Most harmful political figures in America

[Darth Wong]

I'm curious who you would list as the most harmful political figures in America. America is, after all, the largest country in the world, so its politics tend to affect the world more than the internal politics of any other country. Many of these figures end up having outsized global effect, in some cases even though they've been dead or out of the spotlight for a long time.

Here's my list:

Ronald Reagan: the Gipper, also known as The Great Communicator, was an exceptionally charismatic figure who made several key changes to the American poltical landscape: he militarized the office of the President and evoked medieval warrior-king imagery by referring to himself as the Commander in Chief of the American people (this is factally inaccurate; the American civilian population does not have a Commander in Chief), he brought a more aggressive brand of evangelical Christianity into politics, and he popularized the dogma of trickle-down economics and deregulation. Since Reagan came to office, pretty much all economic benefits of growth have exclusively to the rich. What's remarkable about his changes is that they took hold to the extent that all subsequent presidents try to emulate him, and most people take his changes for granted as if that's the way it's always been.

Rupert Murdoch: I honestly picture the head of FOXNews as one of those evil Bond supervillains who sits in his lair and strokes a white cat.

Jane Fonda: Her fusion of war protest and sympathy for the enemy culminated in that remarkably stupid incident on the AA gun which led to her nickname "Hanoi Jane". Decades later, she is still the poster child for right-wing militarism and the longstanding unspoken belief that left-wingers should automatically be assumed to be disloyal to the nation. To this day, left-wingers are constantly pressured to prove that they are not secretly traitors. This is not to say that she was the sole cause of this phenomenon (the name "McCarthy" comes to mind), but one should not underestimate the political power of a potent image, and the infamous video of her laughing and cavorting with enemy soldiers is burned indelibly into the American zeitgeist.

Ralph Nader: On the one hand, Ralph Nader is a useful figure who reminds everyone what an actual left-winger looks like (hint: Barack Obama is not an actual left-winger; he's just left of the GOP, which is in turn full of people who would have been friends with Hitler in a previous life). The problem is that he is an ideologue, and like all ideologues, he is absolutist about his principles and refuses to make any concessions to reality or practicality. It doesn't help that he often fails to bother informing himself about issues where he nevertheless holds forth as an expert, although that is very common in politics so it would be unfair to single him out for that.

Rush Limbaugh: this guy is a remarkable case study in how forgiving the American political landscape is to right-wingers. He has openly admitted to lying in order to support his preferred side (the infamous "carry their water" comment), he has made a litany of racist and other bigoted statements on air, and he has even recently stated unapologetically that he hopes economic disaster will befall America so that President Obama will look bad. He may be the single biggest hypocrite in America. But no matter what he says, Republican politicians pander to him. If they say anything against him, they immediately apologize and suck his shriveled cock in penance. He has the influence of a national political leader, with none of the responsibility or accountability.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ronald Reagan: the Gipper, also known as The Great Communicator, was an exceptionally charismatic figure who made several key changes to the American poltical landscape: he militarized the office of the President and evoked medieval warrior-king imagery by referring to himself as the Commander in Chief of the American people (this is factally inaccurate; the American civilian population does not have a Commander in Chief), he brought a more aggressive brand of evangelical Christianity into politics, and he popularized the dogma of trickle-down economics and deregulation. Since Reagan came to office, pretty much all economic benefits of growth have exclusively to the rich. What's remarkable about his changes is that they took hold to the extent that all subsequent presidents try to emulate him, and most people take his changes for granted as if that's the way it's always been.

