Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

LBJ (the movie) and LBJ (the man) -Civil Rights & Political Correctness


Recommended Posts

Rob Reiner has a new movie, written by Aaron Sorkin, about Lyndon Johnson.

I'll let the American Left argue about whether LBJ was good or bad. I have a different take.

=====

I don't think that the State can impose/force "good" relationships/dealings between people in their daily lives. IMHO, the US federal 1964 Civil Rights Act amounts to a Maoist "Red is Right" cultural revolution.

Indeed, such a federal law in civilised Canada is unthinkable since the Quebec government would strongly object. 

Yet, we in Canada have a federal bilingual act. And you Americans voted for a black guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, August1991 said:

the US federal 1964 Civil Rights Act amounts to a Maoist "Red is Right" cultural revolution.

Certainly the Civil Rights Acts was a major milestone with a lot of consequences that was mired in controversy. It basically outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Looking back from today's perspective, it is hard to imagine the problems in America at the time. Were there other ways to move forward that would have had less negative consequences than legislation, or do you think that the discrimination that existed then was right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

... It basically outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Looking back from today's perspective, it is hard to imagine the problems in America at the time...

Were there other ways to move forward....

In private affairs?

====

In civilised Canada, in 1968, our federal government merely said that it must communicate in an "official" language.

Your culture, or sleeping arrangements, were private.

Charter of Rights?

The government of the day, Harper,  does not have the right to...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Certainly the Civil Rights Acts was a major milestone with a lot of consequences that was mired in controversy...

On the contrary, I fear that the federal US Civil Rights Act will destroy America's federalism.

And much that is good about America.

=====

Am I wrong?

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, August1991 said:

...In civilised Canada, in 1968, our federal government merely said that it must communicate in an "official" language.

Your culture, or sleeping arrangements, were private.

Charter of Rights?

 

Not so much, as the elder Trudeau specifically scuttled any attempt to include sexual orientation in the Charter or Rights and Freedoms for political expediency.

Canada's "Fruit Machine" (homosexuality testing) was still used against gays through the 1960's, and the younger Trudeau is just now getting around to apologizing (and crying) about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Canada's "Fruit Machine" (homosexuality testing) was still used against gays through the 1960's, and the younger Trudeau is just now getting around to apologizing (and crying) about that.

Yes, homosexuality was viewed in both Canada and the US very negatively until very recently. Homosexual sex was a criminal act in 14 US states until the Supreme court ruled in 2003.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, August1991 said:

Rob Reiner has a new movie, written by Aaron Sorkin, about Lyndon Johnson.

I'll let the American Left argue about whether LBJ was good or bad. I have a different take.

=====

IMHO, the US federal 1964 Civil Rights Act amounts to a Maoist "Red is Right" cultural revolution.

How many years will it take to underscore that the right-wings discomfort with outlawing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is just plain wrong?

Generations apparently.   

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, -TSS- said:

Kennedy would probably have somehow get out of the Vietnam-war much earlier. LBJ didn't even want to.

That's incorrect.  Both presidents, and Nixon, had to weigh off their obligations to allies and other factors.  LBJ did not want this war, and it probably contributed to his decision not to run again in 1968.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's incorrect.  Both presidents, and Nixon, had to weigh off their obligations to allies and other factors.  LBJ did not want this war, and it probably contributed to his decision not to run again in 1968.

Sorta like Eisenhower in 1953 who pawned America's principles to meet its obligations and now they can't get them out of hock.  Oh well it's pretty clear those principles were never worth the paper they were scribbled on anyway so who really cares?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Sorta like Eisenhower in 1953 who pawned America's principles to meet its obligations and now they can't get them out of hock.  Oh well it's pretty clear those principles were never worth the paper they were scribbled on anyway so who really cares?

What is the event you are referring to, Eyeball ?  Like individuals, countries make moral choices that alternate between selflessness and selfishness, and sometimes some of both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

What is the event you are referring to, Eyeball ? 

The overthrow of Mossadegh.

