President Jesse Jackson

[Derek Jackson]

Is there ANY chance if Jackson had won the Democratic Nomination in 1988 or 1992 he would have won?

How much difference could a fairly radical President have made with a Congress- even under Democrats- being relatively conservative

[Tom_B]

Is there ANY chance if Jackson had won the Democratic Nomination in 1988 or 1992 he would have won?



No there was not.

[Michael E Johnson]

--No there was not.--- Very true. Jesse Jackson was way to black and way to liberal (in that order ) to have won the general election in 1988 or 1992. Democrats would have been progressive enough to nominate him in theory,but even they had to bow to electoral realities in the US. VP is a possibility but I think thats even doubtful.

[Brilliantlight]

--No there was not.--- Very true. Jesse Jackson was way to black and way to liberal (in that order ) to have won the general election in 1988 or 1992. Democrats would have been progressive enough to nominate him in theory,but even they had to bow to electoral realities in the US. VP is a possibility but I think thats even doubtful.

VERY doubtful as he is way too liberal for the US population and the only black man who would have a shot is Colin Powell. The Democrats lose every state in the union while Jackson wins only DC. The Democrats lose power in all branches of government. They lose a lot of power in all states. It is practically a meltdown for the Democrats.

[Michael E Johnson]

--and the only black man who would have a shot is Colin Powell---

Except the GOP wont nominate him because he's too liberal and black ( possibly in that order but that's giving the GOP alot of credit.)

[MerryPrankster]

One word, people:

"Hymietown."

Anti-Semitic slurs about New York probably kill a candidate's electability. I heard that that his little slip of the tongue did him in.

Hmm...perhaps Jesse keeps his mouth shut. Then he'd be a serious contender for the nomination and, if that doesn't work, he can start talking about being "disenfranchised" by the Democratic Party and run a third party campaign.

[zoomar]

Nope.

We've had this general discussion before on this board, but if I had to bet, I'm still fairly certain that the first black man elected president will be either (1) a conservative-moderate like Colin Powell not associated in the public mind with activism or (2) a vice-president of either party who capably fills out the term of a deceased president and runs later for re-election on his own. A liberal black democrat like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton associated with protest and activism would not have a chance at the head of a ticket. They woud lose not because they are necessarily too black, but because they are too radical.

BTW, it's not "progressive" to nominate somebody like Jesse Jackson if that ensures you'll lose the election - it's just stupid. Nominate Clinton, it's the next best thing.

[Brilliantlight]

--and the only black man who would have a shot is Colin Powell---

Except the GOP wont nominate him because he's too liberal and black ( probably in that order but that's giving the GOP credit.)


I am not sure of that because Powell is one of the few people who can get urban black votes and many suburan whites who are pro-military. The only way that blacks can win the White House is if they are Republican. Most voters think that the Democrats are too liberal and most blacks are too radical so a black Democrat would be thought as even more liberal.

[Michael E Johnson]

---Anti-Semitic slurs about New York probably kill a candidate's electability---

Thats probably true for Democrats. If only speaking at Bob Jones University or refusing to denounce the Confederate flag would kill a GOP candidates chances. :rolleyes:

[Brilliantlight]

One word, people:

"Hymietown."

Anti-Semitic slurs about New York probably kill a candidate's electability. I heard that that his little slip of the tongue did him in.

Hmm...perhaps Jesse keeps his mouth shut. Then he'd be a serious contender for the nomination and, if that doesn't work, he can start talking about being "disenfranchised" by the Democratic Party and run a third party campaign.

Even if he didn't say "Hymie Town" he would have been beaten BAD. Jackson is simply unelectable outside of majority black urban areas.

[Michael E Johnson]

--I am not sure of that because Powell is one of the few people who can get urban black votes---

This is far from proven. You have to remember as a Republican ,Powell is suspect to most black voters who are Democrats by in large. Many of them think Powell is showcased by the Republican party because he's a "safe " black- conservative,light-skinned and not threatening or confrontational. Except he himself has critized the GOP on racial issues and comes from a party that's full of segregationists ( and their cute little descendants). Its very questionable that Powell could ever get a GOP nod-which other than his wifes fears of assissination is probably why he didnt bother to run in 1996 or 2000. Also he probably would not get the majority of the black vote-because he's Republican-to much bad blood and inaction by the GOP over the last 40 years. In the racialized US, a white president without the majority of the white vote-ie Bill Clinton-can still function poltically-I'm not sure how a black president would do without a majority of the black vote.

[Brilliantlight]

--I am not sure of that because Powell is one of the few people who can get urban black votes---

This is far from proven. You have to remember as a Republican ,Powell is suspect to most black voters who are Democrats by in large. Many of think Powell is showcased by the Republican party because he's a "safe " black conservative,light-skinned and not threatening or confrontational. Except he himself has critized the GOP on racial issues and comes from a party that's full of segregationists ( and their cute little descendants). Its very questionable that Powell could ever get a GOP nod-which other than his wifes fears of assissination is probably why he didnt bother to run n 1996 or 2000. Also he probably would not get the majority of the black vote-because he's republican-to much bad blood and inaction by the GOP over the last 40 years. In the racialized US, a white president without the majority of the white vote-ie Bill Clinton-can still function poltically-I'm not sure how a black president would do without a majority of the black vote.

Clinton isn't too radical but a moderate and it is virtually certain that Powell would win the vast majority of the Black vote. There is simply too much prestige in the title not too get it.