I don't think Reagan can be understated. What's overlooked is just how bad his economic policies were almost immediately, though the Democrats were eager collaborators. Most of the current bullshit in the financial world can be traced to his policies and culture changes in the 1980s. He made anti-government right-libertarianism an American religion. What also cannot be discounted is the amazing amount of terror he exported with American blessing to the Middle East and especially to Latin America. Latin American development seems to revolve around how to best keep the U.S. away from interfering, and that's a good idea since American backed-terror killed hundreds of thousands of people in the 1980s. The Contras were said to have atrocities as their primary means of waging war. And of course Reagan captured the imagination and enthusiasm of the Establishment for being a marketing tool which could be easily manipulated; he was not very intelligent or well-read, and much of his wide-eyed denial of responsibility for Iran-Contra was fair: the far-right were using him as a brand name while they executed policies which had been developed prior to his election. The fact that the man was already senile by the end of his second term and his wife color-coded his calender with the instructions of a psychic or astrologer is hard to overlook. The man ran up the deficit to enormous levels to build-up a military juggernaut that was to be dismantled in a decade because American intelligence could not foresee the structural problems and collapse of the USSR (oddly, right-wingers claim that Communism is intrinsically bound for failure while also giving complete credit to Reagan for causing it). That deficit spending helped lock in the culture of debt financing at both public and private levels and helped promote the small-government religion (Reagan's irresponsibility made them feel they could keep most of the benefits of government while cutting taxes and "shrinking government" and making the difference up with private and public debt finance). Oh, and he canceled and rolled back all the Carter-era austerity, efficiency, and next-generation energy programs and oil's price fell again. One wonder what could have been if the culture of the 1970s with regard to energy independence had been sustained (to be fair, one would still have to have overcome the nuclear scare).

[General Zod]

How about Ayn Rand? I'm personally inclined to believe she's responsible for popularizing a good deal of lolbertarian ideology, given so many people seem to practically worship her books.

[KrauserKrauser]

Here's my list:

Ronald Reagan: the Gipper, also known as The Great Communicator, was an exceptionally charismatic figure who made several key changes to the American poltical landscape: he militarized the office of the President and evoked medieval warrior-king imagery by referring to himself as the Commander in Chief of the American people (this is factally inaccurate; the American civilian population does not have a Commander in Chief), he brought a more aggressive brand of evangelical Christianity into politics, and he popularized the dogma of trickle-down economics and deregulation. Since Reagan came to office, pretty much all economic benefits of growth have exclusively to the rich. What's remarkable about his changes is that they took hold to the extent that all subsequent presidents try to emulate him, and most people take his changes for granted as if that's the way it's always been.

Militarization of the office - Did that really have much effect other than PR? LBJ did an arguably much shittier job in reference to handling the military as President, I don't see this as a major sticking point. It's just a more public realization of a role that President has always had, the overall command of the nation's military. Do you disagree with "the buck stops here" with respect to this?

Evangelical Christianity - Yeah, that's a biggy. not only did if formailze the poweer base of an entire faction of the current GOP, I don't see it going down without a fight. My mom is getting more and more fundy in her viewpoints and I can see a little bit of this in her politics.

As for the rest - He had alot going for him with respect to history records. Not only was Carter a massive flop in terms of foreign policy and domestic policy, but right after he left office, the USSR just called it quits. We'll how everything goes with Obama, he might be the Dems next FDR for the next 20+ years.

Rupert Murdoch: I honestly picture the head of FOXNews as one of those evil Bond supervillains who sits in his lair and strokes a white cat.

You've got him in George Soros's seat. Don't get George angry, you wouldn't like him when he's angry.

Jane Fonda: Her fusion of war protest and sympathy for the enemy culminated in that remarkably stupid incident on the AA gun which led to her nickname "Hanoi Jane". Decades later, she is still the poster child for right-wing militarism and the longstanding unspoken belief that left-wingers should automatically be assumed to be disloyal to the nation. To this day, left-wingers are constantly pressured to prove that they are not secretly traitors. This is not to say that she was the sole cause of this phenomenon (the name "McCarthy" comes to mind), but one should not underestimate the political power of a potent image, and the infamous video of her laughing and cavorting with enemy soldiers is burned indelibly into the American zeitgeist.

Good one here. A counter point could be the picture of the South Vietnamese officer shooting the spy.

Ralph Nader: On the one hand, Ralph Nader is a useful figure who reminds everyone what an actual left-winger looks like (hint: Barack Obama is not an actual left-winger; he's just left of the GOP, which is in turn full of people who would have been friends with Hitler in a previous life). The problem is that he is an ideologue, and like all ideologues, he is absolutist about his principles and refuses to make any concessions to reality or practicality. It doesn't help that he often fails to bother informing himself about issues where he nevertheless holds forth as an expert, although that is very common in politics so it would be unfair to single him out for that.

