This day in political history (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

We've had several discussions lately about how divided we are as a nation, and how we can reconcile those divisions. It occurred to me that one way to do it is to remember our shared history. So I am devoting this thread to noting and discussing the great political events on the anniversary of their occurrences. I can think of no better date to start this than on December 7, which of course was the date in 1941 that we were attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan. 

On December 7, 1991, the 50th anniversary of the attack, President George H. W. Bush gave a speech at Pearl Harbor. Bush is not known in history to be one of our better speakers, but he was clearly moved by the solemnness of the occasion to give what most people believe was the greatest speech of his career (and one of the greatest speeches in the last several decades.) It was written by Peggy Noonan. Here is the concluding passage: 

This unity of purpose continues to inspire us in the cause of peace among nations. In their own way, amidst the bedlam and the anguish of that awful day, the men of Pearl Harbor served that noble cause, honored it. They knew the things worth living for but also worth dying for: Principle, decency, fidelity, honor.

And so, look behind you at battleship row — behind me, the gun turret still visible, and the flag flying proudly from a truly blessed shrine.

Look into your hearts and minds: You will see boys who this day became men and men who became heroes.

Look at the water here, clear and quiet, bidding us to sum up and remember. One day, in what now seems another lifetime, it wrapped its arms around the finest sons any nation could ever have, and it carried them to a better world.

For the full speech, check here: 

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/flashback-george-h-w-bushs-timeless-remarks-on-50th-anniversary-of-pearl-harbor/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This unity of purpose continues to inspire us in the cause of peace among nations. In their own way, amidst the bedlam and the anguish of that awful day, the men of Pearl Harbor served that noble cause, honored it. They knew the things worth living for but also worth dying for: Principle, decency, fidelity, honor.

Words of decency and higher purpose, needed now more than ever.

 

[rockaction]

It's a day to remember the fallen and what that action meant, but I can't help but think that Noonan and Bush's speech is anticipatory of war criticism coming for Operation: Desert Storm. Noonan, knowing how exactly far we'd been removed from the ultimate sacrifice for country or political ideology, sought fit to place that there. 

Yep, distinctly used for a reason.

But we’ve never stood alone. Beside us stood nations committed to democracy and free markets and free expression and freedom of worship, nations that include our former enemies, Germany, Italy, and Japan. This year these same nations stood with us against aggression in the Persian Gulf.

You know, the war in the Gulf was so different: different enemy, different circumstances, the outcome never in doubt. It was short; thank God our casualties mercifully few. But I ask you veterans of Pearl Harbor and all Americans who remember the unity of purpose that followed that momentous December day 50 years ago: Didn’t we see that same strength of national spirit when we launched Desert Storm?

The answer is a resounding “yes.” Once the war for Kuwait began, we pulled together. We were united, determined, and we were confident. And when it was over, we rejoiced in exactly the same way that we did in 1945 — heads high, proud, and grateful. And what a feeling. Fifty years had passed, but, let me tell you, the American spirit is as young and fresh as ever.

All this aside, I wonder if extremes or just sedentary types of both the left and the right could ever summon what was required to win WWII, or the political will to have a terrifyingly popular war like Desert Storm. It seems we are too fractured these days to hope for the unity longed for in this speech.

I'd personally argue, policy-wise, the decision to promise to help the Kurds and then leaving Saddam Hussein in power was one of the worst foreign policy decisions of my lifetime, on the grandest of stages metering out the gravest of consequences, and I've never forgotten nor forgiven Bush I or Powell. 

 

[rockaction]

Words of decency and higher purpose, needed now more than ever.

I don't want to pooh-pooh this, but they're declarative and conclusory statements about the first Iraq War (note how we have to say that there had to be two) that reek of similar sentiments about unity and inclusiveness after 9/11 that allowed for little debate about our role in the world and the actual policy goals. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't want to pooh-pooh this, but they're declarative and conclusory statements about the first Iraq War (note how we have to say that there had to be two) that reek of similar sentiments about unity and inclusiveness after 9/11 that allowed for little debate about our role in the world and the actual policy goals. 

Hm, well my friend it was at Pearl - it easily stands alone as a statement about American historical purpose.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

the decision to promise to help the Kurds and then leaving Saddam Hussein

I mean if we’re extrapolating we just did this again in even far more damning fashion, which seemed unimaginable until now.

 

[rockaction]

Hm, well my friend it was at Pearl - it easily stands alone as a statement about American historical purpose.

You won't get me arguing against a certain degree of American exceptionalism, nor its necessary and good role in the world militarily, but on this occasion, with these actors, I can only find it a bit cynical.