[Michael E Johnson]

--it is virtually certain that Powell would win the vast majority of the Black vote---


Based on what? There are some black voters that would vote for Powell because hes black ( the brother in the White House factor) but most (including myself) would not vote for him because hes a Republican and what that party has stood for and continues to stand for. If the GOP actually nominated a black person for president that would temper some of that history and as many blacks are social conservatives some may switch over-but not most. You see they would know that despite the president being black-many of the people and policies behind Powell in the GOP are decidedly anti-black-and that would prevent the majority of blacks form supporting him.

[Brilliantlight]

--it is virtually certain that Powell would win the vast majority of the Black vote---


Based on what? There are some black voters that would vote for Powell because hes black ( the brother in the Whte House factor) but most (including myself) would not vote for him because hes a Republican and what that party has stood for and continues to stand for. If the GOP actually nominated a black person for president that would temper some of that history and as many blacks are social conservatives some may switch over-but not most. You see they would know that despite the president being black-many of the people and policies behind Powell in the GOP are decidedly anti-black-and that would prevent the majority of blacks form supporting him.

Then you won't have a black president for a long, long time if ever. The only way a black man can win is as a Republican.

[Michael E Johnson]

--Then you won't have a black president for a long, long time if ever.--Exactly. Although it has to be said that's not a problem for many if not most people alive in the US at this point.

[Norman]

So long as the 'blackness of men like Colin Powel depends more on who they argree with, rather than the content of their character, we will not have a black president. Unfortunately, both sides of the political debate polorize the issue, trying to decide, as the republicans do "who is a good american", or as some black politicians "who is really a black man."

The fact is Colin Powel is a man that I would be proud to have as a president. No, he is not Jesse Jackson liberal, but he is a man of high ethical character and accomplishment.

My hope for a Black president is this: Bush gets thrown out on his ass, as he so well deserves, the Republicans spend some time in the 'wilderness', as they so well deserve, and at some future time (maybe in 4 or 8 years), a man like Colin Powel runs again.

It is unfortunate that we semm to support the labels and not the man.

[Dunash]

What exactly defines "black"? Powell is more dilute cafe-creme coloured; he speaks Yiddish & is rumoured to have some Jewish blood. Or is he actually what they call a "coconut" ie black on the outside, but white inside?! Is Michael Jackson considered "black"? Bill Clinton is as pale as they come, but the genetic test of him showed that he is 15" genetically negroe, like many "white" Americans.

[Michael E Johnson]

---What exactly defines "black"?---

In America? Broadly it's called the one drop rule. Any black ancestry (ie 1 drop of black blood)makes you black. In America its also about appearances-if you look black you are black. So while lighter-skinned blacks (like Powell) or mixed raced blacks are often considered " less threatening" :rolleyes: by whites-they are still black at the end of the day.

--- Or is he actually what they call a "coconut" ie black on the outside, but white inside?!---

I havent heard this one before-in the US its usually Oreos for blacks,coconuts for Hispanics,Bananas for Asians and Apples for Native Americans. Powell would be saddled with the Oreo distiction by many African Americans ( and whites) if he ran for president, I personally dont think thats fair in his case (it's debateable with Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes otoh) but thats reality here.

[David Howery]

IIRC, the polls back in 2000 showed Powell commanding a lot of support from across America, mainly because he is a moderate, like most Americans. I remember both parties were trying to get him to declare his party affiliation... but in the end, he said flat out he wasn't going to run. IIRC, the polls showed him as being ahead of all the other GOP candidates, although by a whisker...
As for the POD... no, Jackson would never be president in the times named. The 1980's were too late for a staunch liberal like him to be electable... much of the country had taken big steps towards the center, leaving the liberals much depleted in numbers. The 70's would have been a better climate for him, but I suppose he was too young then....

[Brilliantlight]

IIRC, the polls back in 2000 showed Powell commanding a lot of support from across America, mainly because he is a moderate, like most Americans. I remember both parties were trying to get him to declare his party affiliation... but in the end, he said flat out he wasn't going to run. IIRC, the polls showed him as being ahead of all the other GOP candidates, although by a whisker...
As for the POD... no, Jackson would never be president in the times named. The 1980's were too late for a staunch liberal like him to be electable... much of the country had taken big steps towards the center, leaving the liberals much depleted in numbers. The 70's would have been a better climate for him, but I suppose he was too young then....

Agreed, which shows that blacks have to start moving towards the center to get elected to state wide or nation wide offices. The blacks who have became governor had done just that.

[Van Owen]

How long do you think it would be before he was assassinated? I mean every racist redneck out there with a rifle (that would be most of them) would be gunning for him. I don't see him lasting to Inauguration Day.

[Brilliantlight]

How long do you think it would be before he was assassinated? I mean every racist redneck out there with a rifle (that would be most of them) would be gunning for him. I don't see him lasting to Inauguration Day.


Almost all of whom don't have a clue at how to get around the Secret Service.

[Grey Wolf]

---What exactly defines "black"?---

In America? Broadly it's called the one drop rule. Any black ancestry (ie 1 drop of black blood)makes you black. In America its also about appearances-if you look black you are black. So while lighter-skinned blacks (like Powell) or mixed raced blacks are often considered " less threatening" :rolleyes: by whites-they are still black at the end of the day.


I've always been intrigued by that, especially when it seems the British Empire did it the other way round - i.e. look at someone like Fisher (First Sea Lord) who plainly had Indian (?) blood if you looked at him, but whom in those times was considered white because he had white blood in him.