I agree that Barack is only liberal in the context of American politics. Ralph's this decade's Ross Perot, pretty much exactly as there is a good likelyhood Gore would have made it in in 2000 with ole Ralphy boy running on the same ticket.

Rush Limbaugh: this guy is a remarkable case study in how forgiving the American political landscape is to right-wingers. He has openly admitted to lying in order to support his preferred side (the infamous "carry their water" comment), he has made a litany of racist and other bigoted statements on air, and he has even recently stated unapologetically that he hopes economic disaster will befall America so that President Obama will look bad. He may be the single biggest hypocrite in America. But no matter what he says, Republican politicians pander to him. If they say anything against him, they immediately apologize and suck his shriveled cock in penance. He has the influence of a national political leader, with none of the responsibility or accountability.

I actually listen once in a while, I know! SHOCK! SURPRISE! but stopped drinking the kool aid some time ago. He's entertaining but sometimes needs to be taken with a mountain of salt. Hannity is the one I really can't stand, he simply is not as entertaining and without the entertainment your listening to politics, which is by its very nature aggrivating.

To add some names to pot, I'll go with LBJ, simply due to his complete incompetance in handling the Vietnam war. Prior to assassination, JFK had already gotten the nation balls deep into Vietnam and LBJ decides to go for the full monty plus a ton extra.

If you want to know who to point at in the Democrat party that earned the stigma of being shitty at handling a war, look no futher than the man from Texas, Lyndon Banes Johnson.

Who knows his social reforms might have been ok in the end, too bad he was such a fucking horrible military leader and fuck both things up at once.

[Aratech]

It may be going a little ways back, but where do the likes of Herbert Hoover fit into this scale?

[wautd]

Jerry Falwell. Perhaps I'm overrating his power as I'm just an outsider, sawing a documentary of Liberty University where hundred of youths were brainwashed scared the hell out of me. And if money buys power then that fuckwith must had a lot of it.

Rupert Murdoch: I honestly picture the head of FOXNews as one of those evil Bond supervillains who sits in his lair and strokes a white cat.

If Tomorrow Never Dies was any way accurate, he's probably sitting in a stealth boat.

[Coyote]

I hate to say it, because at the time I thought Reagan was cool. But the sad truth is, with age and wisdom and hindsight, I can see that he made the modern GOP's vision of America. And that is hurting us badly. Very badly.

[Big Phil]

James Earl Carter - without Carter's brand of Christianity, it would have been tough for Reagan to be elected in 1980. Carter was the first openly religious president, one who made his religion a campaign point, probably ever (bear in mind that for the first 150 years or so of this country's history nobody really made it a sticking point as it was a prerequisite for political office). Religious voters who supported Carter in 1976 may have been swayed by Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and opened the door for the religious right to push their way prominently into politics in the mid-80's.

Bear in mind, I don't think Carter himself was a bad person, but his election in '76 opened the floodgates to electing lots of terrible people to be elected in the last 30 years.

[Coyote]

James Earl Carter - without Carter's brand of Christianity, it would have been tough for Reagan to be elected in 1980. Carter was the first openly religious president, one who made his religion a campaign point, probably ever (bear in mind that for the first 150 years or so of this country's history nobody really made it a sticking point as it was a prerequisite for political office). Religious voters who supported Carter in 1976 may have been swayed by Reagan in 1980 and 1984, and opened the door for the religious right to push their way prominently into politics in the mid-80's.

Bear in mind, I don't think Carter himself was a bad person, but his election in '76 opened the floodgates to electing lots of terrible people to be elected in the last 30 years.

His apparantly willingness to be accomodating to teh Soviets couldn't have helped the image that American Democrats were 'wimpy' and 'soft on Communism', that's for sure.

[thejester]

Rupert Murdoch: I honestly picture the head of FOXNews as one of those evil Bond supervillains who sits in his lair and strokes a white cat.