You have to understand that this is not in any way related to current politics. Bush I and Noonan were specific political entities at a particular time, two people and a White House that I thought didn't and don't think really belong at the fore of any conservative movement. 

 

[rockaction]

I mean if we’re extrapolating we just did this again in even far more damning fashion, which seemed unimaginable until now.

I'm completely keeping this away from the current situation and concentrating on that which I know or am even remotely learned about. I don't follow the day-to-day of this White House as I neither trust anyone in the White House, nor do I trust the media reportage and the other actors flinging around impeachment like t-shirts at a ball game. 

We pretty much posted at the same time while I was saying that this had nothing to do with with "current politics."

 

[rockaction]

For all of the talk of God and sacrifice, we certainly left evil in charge.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You won't get me arguing against a certain degree of American exceptionalism, nor its necessary and good role in the world militarily, but on this occasion, with these actors, I can only find it a bit cynical.

You have to understand that this is not in any way related to current politics. Bush I and Noonan were specific political entities at a particular time, two people and a White House that I thought didn't and don't think really belong at the fore of any conservative movement. 

It’s a good POV, I just think it belongs outside the Pearl Harbor context. Honoring our dead there at their grave and what we accomplished afterwards was undeniably representative of an idealistic age. What we did afterwards maybe would be better raised in another example. Is there really an America where we don’t have that speech at Pearl?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm completely keeping this away from the current situation and concentrating on that which I know or am even remotely learned about. I don't follow the day-to-day of this White House as I neither trust anyone in the White House, nor do I trust the media reportage and the other actors flinging around impeachment like t-shirts at a ball game. 

We pretty much posted at the same time while I was saying that this had nothing to do with with "current politics."

Check &  .

 

[timschochet]

@rockaction I get your point but I disagree that Bush and Noonan were trying to use the speech to justify Desert Storm. Obviously Bush referenced it but I don’t believe he focused too much on it. He certainly did that in lots of other speeches at the time. Desert Storm was an incredibly popular action and it wasn’t really criticized the way the later invasion of Iraq was. 

The one thing that I can’t capture from just posting the text was the emotion in Bush’s voice when he read that speech. This wasn’t just another noteworthy event for him to comment on, this was a major moment for Bush as President, as a veteran, as an American. His voice broke several times; he meant every word. Later I heard Noonan say she wept when she wrote it and I believed her. 

There ARE some lines in that speech pertinent to today: when Bush argues that Pearl Harbor proved that isolationism is forever a failed policy, and that the United States has a role in the world. Those are important principles to remember IMO. 

 

[rockaction]

It’s a good POV, I just think it belongs outside the Pearl Harbor context. Honoring our dead there at their grave and what we accomplished afterwards was undeniably representative of an idealistic age. What we did afterwards maybe would be better raised in another example. Is there really an America where we don’t have that speech at Pearl?

Outside the Pearl Harbor context is difficult for so many reasons, and I don't really want to muck up a feel-good thread, but the '90s situation's use of foreign interventionism is completely different than that of 1941.

In 1941, isolationism was a huge thing. If not outright sympathizing with communism or fascism, isolationists on the right were largely leery of war and what they called "foreign adventurism." In 1991, credulity needed to be stretched to assert that it was isolationism which kept us from the duties of our national defense, but here Bush and Noonan make it, conta their own conservative roots and against Buckley and Will. 

The notion of that kind of unity and non-isolationism, used in support of a foreign war in which the countries involved had never attacked us in any way and was a totally different circumstance than Pearl Harbor, was more an attempt at a little intra-party hijack of foreign policy by a CIA spook than it was sympathetic dialectic of any sort.

In short, I hated it.

 

[rockaction]

@rockaction I get your point but I disagree that Bush and Noonan were trying to use the speech to justify Desert Storm. Obviously Bush referenced it but I don’t believe he focused too much on it. He certainly did that in lots of other speeches at the time. Desert Storm was an incredibly popular action and it wasn’t really criticized the way the later invasion of Iraq was. 

The one thing that I can’t capture from just posting the text was the emotion in Bush’s voice when he read that speech. This wasn’t just another noteworthy event for him to comment on, this was a major moment for Bush as President, as a veteran, as an American. His voice broke several times; he meant every word. Later I heard Noonan say she wept when she wrote it and I believed her. 

There ARE some lines in that speech pertinent to today: when Bush argues that Pearl Harbor proved that isolationism is forever a failed policy, and that the United States has a role in the world. Those are important principles to remember IMO. 