Of course, neither way is fair, its just how discriminatory cultures differed in their ways of looking at things

I guess another area is with regard to Jewishness, always far more of a minority in the UK than in the US it seems. Michael Howard's being of a Jewish background caught everyone by surprise, but after a moment's double-take nobody thought anything more of it. After all, we already had a Jewish Prime Minister (Disraeli), he just happened to be Christian

It does seem more likely that the UK would have a Jewish leader before the US did, after all we had a female one. The question is whether we would have a black one ? A blind one seems more likely...

Grey Wolf

[Derek Jackson]

Suppose Ford had won in 1976 and suffered the same economic problems as Carter in OTL. Might Jackson have won if he got nominated in 1980?

[Brilliantlight]

Suppose Ford had won in 1976 and suffered the same economic problems as Carter in OTL. Might Jackson have won if he got nominated in 1980?

Probably not, even in that case I think Jackson would be still way too far to the left of most Americans.

[re2005]

Mr. johnson, where are you getting the ideas about how 'whites' view 'blacks'? From my observations, you think whats keeping J. Jackson from the Dem. nomination is his blackness,, come on, you can't really believe that nonsense.
next- why does Bush deserve to be kicked out on his ass? An easy statement to make, but, how about a little background, please be specific. ditto for the Rep. party.
Perhaps you are correct. Maybe, as that little twit said to Bill(may he be arrested and shot for treason)Clinton, we are all just children of the state that look upon the government as our parents, waiting for them to take care of us. What a sad day for America.
Then, again, what can be said for a president that used intel information, used only the parts that fit his views, presented that limited info to an ignorant, lazy population, unwilling to actually find credible information on their own, even though said info was freely available in open sources; just so he could attack a soveriegn country(which had never threatened and could not threaten the USA), with a legitimate government, and destroy it's infrastructure, simply because he did not like that country's leadership? Then tell us that the war wouldn't last too long(yet, US forces still remain there).

[Michael E Johnson]

---Mr. johnson, where are you getting the ideas about how 'whites' view 'blacks'?---- American history

---From my observations, you think whats keeping J. Jackson from the Dem. nomination is his blackness,, come on, you can't really believe that nonsense---

Its not the only reason,but its a primary reason-as it is for Colin Powell.

[Brilliantlight]

---Mr. johnson, where are you getting the ideas about how 'whites' view 'blacks'?---- American history

---From my observations, you think whats keeping J. Jackson from the Dem. nomination is his blackness,, come on, you can't really believe that nonsense---

Its not the only reason,but its a primary reason-as it is for Colin Powell.


Powell would have a good shot IMO. Jesse Jackson is too far to the left for the US public. If he were white he still wouldn't make it. The White equivilent would be Ted Kennedy who wins in Mass but probably wouldn't win anywhere else.

[David Howery]

it wasn't the economic problems that sunk Carter (although they didn't help) and shift the country away from liberalism so much as it was foreign problems (Afghanistan, Iran). Even if Ford had been elected and had to deal with them, it's doubtful the US would have turned liberal in response to overseas problems... thus, Jackson still has little chance to win the nomination. His only real shot is for the US to have no significant problems overseas after the Vietnam debacle ended. What with Vietnam, Nixon, etc, if the US hadn't had to deal with foreign threats, the US might have turned to liberalism across the board. Even so, someone as radical as Jackson would still have an uphill fight. Still, it's his best shot....
Powell again... didn't we discuss him on another thread and note that in 2000, he was leading the rest in the polls? The only thing holding him back from winning the nomination was that he decided not to run....

[re2005]

while wondering what america MEJ lives in...anti-black policies? please explain to the less enlightened. this isn't the past, this isn't history. this is now. JJ will not get elected for the same reason Kucinich won't ever get elected, but that probably has nothing to do with his politics, its because he isn't white,, uh, uhm, wait no, its because he isn't uh, anglo, yeah thats the ticket.

[Van Owen]

Almost all of whom don't have a clue at how to get around the Secret Service.

When was the last time they actually prevented someone from shooting/assassinating a president?

[MerryPrankster]

The Secret Service did foil two (I think) attempts on Gerald Ford, plus they did save Reagan when Hinckley shot him. There were failed attempts on Bush and Clinton.

[Michael E Johnson]

----while wondering what america MEJ lives in...anti-black policies? please explain to the less enlightened. this isn't the past, this isn't history. this is now.-----


The America that I live is filled with millions of people who were defending Jim Crow only 40 years ago. Its also filled with their cute little descendants. We thankfully no longer live in a country where its usually acceptable to express racist feelings in public,but that doesnt mean that people still dont have such views in private.So in other words-while a candidate's political views certainly matter as to wether or not people will vote for them-in the real United States that I live in race would matter as well. Just as gender would if a woman was nominated. Racism has gone underground because of governmental support through things like civil rights laws,voting laws and affirmative action. Some white hearts and minds have changed,but not all. I'm sure that being an African-American helps me see that America that I live in more clearly but some of my white friends are capable of seeing it as well-I know what you are thinking-they must be liberal. :eek:

[Ian the Admin]

Oh, come on about Colin Powell. He won't get the Republican nomination simply because he is too centrist. Centrist candidates may be the most electable but they have a hard time winning Republican primaries. I mean, look at the current administration. It's fairly clear that while Powell is willing to shill for them in public, behind the scenes he's definitely more moderate than Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. Those sort of guys never would have supported him in a primary. The Republicans tend to favor presidential candidates who are popular and acceptable to the public, but who are willing to take their cues from the party leadership as far as actual policy goes.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

What exactly defines "black"? Powell is more dilute cafe-creme coloured; he speaks Yiddish & is rumoured to have some Jewish blood. Or is he actually what they call a "coconut" ie black on the outside, but white inside?! Is Michael Jackson considered "black"? Bill Clinton is as pale as they come, but the genetic test of him showed that he is 15" genetically negroe, like many "white" Americans.

