President Richard Nixon: The War On Poverty

"The arguments that framed President Richard Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan have wielded tremendous influence over US antipoverty and family policy debates, setting the stage for five decades of policy development that have led us back to a “guaranteed income” through the temporary expansion of the child tax credit in 2021.

Today, the US faces a safety-net design that policymakers have always intentionally avoided: a form of guaranteed income that discourages work plus a large, bureaucratic welfare state.

Amid this backdrop, federal policymakers have an opportunity to refocus efforts toward creating a coordinated safety net that meets the challenges poor Americans face today and helps them improve their families’ prospects for tomorrow by connecting more families to work.

In 1969, President Richard Nixon released the Family Assistance Plan (FAP), proposing to replace the country’s largest welfare program at the time—Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)—with a guaranteed minimum income for all families with children. In proposing the plan, President Nixon cited a widespread failure of the US safety net to meaningfully combat poverty in America. In Nixon’s words, “Whether measured by the anguish of the poor themselves, or by the drastically mounting burden on the taxpayer, the present welfare system has to be judged a colossal failure...

Source:American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Angela Rachidi.

From the Angela Rachidi

President Richard Nixon: "The War On Poverty has been first in promises, first in politics, first in press releases, and last in performance". 

From the Richard Nixon Foundation

Whether or not President Nixon actually made that statement about the "War On Poverty", or not, I don't know. The Richard Nixon Foundation is pretty partisan and extremely loyal to Richard Nixon. But whether the President said that or not, it's a very clever line. And I can't say I disagree with it. But only because I don't. 

What I'm about to tell you is going to sound as unbelievable as hearing about hurricanes in Las Vegas, or Seattle running out of water and coffee on the same day, Wisconsin getting no snow in January, etc... But Richard Milhous Nixon was a Progressive Republican. At least on economic policy, and even civil rights, and to a certain extent social policy, (which I'm about to get in to) and even foreign policy and national security.

And I know that hearing that Richard Nixon was a Progressive Republican, is like hearing Socialists who are Libertarians or vice-versa, or fish who hate water and are dying to get on land, or something like that, but Richard Nixon came from the Theodore Roosevelt, Thomas Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. Or the Liberal Democrats from the 1950s and 60s, who became Republicans in the 1970s because they thought the Democratic Party was moving too far to the Left, who are called Neoconservatives today. 

And to get back to the line about Richard Nixon and the War On Poverty: he didn't run for President and more importantly he wouldn't have gotten elected President of the United States, to dismantle the New Deal and Great Society. He wouldn't have gotten elected had he run on that. When he became President of 1969, he had a Democratic Congress with only 195 or so Republicans in the House and about 43 Republicans in the Senate. So he wouldn't have been able to dismantle the New Deal and Great Society anyway. And had he tried to that as President, it not only wouldn't have worked, but it probably would've cost him reelection in 1972. 

But what President Nixon did instead was propose an alternative to the New Deal and Great Society:

President Nixon's approach was based on work, independence, and federalism. That the states should run these social programs, instead of the Feds, and that they should be designed to move people out of poverty and into the workforce as middle class Americans, through things like work, education, and opportunity. And that idea basically became what President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress passed in 1996, which is known as Welfare To Work. 

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Jimmy Carter The President

Source:The Movie Gourmet with a look at the American Experience documentary about Jimmy Carter.

"In PBS’ American Experience documentary Jimmy Carter, The New Yorker writer and former Carter speechwriter Henrik Hertzberg says:

Jimmy Carter was what the American people always SAY they want – above politics, determined to do the right thing regardless of political consequences, a simple person who doesn’t lie, a modest man, not someone with a lot of imperial pretenses.  That’s what people say they want.  And that’s what they got with Jimmy Carter." 

From The Movie Gourmet

"Jimmy Carter's story is one of the greatest dramas in American politics. In 1980, he was overwhelmingly voted out of office in a humiliating defeat. But over the subsequent two decades, he became one of the most admired statesmen and humanitarians in America and the world. 

Through interviews with the people who knew him best, JIMMY CARTER traces his rapid ascent in politics, dramatic fall from grace and unexpected resurrection, including Carter family home movies and a rare film sequence of Carter's final hours in the Oval Office, when he and his advisors waited in vain for the release of the Americans who had been held hostage in Tehran for 444 days." 

Source:American Experience Jimmy Carter

From The American Experience

When I saw this American Experience documentary about Jimmy Carter back in the spring or summer of 2003 on PBS, for the first time, this Hendrik Hertzberg (who was President Carter's speechwriter from 1979-81) quote about Jimmy Carter, stuck with me. Perhaps the only memorable quote from the documentary from the people they interviewed. Other than what Vice President Walter Mondale said about high interest rates and inflation, high energy costs, the lack of available oil and gas in the economy, was bringing real pain to the America people. That they weren't imagining that. 

When a political candidate, especially a politician, tells the voters exactly what he plans to do as President of the United States and then you vote for him, he gets elected and 2-3 years later you don't like what he's doing, it's not working out as well as you had hoped, don't the voters have at least some responsibility in that? It's not like they can honestly say: 

"Well, we didn't know that President Carter wanted us to conserve to help bring down prices and the cost of living, and was trying to balance the budget to reduce inflation and interest rates". 