It's interesting, I've always thought of Rupert as a guy whose personal politics took an absolute backseat to a desire to make money; media outlets like FOX and The Australian were examples of a blatant abandonment of principled journalism in favour of playing to the crowd, so to speak. Read an excerpt from his new biography that put forward the suggestion that making money was not his be all, end all though. The guy argued that Murdoch just loved owning newspapers, and would tolerate the likes of the Aus or The Times losing money for ages.

Is a hideous ideologue? Probably not, whilst his media outlets in Australia are generally right-wing they certainly can take some interesting left wing positions and his work in China would suggest he'll only put political principles so far. I guess it comes down to just how much damage you think FOX has done in the last eight or so years.

[Darth Wong]

Krauser's butt-hurt whining and predictable Bill O'Reilly-esque use of Godwin's law and cries of bias have been split.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=131582

[Samuel]

Rupert Murdoch: I honestly picture the head of FOXNews as one of those evil Bond supervillains who sits in his lair and strokes a white cat.

It's interesting, I've always thought of Rupert as a guy whose personal politics took an absolute backseat to a desire to make money; media outlets like FOX and The Australian were examples of a blatant abandonment of principled journalism in favour of playing to the crowd, so to speak. Read an excerpt from his new biography that put forward the suggestion that making money was not his be all, end all though. The guy argued that Murdoch just loved owning newspapers, and would tolerate the likes of the Aus or The Times losing money for ages.

Is a hideous ideologue? Probably not, whilst his media outlets in Australia are generally right-wing they certainly can take some interesting left wing positions and his work in China would suggest he'll only put political principles so far. I guess it comes down to just how much damage you think FOX has done in the last eight or so years.

That is the problem- the man has no principles. He doesn't care if the world burns as long as at the end he gets money. He is like Bill Gates, but without the whole caring thing.

Every single person on the American Taliban list should count just lumped together:
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_Wa ... liban.html

Militarization of the office - Did that really have much effect other than PR? LBJ did an arguably much shittier job in reference to handling the military as President, I don't see this as a major sticking point. It's just a more public realization of a role that President has always had, the overall command of the nation's military. Do you disagree with "the buck stops here" with respect to this?

Yes. It made the office sacred and unquestionable. Which is bad because the president is not infallible. And so we the current situation with an Imperial President.

[Surlethe]

John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon for Vietnam and Watergate, respectively. It is my understanding that JFK got us into Vietnam in the first place, and Nixon was involved in Watergate and then lied about it. Those two events were the watersheds that led to the election of Reagan because they fostered a deep and underlying (self-perceived) distrust of the government by Americans.

[thejester]

I'd contest how much JFK can be held responsible for US involvement in Vietnam, but that's probably an argument for another thread.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I've noticed that many posts include individuals that led to the election of Ronald Reagan. Logically, couldn't you just keep on going back further with individuals that caused P1 that caused P2 .... to Pn where Pn is Reagan?

[Surlethe]

I've noticed that many posts include individuals that led to the election of Ronald Reagan. Logically, couldn't you just keep on going back further with individuals that caused P1 that caused P2 .... to Pn where Pn is Reagan?

Possibly, but Vietnam and Watergate were clusterfucks in their own right. It's just that they can get lost in the shuffle when you look at the enormous right-wing maelstrom that was Reagan.

[Rye]

As I wrote before the thread was locked and split and such; I have always been surprised that Reagan got nowhere near the sort of ire that Thatcher gets over here. Not only did he ignore HIV when it was a gay plague, but his economic bullshit was almost identical to Thatcher's horrors. I think that the major difference was either Thatcher's authoritarianism (I have no idea if Reagan was as authoritarian in his time in power) or the sense of working class solidarity and unionism and general acceptance of the left in the downtrodden at the time. I wonder if this partially explains our further ascent into secularism as a nation too, while the Religious Reich in America peaked and then is gradually sinking again?