I can only assume you were trying to be as offensive as possible with this post.

[Scott Rosenthal]

Ian, from your postings, it seems clear to me that you are somewhat (more than somewhat?) to the left...fine, your privilege of course. But I can tell you from the point of view of most in the GOP (OK, I haven't polled them ALL yet...grin...) Colin Powell, whatever his other virtues, is no moderate. The classice description used here is RINO (Republican in Name Only), as the man supports Reverse Discrimination, most of the more traditional welfare policies, abortion, gun control, etc. Now, these are perfectly acceptable positions (I myself support several of them...), but unless you define 'moderate' as the Democratic party, and everything else as conservative, he isn't a moderate. Most of those I know who would support Condi Rice, for instance (or JC Watts for that matter) find Powell unacceptable, and did so in 2000, during his last attempt at Hamlet...

Regarding 'anti-black' policies, most blacks (when polled) opposed reverse discrimination, favor school choice, and oppose gun control, and tend to be far further to the right on abortion than the population as a whole. Younger blacks embrace entrepenaurialism far more readily than the population as a whole in most (not all) opinion surveys, and support for traditional racialists such as Jackson and Sharpton has declined precipitously among blacks in the last 10 years. This suggests to me that either the characterization of many of the GOPs policies (about which reasonable people can certainly disagree) as 'anti-black' is nothing more than mau-mauing in an attempt to stifle serious discussion...

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The America that I live is filled with millions of people who were defending Jim Crow only 40 years ago. Its also filled with their cute little descendants.

Hmm. Nice contempt for all things white. You might trouble yourself to womder why blacks have any rights at all. Since whites held all power, why give it up to blacks when they didn't have to? Because a vast majority chose to because they believed it was right. You can continue to judge all whites by the way the most awful people behave, but that makes YOU the racist.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Ian, from your postings, it seems clear to me that you are somewhat (more than somewhat?) to the left...fine, your privilege of course. But I can tell you from the point of view of most in the GOP (OK, I haven't polled them ALL yet...grin...) Colin Powell, whatever his other virtues, is no moderate. The classice description used here is RINO (Republican in Name Only), as the man supports Reverse Discrimination, most of the more traditional welfare policies, abortion, gun control, etc. Now, these are perfectly acceptable positions (I myself support several of them...), but unless you define 'moderate' as the Democratic party, and everything else as conservative, he isn't a moderate. Most of those I know who would support Condi Rice, for instance (or JC Watts for that matter) find Powell unacceptable, and did so in 2000, during his last attempt at Hamlet...

Regarding 'anti-black' policies, most blacks (when polled) opposed reverse discrimination, favor school choice, and oppose gun control, and tend to be far further to the right on abortion than the population as a whole. Younger blacks embrace entrepenaurialism far more readily than the population as a whole in most (not all) opinion surveys, and support for traditional racialists such as Jackson and Sharpton has declined precipitously among blacks in the last 10 years. This suggests to me that either the characterization of many of the GOPs policies (about which reasonable people can certainly disagree) as 'anti-black' is nothing more than mau-mauing in an attempt to stifle serious discussion...

I doubt that Powell will ever get anywhere in the future if only because he has been so insubstantial in this administration. Maybe a black woman would have a better chance? Much of the racial stigma is actually more attached to black men than black women.

How about a black handicapped lesbian jewish midget?

[Scott Rosenthal]

I should point out that several blacks with serious presidential potential exist wtihin the GOP, not just Condi Rice. Aside from sideshow tokens like Jackson and Sharpton...just who are their counterparts in the Democratic party?

Makes you wonder a bit about just which party is racist....

[wkwillis]

1. 1979. Carter doesn't intervene against the Iranian revolution and publically goes out in support of freedom and democracy. Iran doesn't get grabbed by the Mullahs and raise the price of oil to the point that we have a depression. Carter gets reelected and continues research on energy.
2. 1984. Mondale runs after Carter's two terms are over and picks Jackson as his running mate. With no depression, he is elected. We continue research on energy. Mondale cuts the military budget after Carter's post Afghanistan increase from OTL. Russia 'wins' in Afghanistan.
3. 1988. Mondale runs again and wins with no depression and no war. Russia collapses even sooner without Reagan to make them nervous. Mondale gets his victory tour through the Berlin wall at Checkpoint Charlie. Energy is cheaper by a little.
4. 1992. Jackson is the Democratic candidate. The Democrats are getting too comfortable in the White House and the government unions are getting as fat as the defense contractors did in the Republican regime. Jackson picks a female vice president. They win again because energy gets even lower.
5. 1996. The Republicans finally win one as the Democrats get too comfortable in office and rake in too much graft. The female vice president starts positioning herself for the next election, which she will probably lose because she is identified with the graft of the twenty year Democratic regime.