Quote

Like individuals, countries make moral choices that alternate between selflessness and selfishness, and sometimes some of both.

Is that the official excuse?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's incorrect.  Both presidents, and Nixon, had to weigh off their obligations to allies and other factors.  LBJ did not want this war, and it probably contributed to his decision not to run again in 1968.

A lot of Johnson's tapes were released a few years ago, and one of the particularly disturbing finds in that Nixon had sabotaged the Paris peace talks for Vietnam. He had told the south Vietnamese through back channels that they should withdraw from the talks and refuse to deal with Johnson, hang on until a Nixon Presidency. Apparently Humphrey was told, but decided that it was too close to the election to accuse the Republicans of treason since he thought he would win anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2017 at 2:58 PM, eyeball said:

How many years will it take to underscore that the right-wings discomfort with outlawing discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is just plain wrong?

Generations apparently.   

I just learned that Janet Yellen is married to George Akerlof.

On the Left, the freedom to choose, the choice of a spouse for example, is now in vogue. In Canada nowadays, you are free to choose your gender.

But also on the Left, I can no longer choose my doctor. In Canada, I am not free to choose my specialist.

=====

eyeball, your Leftist world is not sustainable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, August1991 said:

I just learned that Janet Yellen is married to George Akerlof.

On the Left, the freedom to choose, the choice of a spouse for example, is now in vogue. In Canada nowadays, you are free to choose your gender.

But also on the Left, I can no longer choose my doctor. In Canada, I am not free to choose my specialist.

=====

eyeball, your Leftist world is not sustainable. 

Hmmm I can choose my specialist. Sux to be you I guess.

Beyond conflict here's very little that's sustainable for anyone in the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, August1991 said:

IMHO, the Left does not understand the implications of this fundamental fact of life.

I think they do.  The choice to have an abortion, to join a union, to be able to live in a clean environment, clean water, to marry who you want, to be able to live without religion, to be able to have a quality education, to be able to access healthcare.

These are important choices, unlike consumer choices which mean nothing.

BTW if you can't choose your doctor in Canada you are doing something incorrectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 2:30 PM, eyeball said:

Hmmm I can choose my specialist. Sux to be you I guess.

Beyond conflict here's very little that's sustainable for anyone in the world.

Sux to be me?

Welcome to the Soviet Union, started in 1917. It lasted for about 70 years, a life time.

As Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

=====

I suspect that any socialist system (Justin Trudeau happy face etc) survives for about 70 years or so. Like the Bismarck pension scheme. A life time.

Roosevelt's social security started in 1935, and is about to die. (Pay as you go is not sustainable... )  What about LBJ's Medicare? (It started in the mid 1960s.)

Pearson's CPP (birth 1965) has a few more years of life - at most to 2035, I'd say; like our Canadian single-payer health system.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 2:30 PM, eyeball said:

Hmmm I can choose my specialist.

Really? Eyeball, can you freely choose your specialist - or do you have to go to a generalist first, then require a reference?

====

Imagine the time a mother wastes in waiting to obtain an appointment to see a specialist.

And imagine the power that a state system of health care gives to a specialist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 7:59 PM, Michael Hardner said:

.. The choice to have an abortion, to join a union, to be able to live in a clean environment, clean water, to marry who you want, to be able to live without religion, to be able to have a quality education, to be able to access healthcare.

These are important choices...

I agree Michael, these are important choices.

As an individual, should I choose?

Or should I let someone else choose on my behalf - to express what I feel/think? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, August1991 said:

 Or should I let someone else choose on my behalf - to express what I feel/think? 

You could take lobbyist donations to buy television time, to convince people to vote against their interests. 

 

Also, I would probably have more choices in Sudan than Norway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 12:37 PM, eyeball said:

The overthrow of Mossadegh.

Is that the official excuse?

Whether Iran (1953?) or the Vietnam War or Cuba or Chile 1973, America (ordinary good Americans) won the Cold War.

The Soviet Union no longer exists.

eyeball, the US won. Thank god, for the rest of us. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements



×
×
  • Create New...