[Big Orange]

I say Margaret Thatcher was a damaging influence in American politics, even though she was a British PM, since she worked hand in glove with Reagan in employing the same dimbulb Neo-Liberal economy policies on both sides of the pond that have directly led to the ongoing cluster fuck today, and like Reagan she backed the vicious Pinochet regime merely because he employed free market economics. Tony Blair was a similar detriment in the way he was right behind Bush the Dumber rolling into Iraq.

[SirNitram]

How about Ayn Rand? I'm personally inclined to believe she's responsible for popularizing a good deal of lolbertarian ideology, given so many people seem to practically worship her books.

I'd have to agree. Her works and laughable morality framework serve to boost the Reagen-begun frenzy of small-government/deregulation. But her contributions have much further tentacles than that. Indeed, only this year did Greenspan, too long treated as infallible, concede his entire worldview of how to run his damn job was wrong.

[Patrick Degan]

John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon for Vietnam and Watergate, respectively. It is my understanding that JFK got us into Vietnam in the first place

Actually, it was Eisenhower who recognised the corrupt Ngo Dinh Diem government in the South and sent the first military advisers and CIA into Vietnam. JFK expanded the committment somewhat when he sent in Green Beret special forces. Then LBJ took the jump into the deep end with a 500,000 man deployment.

[Patrick Degan]

I say Margaret Thatcher was a damaging influence in American politics, even though she was a British PM, since she worked hand in glove with Reagan in employing the same dimbulb Neo-Liberal economy policies on both sides of the pond that have directly led to the ongoing cluster fuck today, and like Reagan she backed the vicious Pinochet regime merely because he employed free market economics. Tony Blair was a similar detriment in the way he was right behind Bush the Dumber rolling into Iraq.

The whole "ownership society" concept which Chimpus Caesar was pimping was one of Maggie's most cherished ideas.

[Elfdart]

John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon for Vietnam and Watergate, respectively. It is my understanding that JFK got us into Vietnam in the first place

Actually, it was Eisenhower who recognised the corrupt Ngo Dinh Diem government in the South and sent the first military advisers and CIA into Vietnam. JFK expanded the committment somewhat when he sent in Green Beret special forces. Then LBJ took the jump into the deep end with a 500,000 man deployment.

You can go back to Truman on that one. FDR supported the dismantling of the French, British, Dutch and Portuguese empires, and Ho Chi Minh asked for American control of the country at the end of WW2 instead of the French. Truman told Ho to drop dead. The first demonstrations against US policy in Vietnam were from American GIs in Europe who were furious that instead of coming home right after the war, they had to wait while their transports were being used to carry French troops to re-occupy Indochina.

[Qwerty 42]

I suppose it stands to reason that McCarthy should be included. Even though "McCarthyism" today bears a tremendous negative connotation, he did seed society with a great deal of anti-communist hysteria that permeates today. That in and of itself wouldn't be such a huge deal if it also didn't apply to the standard American dread of socialized institutions like medicine. It's inconceivable to think of something like Social Security being instituted today for that reason.

[Thanas]

George Bush and Dick Cheney - the terrible duo. From scrapping civil liberties to a tanking economy...oh, and do not forget the Iraq war. Bush should be remembered as the Nero to Reagan's Caligula.

[CarsonPalmer]

John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon for Vietnam and Watergate, respectively. It is my understanding that JFK got us into Vietnam in the first place

Actually, it was Eisenhower who recognised the corrupt Ngo Dinh Diem government in the South and sent the first military advisers and CIA into Vietnam. JFK expanded the committment somewhat when he sent in Green Beret special forces. Then LBJ took the jump into the deep end with a 500,000 man deployment.

You can go back to Truman on that one. FDR supported the dismantling of the French, British, Dutch and Portuguese empires, and Ho Chi Minh asked for American control of the country at the end of WW2 instead of the French. Truman told Ho to drop dead. The first demonstrations against US policy in Vietnam were from American GIs in Europe who were furious that instead of coming home right after the war, they had to wait while their transports were being used to carry French troops to re-occupy Indochina.

Forget Truman, let's go all the way back to Woodrow Wilson, and his "national self-determination, but only whites", and his blowing off of Ho Chi Minh.