[David Howery]

WK> I have a hard time seeing that first one... no matter what the US does or doesn't do, the Iranian revolution is going to turn Iran into an Islamic radical state. Also, US opinion was pretty solidly in favor of the Afghan resistance... if the US president didn't support them, wouldn't his political foes thrash him over and over with that.. especially if Russia wins? I don't see how no Reagan would affect the fall of the communist states; why would it be sooner rather than later, especially as the USSR just got a big boost from winning the war in Afghanistan?

[wkwillis]

WK> I have a hard time seeing that first one... no matter what the US does or doesn't do, the Iranian revolution is going to turn Iran into an Islamic radical state. Also, US opinion was pretty solidly in favor of the Afghan resistance... if the US president didn't support them, wouldn't his political foes thrash him over and over with that.. especially if Russia wins? I don't see how no Reagan would affect the fall of the communist states; why would it be sooner rather than later, especially as the USSR just got a big boost from winning the war in Afghanistan?

1. It's news to me that Iran was going to go Islamic if we did not attack them. I thought they went Islamic because we did attack them, and stole all the rest of their money they had deposited in American banks that the Shah hadn't already stolen, in order to punish them for overthrowing the Shah. At least, the Iranians I've talked to said so. But then they were security guards like me, so what did they know?

2. It's easy to 'win' a war in Afghanistan. We just did. You pay off people not to blow you up, like we did last year. This is a 'boost' to the Union of the Councils of the Socialist Republics? When Charlie Wilson managed to push Reagan into supporting the Afghan resistance against his better judgement (or at least, the better judgement of his advisors), all it did was prolong the war and enable the ISI to hijack the resistance and overthrow the government after they had pushed the Soviets out. Probably Reagan knew how badly arming the Contras was turning out and that's why he didn't want to sell air to air missiles to the Afghans until he was forced too, to avoid appearing soft on the Soviets.
But why is this some kind of victory for the Soviets? God knows it's not doing anything for us!

3. The Russians I've talked to said that the Government fell because nobody supported it, not even the people in charge of the government. They all wanted to use their positions to loot everything and that's all. Again, this is a strictly nonrandom group of immigrants working as security guards. They are not necessarily typical. Any Russians on this board who want to comment?

[Brilliantlight]

1. It's news to me that Iran was going to go Islamic if we did not attack them. I thought they went Islamic because we did attack them, and stole all the rest of their money they had deposited in American banks that the Shah hadn't already stolen, in order to punish them for overthrowing the Shah. At least, the Iranians I've talked to said so. But then they were security guards like me, so what did they know?

2. It's easy to 'win' a war in Afghanistan. We just did. You pay off people not to blow you up, like we did last year. This is a 'boost' to the Union of the Councils of the Socialist Republics? When Charlie Wilson managed to push Reagan into supporting the Afghan resistance against his better judgement (or at least, the better judgement of his advisors), all it did was prolong the war and enable the ISI to hijack the resistance and overthrow the government after they had pushed the Soviets out. Probably Reagan knew how badly arming the Contras was turning out and that's why he didn't want to sell air to air missiles to the Afghans until he was forced too, to avoid appearing soft on the Soviets.
But why is this some kind of victory for the Soviets? God knows it's not doing anything for us!

3. The Russians I've talked to said that the Government fell because nobody supported it, not even the people in charge of the government. They all wanted to use their positions to loot everything and that's all. Again, this is a strictly nonrandom group of immigrants working as security guards. They are not necessarily typical. Any Russians on this board who want to comment?


As far as no one supporting the government in an active way it was largely correct by the mid 70s- early 80s at the latest. However large societies run largely on inertia. It is isn't the lack of support for the government that causes regimes to fall but the active resistance to the regime. IOW if most of the population doesn't support the government but are also unwilling to do anything to overthrow it the government stays in power. What Reagan almost certainly accomplished is speeding up the fall of the Soviet government by forcing it to spend money it didn't have to keep the military from falling further and further behind the US. To put it bluntly, even at the USSR's height it had maybe a fouth the US GDP, at most. The CIA estimates at the time were overstated for political reasons.

[David Howery]

when the hell did we attack Iran?! Khomeini got in mainly because Carter let him.... for all the good that did us. Carter did nothing to keep the Shah in power, but that made no difference to the Iranians. If you want to have Iran less hateful towards us, you have to go back way before Carter... clear back to the 50's or so, and have the US do nothing to support the Shah, essentially staying clear of the whole mess. The Shah did loot a lot of public money from Iran and deposit it in the US, but that was when the revolution was already in full swing... the revolution didn't start because of it...
Again, just why would the USSR fall sooner than it did? I'm not following why the US's actions (confrontational or not) would bring them down earlier than in OTL....

[MerryPrankster]

WK,

Why is it that WE are always bothering/scaring the USSR? Has it ever occurred to you that they did lots of blame-worthy stuff to scare/bother US?

A Russian girl I knew from high school nearly started crying talking about how evil Communism is; that supports your thesis that nobody in Russia supported the regime, not even the leaders (they got their special lanes on the highways--my Dad has a book called "Klass" about the nomenklatura).

On the matter of Iran, you're correct that the Shah was cruel and oppressive. However, the reason the ulama, the Islamic leadership (led by Khomeini) opposed him is NOT b/c of the SAVAK and other tools of oppression (Khomeini kept the SAVAK around after killing some to make a point of who's in charge). Khomeini and his friends opposed the Shah b/c he allowed women to vote, didn't ban Western films, and took their land away to distribute to the peasants.

Bakhtiar, who did a Kerensky between the Shah's flight and Khomeini's return, is far more worthy of idolization than Khomeini and his mafia.

