes that Hamilton put in place to retire the public debt. This left the Federal Government completely dependant upon Import Tariffs, which were reduced to almost nothing with the establishment of the Embargo Act.
2) Called for vast cuts in military spending that resulted in a United States Army of 7000 men that was undisciplined, reluctant to leave their home states and in need of good officers (Almost every land battle fought in the War of 1812 was was a humiliating defeat.) Likewise the U.S. Navy consisted of Seven Frigates, nine lesser craft (sloops) and 170 gunboats to confront the British Navy’s 600 warships.
3) Sold Public lands (some with questionable titles which required reparations to the original owners)
Through these policies Jefferson avoided the cost of a military buildup which may have avoided the War of 1812. In effect, he merely deferred the cost of a military buildup into the next administration, which then also had to pay additonal costs of War in money and in human lives. The cost of the War of 1812 more than doubled the public Debt to around $120 million during Madison’s tenure.
[Jefferson] widened the political and cultural divisions among Americans
Before and After Jefferson was elected he supported and aided a vicious Republican Press whose sole purpose was to slander and malign Federalists. in some cases he comissioned work directly designed to spead malicious lies about his political enemies. (The Prospect before us).
The Federalists say “we lied them out of power and they openly vow to do the same by us” , Jefferson once commented on the Federal press.
[Jefferson] mislead the nation both deliberately and negligently in pursuit of [his] goals,and demonstrated dubious ethics and morality throughout.
Jefferson deliberately kept the Negotiations with France over the Louisiana purchase secret to avoid constitutional entanglements.
Jefferson publicly disavowed any relationship with scandal-monger James Callender. Jefferson was proved to have colluded and supported Callender by letters written in his own hand.
Jefferson’s long-standing dislike of the English due to personal snubs he had received at their hands influenced and hampered his foreign policy with a Pro-French bias.
Jefferson lied to the public about his long-term sexual relationship with his Slave Sally Hemmings, 30 years his junior. DNA testing has proven he fathered at least one child by her.
Jefferson secretly financed, leaked information to, and encouraged the Anti-Federalist Press while part of the Federalist Washington and Adams Administrations.
Jefferson Retained his slaves despite earlier declamations against slavery and set only a few (the Children of Sally Hemmings) free at the end of his life.
Jefferson sponsored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that opposed the Adams Administrations Sedition acts while serving as Vice President in that administration
Jefferson was an adulterer who made advances upon the Wives of others both in Virginia and in Paris
And there's more.
How about Stole the Presidential Election?
Aaron Burr through various intrigues and cajolements, secured the New York state electoral voters for Jefferson. In return, Burr was put on the ticket for Vice President.
Jefferson also would NOT have been elected president if the infamous federal ratio (3/5 clause) were not part of the Constitution.
How about running a secretive administration?
The Jefferson Administration told very little to the public about what it was doing. No one had official opportunities to meet with the President except members of Congress and those invited to dinner (where political topics were banned). He held no public addresses or levees and almost never made public statements. Jefferson’s State of the union Addresses were published and sent to congress in writing -- his only public speaches were his inaugural addresses.
How about being a poor public speaker?
Jefferson was a horrible orator who was horrible at Ad-Lib comments of improvisation.
How about War Mongering and Imperialism?
Throughout his Presidency Jefferson was continually on the lookout for ways to take the Floridas from Spain and establish the principle of manifest Destiny (including removal of the "aboriginal inhabitants" ) as it concerned western lands...
Jefferson said, “I had rather have war against Spain than not, if we go to war against England. Our Southern Defensive
force can take the Floridas, volunteers for a Mexican army will flock to our standard, and a rich pabulum will be offered to
our privateers in the plunder of their commerce and coasts. Probably Cuba would add itself to our confederation”
How about a conclusion finally?
Jefferson is universally hailed by both the right and the left as the most enlightened founding father, and one of top three Presidents. Jefferson really did these things, but in many places I omitted the historical context or other pertinent facts (Like the Jefferson Administration paid off over $45 million in debt even with the Louisiana purchase, and only failed to have a surplus in one year.) Some of it is historical supposition and spin (like the war of 1812 could have been avoided, or Jefferson let his Anti-British bias get in the way of good policy) that requires me to have Omnipotent knowledge of Jefferson's state of mind or the powers of the Oracle to forsee the consequences of actions that might have been. (Such statements can be argued, but by their character all are circumstantial.) Some of the decisions Jefferson made involved unconstitional actions and lies, but were ultimately good for the country (Louisiana purchase). Jefferson provided me with a good opportunity to demonstrate the amount of spin-able events available, the purposes to which they can be turned, and the difficulty of sifting through the result. I suspect I could provide similar treatment for any American President who has presided over the very real and very messy affairs of the United States, rather than the mythical, ideal country some appear to think we govern.
The details and historical context of each charge are important in deciding on President's performance and place in History. We lack this historical context and must muddle through a pile of spin and lies to unearth and distiguish the Diamonds of Fact from the Rhinestones of Fiction, and then string these gems together to form a chain of reasoning leading in some direction, and then waiting years to discover if this direction was the correct one. John, for some reason, seems to feel that an argument devoid of these strands of thought would be convincing,and substituted polemic for reason.
Jefferson set the right expectations for a Presidential candidate in his first inaugural address:
“I have learned to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man to retire from his station with the reputation and the favor that bring him into it…. I shall often go wrong through defect of Judgment. When right I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions that will not command the view of the whole ground. I ask for your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional; and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts”
I thank you all for your attention. You can now go back to chanting the Kerry rally cry, "He's Not Bush!,He's Not Bush!,He's Not Bush!!!! Yaaay!!!"
Wow that is a lot of work. Got nothing better to do than educate a bunch of liberal morons? Your talents are wasted here, Jeff.
