Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


thucythucy's Journal
thucythucy's Journal
July 15, 2021

The nature and purpose of conspiracy theories are obviously on our minds

these days, for obvious reasons.

And so I've been thinking about the history and purposes of conspiracy theories in American politics. There's obviously much to explore, to learn, and to analyze.

One particular conspiracy theory I haven't seen discussed at much length is the whole MIA movement that began after the end of the Vietnam War. You can still see those black MIA flags flying from post offices and elsewhere, long after the theory should have been put to rest.

This occurs to me while reading Doug Anderson's "Keep Your Head Down: Vietnam, the Sixties, and a Journey of Self Discovery."

The bulk of the book concerns his tour of duty as a combat medic in Vietnam in 1967-68. It's an amazing and brutal story.

Years later he revisits Vietnam with other veterans. His description of PTSD, and his compassion for the Vietnamese are striking.

Then there's this:

"...the price paid [by the people of Vietnam to drive the US out] was staggering. Three million Vietnamese, military and civilian, died during the war. I don't know the statistics on Vietnamese wounded, but the number of wounded is often triple the number of dead. Four hundred thousand are still missing in the North alone. When I think now of the black POW flags I've seen flying from police and fire stations mourning the two thousand missing Americans, a number that is much smaller compared to other wars, especially in a jungle war where the retrieval of bodies was more difficult, I wonder what the POW issue is really about. I don't believe that Communist Vietnam held back some POWs for political reasons, or for perverse 'Oriental' reasons. I think simply that they are dead, and that keeping hope alive for their families is perverse."

I too have often wondered what that whole movement was about. My impression is that the POW issue was mainly a right wing Republican thing, and fed into the whole "liberal government is holding back the truth" BS we see so much of today. The POW myth became the basis for the Rambo movies with their revisionist history of the war, at the same time Reagan was declaring it "a noble effort." The line in Rambo where the hyper-masculine hero asks some sinister government character, "This time are you going to let us win?" or words to that effect, is a perfect example of the papering over of the realities of that war. Then too, as I recall there were quite a few scams connected to the issue, with sleazy characters milking families desperate to believe their loved ones were still alive.

Anyway, I highly recommend anything by Doug Anderson. He's an especially amazing poet. I started with his book "The Moon Reflected Fire" and went on from there.

Best wishes.

April 18, 2018

I wish a Democratic pundit would focus on this issue

Yesterday I saw a long discussion on Meet the Press Daily about Democratic changes for retaking the House.

It was mentioned several times that Democrats need to poll at least seven percent more than Republicans on average in order to have even a shot on picking up enough seats to regain the House. In other words, Democrats have to poll something like 53% of the vote, at the very least, in order to garner 50% of House seats.

This is a disconnect built into the system that is inherently unfair and small "d" undemocratic. I wish someone would at least mention this at some time during these various discussions. It is, of course, the result of Republican gerrymandering and gaming the system, and Democrats IMHO ought to bring this up whenever possible.

Maybe if enough of us stress this point it might actually start to happen.


June 3, 2016

On opening college education for all who can benefit

I don't understand why Secretary Clinton's campaign is being so obtuse about Senator Sander's proposal to offer (as I understand it) free college tuition to all those who can pass the various entrance requirements.

First of all--it's an entirely realistic goal. Several western European nations (I'm most familiar with Germany) enable their citizens, and even foreign visitors, tuition free college education, as long as students pass the exams and do the work required. This isn't some impossible, unattainable dream. It's something other nations have done, and like the idea of universal health insurance, it's something that our nation would do well to try to emulate.

Secondly--the argument that "I don't want the taxpayers to foot the bill for Donald Trump's kids" is beside the point. That's like saying you want to means test Social Security, since, after all, Donald Trump probably qualifies for benefits. The whole idea of an entitlement (and I hate that phraseology, but it's what we're stuck with for the present) is that EVERYONE has a chance to reap the benefits. This enormously simplifies the system. To qualify for Social Security pension benefits once one reaches the appropriate age, all one needs is a Social Security card and evidence that you've paid into the system for the required number of quarters. To add some sort of income eligibility limit vastly increases the paperwork--and thus the frustration--of people trying to apply. Frustration with any government program almost inevitably leads to lower public support for said program. Not to mention--the more people qualify, the wider the base of political support.

Thirdly--a university system open to the middle and working classes has historically been an incubator for liberal and progressive change. Let's take a quick look at the history. The GI Bill of Rights, passed in 1944 under FDR, vastly increased not only those able to go to college (basically anyone who had been in the service, more than twelve million people) but it also vastly increased funds available to public colleges and universities. It's basically what created the public college system as we've known it since the 1950s. It was out of that system that tens if not hundreds of thousands of middle and working class students became politically educated--resulting in groups like SNCC, the SDS, and myriad others at the forefront of the civil rights, antiwar movements. Labor history, feminism, and LGBT rights groups also benefited.

All this was not lost on the right. Ronald Reagan ran for governor of California largely on a platform of hostility to the University of California. Among his first actions as governor was to begin to do all her could to dismantle that system. His election to president coincided with the pullback from the commitment to an affordable college education to all who could benefit. More than that--by allowing tuition costs and fees to skyrocket--thereby either putting college out of reach, or requiring students to assume crushing debt--meant both a less educated electorate (which has generally hurt Democrats and progressives) and young people less able to engage in social activism. This means political activism has become, more and more, the province of the well to do, or at any rate more difficult for people to try. It's tough to do volunteer work for the environment, reproductive rights, anti-domestic violence work, or whatever your focus might be--if you have to slave away to pay off some humungous debt, as soon as you leave college.

For all these reasons, Senator Sanders' proposal makes sense, not only to younger people in or entering college, but to liberals, progressives, and the Democratic Party as an institution. Like labor unions, college students used to be among our most stalwart activists and supporters. That both of these have been under unremitting attack from the right is no coincidence, nor is it any accident.

There's nothing wrong with having a goal beyond our reach at the moment. Like a moon landing, a polio vaccine, or health insurance for all, there are certain aspirational goals that have a huge range of side benefits, even before the prize is eventually attained.

I try not to be cynical, and I don't buy the notion that everything the Clintons do is to benefit the one percent. But the tone-deafness of how the Clinton campaign has treated this issue really has me stumped. I'm hoping, therefore, that someone in the campaign might read this, and that it might make some sort of political, social, and ethical sense.

BTW, and for what it's worth, I voted for Bernie in my primary, but will absolutely support Hillary in the general if she turns out to be the nominee. All the more reason for me to want to see the campaign change its tone and direction on this issue.

Thank you all for your patience. I have to get going for a while, but will be back to engage with folks who might have various response to this OP.

Best wishes to all.

Profile Information

Member since: Tue Feb 3, 2009, 04:28 PM
Number of posts: 8,334
Latest Discussions»thucythucy's Journal