You might not like what Jimmy Carter ran on when he ran for President in 1976. But that's why we have a democracy so people can vote for the candidate they like, or at least prefer. 

It's one thing to be lied to and to be misled and just be sold a pile of junk at full price, not knowing what you were buying, because it look so beautiful when you bought it. But when the voters know what they're getting ahead of time as far as what the candidate said he would do, if elected, and then he tries to do exactly that and even has some success at getting done what he said he would do, once he's in office, the voters bare a lot of the responsibility there. 

It's as the great political satirist George Carlin said about American voters and politicians, that was featured on The New Democrat 3 weeks ago: 

"Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don’t fall out of the sky. They don’t pass through a membrane from some other reality.

They come from American parents, American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses, American universities, and they’re elected by American citizens.

This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It’s what our system produces. Garbage in…garbage out.

If you have selfish, ignorant citizens…if you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you’re gunna get selfish, ignorant leaders. And term limits ain’t gunna do ya any good. You’re just gunna wind up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans [leaders].

So, maybe…maybe…maybe it’s not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here. Like…the public. Yeah, the public sucks! That’s a nice campaign slogan for somebody: “The public sucks! Fuck hope! Fuck hope!”

Because if it is really just the fault of the politicians then where are all the other bright people of conscience? Where are all the bright, honest, intelligent Americans ready to step in and save the nation and lead the way?"

You can see the rest of George Carlin's standup about American politicians and voters on The New Democrat

This post is not about Jimmy Carter the President as far as how successful he was as President, or just as a politician when he was President. But more about the character of Jimmy Carter as President. 

To paraphrase Hendrik Hertzberg: American voters during every election cycle (perhaps not so much now, but definitely pre-social media) say they want the President to be honest, to be above politics, to put the country above their own political ambitions and political party. But then they tend to vote for the person who is really just trying to get elected, or reelected, and is more than willing to say and do things, just to try to get reelected and get past the current political moment that they're in. 

American voters tend to say that they want a saint. But they vote for used car salesman instead, who advertise Ford Escorts as being better cars than Cadillacs. Not saying that James E. Carter (also known as Jimmy Carter) was a saint. But he was about as honest and decent of a man, perhaps the most honest and decent man who was ever President of the United States. And he never got rewarded, or even got any credit for that. Even though that's what American voters tend to say that's what they want as President of the United States. 

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

George Carlin On Abortion: Back in Town (1996)

"Stand-up comedian George Carlin is irreverent and on-point as he looks for consistency in the conservative argument against abortion.

"Back in Town" aired as a live broadcast from New York City’s Beacon Theater and features Carlin’s trademark acerbic observations on topics such as abortion, capital punishment, familiar expressions and bodily functions. Classic routines “Sanctity of Life,” “State Prison Farms,” “Free-Floating Hostility” and more are included in this hysterical stand-up comedy performance." 

Source:Official George Carlin with his Back In Town 1996 performance.

From Official George Carlin

George Carlin: "If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-schooled, you're fucked. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life, these people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors, what kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do everything they can do save a fetus, but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?" 

From IMDB

George Carlin: "Boy these Conservatives are really something, aren't they... They're all in favor of the unborn. They'll do anything for the unborn. But once you are born, you are on your own." 

You don't need me to point that out to you. You can just watch the video. But I'm highlighting that point because I think it's important.

I think writing satire about abortion, is like joking about about rape: "Hey, at least he was good looking. What are you complaining about? It might be the last time you ever have any chance of getting laid for a while anyway. Especially since you are in prison." Something about joking around about abortion or rape, seems off to me. Maybe that's just my conscience talking or something. 

So I'm not going to be joking around about abortion. But people who call themselves the "Christian Right" (even though most of them probably can't find a prayer in the Bible, let alone read the book before) that's a different story. They're a very easy target because a lot of them are so stupid and crazy, and represent a major political faction in America. 

Let's just start off with pro-life: if people who claim to be pro-life (who are really just antiabortion) ever had any real power in America, an escaped mental patient, as well as escaped convict, would have easier access to getting a gun legally, then a woman who needs a certain health procedure (like an abortion) just to stay alive. Or at least stay healthy. 

If the far-right in America was ever in complete charge, not just The White House and Congress, but like all 50 states as well, all the courts, killing abortion doctors simply because they are abortion doctors, would be legal. But law enforcement officers who break up violent far-right political rallies, or arrest violent, far-right rioters, who are tying to break up the certifications of democratic elections, would be held legally liable for doing their duty and could go to prison.

Just because you are against abortion, doesn't make you pro-life by itself. There are people who are antiabortion, as well as pro-life. But that's because they believe in defense of all innocent lives. Not just fetuses who aren't even people yet and therefor don't have the same constitutional rights as people. But all innocent lives, regardless of their political affiliations, what they do for a living, their race, ethnicity, etc, or where they live. 