On the matter of the 1950s, where would Iran go if Mossadegh stayed in power? He was beginning to pull a "Caesar" (popular leader accumulates too much personal power and violates country's laws), but he didn't stay in charge long enough to do much in the way of large-scale repression (like the Shah did)--the worst he did was machine-gun some Tudeh Party demonstrators.

[Michael E Johnson]

----Hmm. Nice contempt for all things white. You might trouble yourself to womder why blacks have any rights at all. ---


First of all I have contempt for all things racist. If we are talking about numbers- historically and currently that vast majority of racists are white. So if saying I have contempt for all white racists is the same as saying I have contempt for "all things white" are you saying that all whites are racist? I didnt.


---Since whites held all power, why give it up to blacks when they didn't have to? ---

It wasnt given up willingly They were made to do it by a combination of forces-The civil rights movement,sentimential liberal governmental officals and judges-most white, white people of good will and international opinion.

[Michael E Johnson]

---Maybe a black woman would have a better chance? Much of the racial stigma is actually more attached to black men than black women.
-----

Fascinating. Why is this? I assume you mean "racial stigma" from white people? I'd love to hear what this is based on-cant be American history I guess.

[Michael E Johnson]

---Regarding 'anti-black' policies, most blacks (when polled) opposed reverse discrimination, -----

Casting 40 years of affirmative action on the same moral plane as 100 years of Jim Crow and segregation and 300 years of slavery before that is cynical and offensive. Plus I'd love to see those poll numbers that show most African-American oppose it. Did you mean most Republican African-Americans? That I could believe.



---This suggests to me that either the characterization of many of the GOPs policies (about which reasonable people can certainly disagree) as 'anti-black' is nothing more than mau-mauing in an attempt to stifle serious discussion...---


There isnt any doubt that alot of African-Americans have socially conservative views. Yet they continue to stay out of the GOP. Some people like to pretend that this is due to the black civil rights leadership fooling those poor gullible black voters. Actually its because those black voters are skeptical of the people in the GOP and their motives and polices over the ENTIRE 40 years since the GOP sided with those opposing Civil Rights.Not addresing that fact ,which many Republicans are loate to do,is what stifles serious debate on this issue.

[Michael E Johnson]

--- I should point out that several blacks with serious presidential potential exist wtihin the GOP, not just Condi Rice. Aside from sideshow tokens like Jackson and Sharpton...just who are their counterparts in the Democratic party? Makes you wonder a bit about just which party is racist....----


Tokensim is what the GOP has done-appointing a few black faces to key positions-and hauling them out whenever the question arises why the vast majority of the black electorate votes Democratic or why there are next to no ( currently ZERO) black Republicans in Congress. Frustration with being used as a token by the GOP leadership is reportedly 1 reason why JC Watts didnt run again.Once again we seem to need a historial reminder why blacks currently support Democrats in mass, one answer is posted below-no its not black gullibilty :o



GOP 'party of inclusion?' Not to many blacks

By Russell Benjamin



In the past few weeks, the Republican Party has tried to "reach out" to black Americans.

It condemned Trent Lott for his support of Strom Thurmond, who once ran for president on a platform supporting racial segregation. George W. Bush appeared at a black church on Martin Luther King Day. And the Republicans announced a new black outreach campaign.

But the fact remains that most blacks detest the Republican Party. In fact, they often call the few black Republicans in America "sellouts" or "traitors."

So why do black people have such a negative opinion of the Republican Party? The short answer is that most blacks see the Republican Party as the party of white bigotry.

This has not always been the case.

In fact, the party was once seen as the party of freedom. When the Republican Party started, it was against slavery. On the other hand, the Democratic Party called itself the "white man's party."

It was the Republican Party that freed blacks from the shackles of slavery. The party also passed civil rights laws, gave black men voting rights, and went after the Ku Klux Klan when it tried to terrorize the newly-freed blacks. And virtually all black Americans were Republicans.

So what happened?

Beginning in the presidential election of 1876, the Republicans began to stop supporting African Americans. In that election, neither of the two candidates had enough Electoral College votes to win the election. So Republican Rutherford B. Hayes made a deal with white Democrats in the South. He said if they gave their Electoral College votes to him, then white southerners could treat blacks "as you see fit."

Hayes got enough votes to become president. He then ended Reconstruction, the Republican program that had guaranteed blacks political power and civil rights. This was just what white Democrats in the South had wanted.

They began to take away the rights of African Americans. Segregation was imposed on blacks by a system known as Jim Crow. Most blacks in the South also lost the right to vote or serve on juries. All of this was backed up by lynching. And the Republican Party did nothing to stop any of this.

But most blacks continued to support the Republicans until the 1930s. This is because the Democrats made it clear that they were against blacks. So blacks chose the lesser of two evils.

In the 1930s, Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt gave many blacks jobs through his New Deal Program. Roosevelt's wife, Eleanor, also made many public appearances with black leaders such as Mary McCleod Bethune.

Over the next 30 years, the Democrats began to increase its support of blacks. And the Republicans became more and more hostile to blacks.

What happened in 1964 was a major turning point.

During that year, Nelson Rockefeller and Barry Goldwater were running for the Republican nomination for president. Rockefeller was supported by most black Republicans. But he lost the nomination to Goldwater, who was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And some Goldwater supporters attacked the blacks who were at the Republican Party convention.