So, obviously your point is that sometimes some acts look worse void of historical context. Granted. In my old post, I had no intention of laying out a detailed case for my assertions, but instead tried to make thoughtful conservatives wonder, "Why do I support Bush?" (I can make a case for my assertions, but I hardly think most of them are very contentious, and details are just a google search away. Original discussion of my earnest post is here.)
You, a Kerry-basher ("Kerry has voted to the Left of Ted Kennedy. After careful study of the actual effects of Democratic agendas such as affrimative action, freedom from religion, gay marriage,women in the military, welfare etc, I am quite certain that Kerry would do more harm than good."), have not directly answered that question. You prove here that you are willing to go to great lengths to avoid answering it. But, in your statement above, why you would not support Kerry, you answer that question implicitly - you are afraid of liberal ideology. That is the popular crux of the modern conservative movement.
Instead of writing a long essay on Jefferson's historic misdeeds you could have written a short one, describing why Bush has done such a great job (or just a decent job) and why he is good for the nation. Give us liberal morons a little historical context of Bush's actions, and why the seemingly bad is actually good (despite the fact that we are all living through the historical context of the Bush admin's actions, and we read about it and hear it and see it everyday). This would have directly countered my assertion that the Bush administration is a very bad one. However, my thinking is that such an essay would require a lot more work (and spin) than your long (and irrelevant, except for the last few paragraphs!) essay on Jefferson.
So, *you* can now go back to chanting the Bush rally cry, "He's Not Liberal!,He's Not Liberal!,He's Not Liberal!!!! Yaaay!!!"
Damn, I knew I should've voted for Aaron Burr. ;-)
Just a short reply, it's bedtime for me:
Your three reasons for supporting Bush: They're valid, but #3 screws it up for me. Further, it seems your basic premise is that we should trust the govt to know and do what's best. This seems antithetical to many conservative arguments to me, and contrary to some of the fundamental establishments of government in this nation. Because I don't trust the Bush admin (they aren't moving in the direction I want, and for many other reasons) I have to trust what I think I know. I do as good a job as I am able of discerning fact from spin, and I think I do a pretty good job (I didn't fall for the WMD hype, for example! :^)). But as you say, future historians will have better a perspective and I may be the one with egg on my face. I'll take that risk, and have only myself to blame. Spoken like some kind of libertarian, huh?
"Anyone but Bush": That it is personal is exactly what makes it the right reason. Many people think the Bush admin has been a disaster for the US, not because they fear the ideology, but because of experience with his policies and results. Voting against incompetence is a sure-fire winner everytime, I think, and it does not necessarily have anything do to with ideology. Voting *for* Bush is a vote for (or against) an ideology, or a vote by someone who is cognitively dissonant (in my opinion).
Bush has done nothing to earn our trust, so why give it to him?
I'll finish up from where I left off last night (we got back late from a rain-delayed baseball game) before I get distracted by work:
I used the words "liberal morons" because I thought your implication was that liberals, because they oppose Bush, were unable to fathom the historical context of his actions. This is, as you said, not your point. Your point seems to be that no one is able to fathom the historical context of Bush's actions (I'll use that shorthand for Bush admin actions), and we can only understand the present context of his actions incompletely. We are all, in this sense, "morons."
Given that, I still think we should vote using our best understanding of the situation. Otherwise, our democracy is just a beauty contest where we vote for whoever has the best hair and says the prettiest things. Perhaps a cynic would say that this is exactly what we do already. Yet, there is a difference between what is and what should be, and I think it is our duty as humans to strive for what should be (at which point you will probably tell me about cosmic justice).
On another note, I take issue with your statement that the Democratic party has shifted to the far left. As a liberal, I see the Democratic party shifting to the right over the last few decades, having reached it's apex of economic leftiness in probably the mid-sixties. It has, arguably, become more libertarian (small "l", recall the political compass) but my feeling is that this is not particularly true in all areas. Meanwhile, the Republican party has shifted economically right and to more authoritarian, beginning with Reagan's embrace of "small government", lower taxation, and the religious right. From the perspective of a moderate, in the middle of the two parties, Dems seems to shift left and Repubs seem to shift right, but this is a frame of reference problem. In fact, the whole spectrum of American politics has shifted rightward (especially the middle) in the last few decades.
Why did Dems shift to the right? They probably got too liberal (hippies were a big turn off to many Americans, and now former hippies may be backlashing against their own excess - calling the cops after they left the party, in a sense) and once Repubs gained power and Dems started losing popularity, they started chasing the middle ground (which was, by statistics alone, shifting right). I don't think this is a winning strategy for Dems, but they don't listen to me :^)
Finally, I'll add this: "Khan, I'm laughing at the superior intellect." I'm on record as considering myself intellectually superior to only one person, and it's not you. It's Bill O'Reilly. :^)
Disclaimer: I saw that quote from Kerry about his and Edwards' hair this morning *after* I wrote my post. Weird timing, though.
From APKerry also poked fun at himself as well as his running mate for something the two often are teased about.
"We've got better vision, better ideas, real plans. We've got a better sense of what's happening to America - and we've got better hair," Kerry said, laughing.
Actually, a quick google turns up many reports of missing nuclear material from the former USSR, including 100 one kiloton suitcase bombs! There are also reports that former research sites for biological weapons have been left abandoned.
I have no idea how valid these reports are, but this is pretty troubling, especially considering that there are many terrorist groups, at least some of which are closely allied with Al Qaeda, currently active within some of the nations comprising the former USSR, some of which are ruled by autocratic dictators with a record of human rights abuses.
Too bad our armed forces are bogged down in Iraq, or I would suggest that we invade the the entire former USSR to secure these WMDs that may or may not be missing. We can't be too careful.
» Post a Comment