I think what George Carlin was really doing here, is making fun of the people who in the 1990s were called the Christian-Right. People who as far as I''m concern, at least, don't know anything about being a Conservative, or even a Christian, let alone being pro-life.  

What the far-right in America actually  are, at least mentally and culturally (if not in actuality) are people from the 1800s or early 1910s, who woke up 1 morning and discovered that this no longer looks like the America that they're used to living in. And want to take the country back to that time where they're more comfortable living in and force that lifestyle on everyone else, including through government force.

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: Where Have You Gone?

Source:CNN headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia.

If you are a Gen-Xer like me (meaning someone who was born in the 1960s or 70s) or even older than that, CNN was the first 24 HR cable news network (no pun intended) that you were aware of. Being almost 48 now, I'm old enough to remember when CNN was literally almost 24 hours of news. 

CNN had a late sports news cast, called Sports Tonight, that sort of competed with ESPN SportsCenter, and they had Larry King Live who interviewed a lot of entertainment celebrities in the 1980s and 90, and they had Showbiz This Week, which obviously covered Hollywood and the broader entertainment industry during the 1990s. But back in the 1980s and 90s, CNN was literally the Cable News Network and it wasn't just called that. 

If you remember the 1990s and are were watching CNN back then, you remember hearing James Earl Jones narrating CNN's trademark slogan: "This is CNN". And that meant something back then. They were seen as basically the 60 Minutes, or the broadcast network nightly newscasts, of news. In some cases they were probably better than those shows, because they had more time to fill and more resources to use just covering current affairs and real news. 

Now, the CNN slogan could easily be something like: "CNN: we offend the least", because they are worried about hitting someone or something too hard, because they're worried about losing viewers, regardless of what their facts and information from their reporters is reporting about the situation or individuals that are involved in the story.  As if what they're doing now (whatever it is) is not costing them viewers.

I think part of the problem of why CNN is not really 24 hours of hard news anymore, but most of their coverage now is just a lot of panel discussions and interviews with partisan figures, is that Americans simply don't have the same level of interest in hard news coverage as they did even in the 1990s, with cable TV becoming so dominant and then the internet as well, and all the online publications, social media in the 2000s, 2010s, and today. 

Americans today simply don't have the same level of interest in hard news that Americans had in the 1960s and 70s before cable TV became a major player, when the broadcast network news divisions, and print media still dominated news coverage in America. 

Americans by-en-large today, want their news either from social media, their favorite partisan publications. And when they do want TV news, they go to their favorite partisan networks like Fox News Channel, or MSNBC. But people are now leaving MSNBC perhaps as fast as CNN today. Making FNC the only source for cable news (if you want to call FNC news) as far as a place that gets any real ratings anymore. 

So the change in how Americans get their news today and really the last 20 years, has really affected CNN in a bad way and they yet to find a way to be able to successfully adapt to that. In the early 2010s, they tried making reality TV and celebrity court trials a big part of their daily TV coverage. A lot of people still remember the George Zimmerman trial in 2013, when CNN covered it gavel-to-gavel. And that got their ratings up a bit during that trial. Which is a long way away from James E. Jones famous line, with that perfect delivery that he had which was: "This is CNN". Which meant this is where you go for real news. 

I don't think CNN knows who they are and what they're about anymore. Of course they'll say they're a a 24 hours news network dedicated to bringing Americans and their international audiences the best in cable news coverage, if not news coverage from any source. But this is no longer the CNN of Prime News, World News, Inside Politics, CNN This Morning. Or even Crossfire, Evans and Novak, The Capital Gang, shows that tried to intelligently debate American politics and current affairs. CNN now is just trying to tread water and in complete survival mode, not sure where they go from here and how they stay in the news business all together. 

From The Economic Times: 

"It has been noticed for a pretty long time now that the viewership of CNN is plummeting vigorously with every passing year. In a recent development Senator Dick Durbin was noticed to talk about the extreme low viewership of CNN and thus anxiety and worries inside the CNN still continues to grow.

According to The Washington Post, CNN has experienced a dramatic 45% drop in prime time viewership since the month of November specifically following the November 5 US Presidential election while averaging only 394,000 viewers which actually marked its worst performance in key demographics.

This current trend eventually reflects a broader decline in the television viewership as audiences shift towards streaming services and social media platforms. At the same time, MSNBC has similarly lost huge amount of viewers with its audience down pretty significantly post US Presidential election, asserted The Washington Post.

In spite of these ongoing challenges, CNN now claims to be the fourth most watched cable network overall with a digital strategy which is aimed at increasing the online subscriptions. The network also launched a paywall in the month of October at $3.99 per month but has not disclosed the subscriber numbers, noted The Washington Post.

Eminent critics within the CNN suggest that recent programming choices which include a town hall with US President- elect Donald Trump might have actually al ..

CNN has experienced a dramatic 45% drop in prime time viewership since the month of November specifically following the November 5 US Presidential election while averaging only 394,000 viewers which actually marked its worst performance in key demographics.

From The Economic Times

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

You can follow me on WordPress.