Also in 1964, many white Southerners turned against the Democratic Party. The former "white man's party" had passed the Civil Rights Act. That was too much for many Democrats in that part of the country. Southern Democratic politicians like Strom Thurmond became Republicans. White southerners supported Goldwater in the presidential election.

And they have supported the Republicans in almost every presidential election since then. They have been joined by white Democrats in other parts of the country who felt blacks were getting their rights "too fast."

Since 1964, the Republican Party has supported many issues most blacks see as racist. For example, the party supports efforts to get rid of affirmative action. And most of the party's leaders have been silent on the issue of the Confederate flag flying over the state capitol in South Carolina.

On top of all that, the party has given a home to former white Democrats who have publicly opposed civil rights laws. Former Senators Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms are two examples.

The Republican Party likes to say that it is a "party of inclusion." If it means that, it will change the types of issues it supports. The Democratic Party went from being the "white man's party" to the party which brought about the civil rights that black Americans now enjoy. And until the Republican Party does the same, blacks are not likely to become Republicans.

[Brilliantlight]

----Hmm. Nice contempt for all things white. You might trouble yourself to womder why blacks have any rights at all. ---


First of all I have contempt for all things racist. If we are talking about numbers- historically and currently that vast majority of racists are white. So if saying I have contempt for all white racists is the same as saying I have contempt for "all things white" are you saying that all whites are racist? I didnt.


---Since whites held all power, why give it up to blacks when they didn't have to? ---

It wasnt given up willingly They were made to do it by a combination of forces-The civil rights movement,sentimential liberal governmental officals and judges-most white, white people of good will and international opinion.


IMO WWII was the begining of the end of institutional racism and the mid to late 1960s the begining of the end of the majority of the US popultation being racist. I am not saying that there are no racists left in the US but I am saying that the majority are not. There are also Black racists, Asian racists and Hispanic racists. Racism is racism and I think that no sin of man is not present in any large group of people such as an ethnic group.

[Michael E Johnson]

---IMO WWII was the begining of the end of institutional racism and the mid to late 1960s the begining of the end of the majority of the US popultation being racist. I am not saying that there are no racists left in the US but I am saying that the majority are not. There are also Black racists, Asian racists and Hispanic racists. Racism is racism and I think that no sin of man is not present in any large group of people such as an ethnic group.----

None of this can be denied. However It has to be noted that white racism in the United States was always backed up with power and in the South government policy under Jim Crow . While there are certainly black,Asian and Hispanic racists it cant be honestly argued that their racism has collectively harmed the the lives of white people in the US in the same degree or frequency that white racism has harmed non-whites. Doing that belittles and denies the real history of racism in the United States

[Brilliantlight]

---IMO WWII was the begining of the end of institutional racism and the mid to late 1960s the begining of the end of the majority of the US popultation being racist. I am not saying that there are no racists left in the US but I am saying that the majority are not. There are also Black racists, Asian racists and Hispanic racists. Racism is racism and I think that no sin of man is not present in any large group of people such as an ethnic group.----

None of this can be denied. However It has to be noted that white racism in the United States was always backed up with power and in the South government policy under Jim Crow . While there are certainly black,Asian and Hispanic racists it cant be honestly argued that their racism has collectively harmed the the lives of white people in the US in the same degree or frequency that white racism has harmed non-whites. Doing that belittles and denies the real history of racism in the United States


True, but it was mostly because of ability not intent. If Blacks would have had the majority of the population and power they would have probably formed something simular to Jim Crow in reverse. People are people and most people want someone to look down on. It is sad but true. A lot of the reason Jim Crow was sucessful is that enabled poor whites to look down on Blacks.

[zoomar]

"Tokensim is what the GOP has done-appointing a few black faces to key positions-and hauling them out whenever the question arises why the vast majority of the black electorate votes Democratic or why there are next to no ( currently ZERO) black Republicans in Congress. Frustration with being used as a token by the GOP leadership is reportedly 1 reason why JC Watts didnt run again."

Michael, I think I am the source of your comment about JC Watts, and I believe you are rights. But there is no way Condi Rice has her position due to tokenism. She's an accomplished academic and, given her views, would have been an advisor to the Bushies regardless of her color. Hay, How about the Republicans having the first black and female president?

[Scott Rosenthal]

Michael, you really need to try reading more than one or two screeds... I suspect you could do better if you tried...

Regarding black support for conservative positions and not the GOP, we are in some agreement that the GOP has created its own problems in part due to its failure to support the civil rights movement during the 1950s and 1960s. I mentioned this in one of my earlier posts, and believe that you would endorse this argument. As far as blacks finding GOP policies post-1970 or so objectionable, please show me the public opinion polling to support this? Gallup tracking data supports my argument, where is yours?

As for reverse discrimination, if it is wrong (as we would both agree) to discriminate on the basis of skin color (Dr King's famous quote is such a truism I don't believe you need it to be repeated) when the victims of such discrimination are blacks, how can it EVER be right to do it when the beneficiaries are black? Even the recent Michigan cases fell upon Sandra Day O'Connor's acknowlegement that the discrimination was wrong, but 'necessary for the time being'. If it is wrong, it is wrong...you cannot make it right just out of some twisted notion of redistributive justice...or dare I suggest, revenge? On that basis, it is a moral equivilency of Jim Crow (your outrage of the week I suspect...the book most have been VERY persuasive...)..

Regarding tokenism, the GOP has no black congressman, this is true, but this is in part due to the way that redistricting on both sides has worked to segregate each party. I might point out that however, that many black conservatives have risen through academe, business, publishing, and of course, the military, and these are the wellsprings from which many of the GOP leaders have risen. JC Watts might indeed be unhappy about his treatment by some of the leaders of the party (in point of fact, I believe that he was poorly treated, largely a result of the party's disinclination to focus on ANYONE black or otherwise, who hasn't 'done his time'...this is how we got Bob Dole...), but he can hardly claim that he hasn't gotten a chance to shine. Please show me any black (man or woman) Democrat who has risen above the level of token or rabblerouser (Maxine Waters comes most readily to mind). Powell and Rice are two of the most powerful people in the country, one can easily identify at least a dozen one layer below that. Against that opportunity, Democrats offer .... what?....

You may have the last word if you wish, this conversation is over

[Leo Caesius]

When the hell did we attack Iran?! Khomeini got in mainly because Carter let him.... for all the good that did us.

Actually, I've heard that we had the Ayatollah's plane in our sights, but Peter Jennings was aboard, and we opted not to shoot the plane down for Jennings' sake. This may be an urban legend, but it is true that Jennings was aboard that flight, among other journalists; he was the first "American" journalist to interview Khomeini, and accompanied him to Teheran.

An interesting ATL might involve the US shooting down that plane, thus preventing the Ayatollah from leading the Islamic Revolution but enraging the rest of the world, particularly Canada (Jennings being a Canadian, after all).

[Michael E Johnson]

---Michael, you really need to try reading more than one or two screeds... I suspect you could do better if you tried---


When I want screeds I come here. The book I recently read about Jim Crow is historical fact-despite the fact that those facts seem to be uncomfortable for some.




---Please show me any black (man or woman) Democrat who has risen above the level of token or rabblerouser (Maxine Waters comes most readily to mind). Powell and Rice are two of the most powerful people in the country, one can easily identify at least a dozen one layer below that. Against that opportunity, Democrats offer .... what?....-----



"Among the 9,040 black elected officials counted in the Joint Center’s Roster of Black Elected Officials, 50 are Republican and more than 3,700 are Democrats. A Joint Center spokeswoman said the others were elected in nonpartisan races, so the liberal-conservative disparity could be lesser or greater. "

Powerful or famous tokens are still tokens.If tokenism is also measured by sheer numbers of black Republicans and the amount of support of the GOP in the black community -The GOP wins hands down.There are are black Democratic elected officals all over this country and they are neither tokens or rabblerousers . They offer important support and leadership for the Democratic Party and the black electorate as a whole. In order to win elections there needs to statewide and nationwide support. Powell and Rice are both appointees-I'd like to see either of them them win a nationwide election with significant black support. Why?


""Still, Democrats and some analysts said it’s unlikely that Republicans can persuade African-Americans to vote for President Bush and other conservatives this year.

“The Republican Party’s problem with African-Americans is that its leadership is mainly made up of white men from the South,” said David Bositis, a researcher for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies here, a liberal African-American think tank. “The black community has no trust in them.”

Over the past 40 years, black voters have been wedded to the Democratic Party, whose leaders embraced the civil rights movement against southern segregation. The defection of southern whites from the Democratic Party helped transform the GOP.

But now, Republicans are echoing black Democrats such as strategist Donna Brazile and presidential aspirant Al Sharpton, who say their party has taken black voters’ allegiance for granted. An RNC spokeswoman cited recent quotes from Sharpton, Brazile and others to make their case.

Nevertheless, no black critic of the Democratic Party has advocated switching to the Republican Party. Ron Walters, a University of Maryland political scientist who has written on conservative public policy and the black community, said black and white conservatives have no presence, and almost no respect, in the black community""


BTW the quotes are from the article Winning black voters tops GOP agenda

TV, radio ads to focus on programs attractive to African-Americans.

By Darryl Fears / Washington Post


Surely conservative newpapers arent screeds are they? Conversation is over on my end as well -just saw a couple of things that had to be answered.

[David Howery]

Leo> I think that's an urban legend. I don't have all the facts at hand, but from what I remember reading, Carter sought info about Khomeini, talked to some of his people, and came to the conclusion that he could take over Iran without causing any distress to the US. Carter basically told the Shah that his position was untenable and that the US wasn't going to intervene to keep him in power. Shah out, Khomeini in. Oops.

[DominusNovus]

Mike, is Clarence Thomas a token?

[Michael E Johnson]

---Surely conservative newpapers arent screeds are they--- Oops My Bad Calling the Washington Post a conservative paper-I was thinking Washington Times. :o I guess we have a liberal paper talking about the GOP then-it must be a screed. :rolleyes:

[Michael E Johnson]

---Mike, is Clarence Thomas a token?----

Hmmmmmmmm . He is one of the only conservative Republican black jurists in America who Bush Sr appointed to replace the only black justice on the court- Thurgood Marshall. Was his appointment by Bush tokenism-most likely. Is he himself a token-only he can answer that-but based on what I have read about him over the years it probably doesnt cross his mind that the GOP would use him that way-if it does I'm sure he doesnt care.

[Melvin Loh]

Just speculating for the future, how about some other high-ranking black officer currently in the US armed forces having political aspirations after his service and following in Powell's footsteps to a greater extent ? Say somebody like Brig-Gen Vincent Brooks (USCENTCOM spokesman during the Iraq War), Remo Butler (highest-ranking black man in SOCOM and former SF head in SOUTHCOM), or Maj-Gen Larry Ellis (former cdr of SFOR in Bosnia 1997-98, then head of TRADOC) ?