I agree with the thoughts about isolationism, writ large, but question where on the sliding scale we're at regarding total interfering adventurism rather than plausibly benevolent world police.

I think you and I agree on this and immigration way more than we disagree, to cull an example and leave the debate really unnecessary between us. If you have a broader point, surely you will expound and I will largely silently agree with it at its core.

 

[timschochet]

I agree with the thoughts about isolationism, writ large, but question where on the sliding scale we're at regarding total interfering adventurism rather than plausibly benevolent world police.

I think you and I agree on this and immigration way more than we disagree, to cull an example and leave the debate really unnecessary between us. If you have a broader point, surely you will expound and I will largely silently agree with it at its core.

I just enjoy reading your comments. I’m hoping to use this thread to talk about notable political events in the past. They may or may not have impact on current affairs so I’m hoping we can start some interesting conversations. 

 

[rockaction]

Thanks. Cool, tim. Hope you get good discussions going. It's probably no accident I'm in this thread; I'm also a sucker for political history. 

 

[timschochet]

On December 8, 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed a treaty with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev eliminating mid range nuclear weapons. This remains probably the most significant achievement in the reduction of nuclear weapons since they were created. 

It was quite a turnaround for Reagan, who had spent his entire life campaigning as a hardliner on nukes and against the USSR. Yet perhaps he was the only politician that could get away with making such a thing happen. 

When Donald Trump was first elected President, despite my dislike for him, I wrote here that because he was an outsider I held out hope for similar achievements in foreign policy. I cited both Reagan with Gorbachev and Nixon’s visit to China. When Trump met with Kim Jong Un I optimistically saw a glimpse of that same sort of diplomatic triumph. Unfortunately it hasn’t worked out that way. But I remain an optimist. If Trump is re-elected (and I certainly hope he won’t be) then I will once again hope that he reverses course and attempts a wider, clearer vision of our future. 

 

[Snorkelson]

On December 8, 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed a treaty with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev eliminating mid range nuclear weapons. This remains probably the most significant achievement in the reduction of nuclear weapons since they were created. 

It was quite a turnaround for Reagan, who had spent his entire life campaigning as a hardliner on nukes and against the USSR. Yet perhaps he was the only politician that could get away with making such a thing happen. 

When Donald Trump was first elected President, despite my dislike for him, I wrote here that because he was an outsider I held out hope for similar achievements in foreign policy. I cited both Reagan with Gorbachev and Nixon’s visit to China. When Trump met with Kim Jong Un I optimistically saw a glimpse of that same sort of diplomatic triumph. Unfortunately it hasn’t worked out that way. But I remain an optimist. If Trump is re-elected (and I certainly hope he won’t be) then I will once again hope that he reverses course and attempts a wider, clearer vision of our future. 

This is the treaty that trump pulled us out of last year. 

 

[timschochet]

On December 9, 2008, Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois was arrested on charges of corruption. His main crime: attempting to “sell” the Senate seat left vacant by the Presidential election of Barack Obama. 

I was struck at the time by the brazenness of Blago’s action, and also the speed: Obama wasn’t even sin the White House yet. Technically he was still the senator. And here is this governor with the mop top peddling the vacancy for cash. 

 

[rockaction]

Remember when he went on Celebrity Apprentice? That's all I've got for you, other than there was a really good class on political corruption with a really good professor that I was too immature to take in college (too early in the morning). 

The brazenness, as you put it, was staggering and there's no way he shouldn't gotten a longer sentence for attempting to hijack our democratic political process.  

 

[timschochet]

On December 10, 2009, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 

In retrospect, I don’t think this helped his prestige in the United States at all. Obama had barely been President for less than a year; his accomplishments were negligible particularly in terms of peace. Conservatives resented the award with some justification. I believe that, looking back, this was at the start of the resentment against Obama and everything he stood for that eventually led to the election of Donald Trump. 

 

[rockaction]

On December 10, 2009, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 

In retrospect, I don’t think this helped his prestige in the United States at all. Obama had barely been President for less than a year; his accomplishments were negligible particularly in terms of peace. Conservatives resented the award with some justification. I believe that, looking back, this was at the start of the resentment against Obama and everything he stood for that eventually led to the election of Donald Trump. 

@ren hoek

 

[ren hoek]

On December 10, 2009, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 

In retrospect, I don’t think this helped his prestige in the United States at all. Obama had barely been President for less than a year; his accomplishments were negligible particularly in terms of peace. Conservatives resented the award with some justification. I believe that, looking back, this was at the start of the resentment against Obama and everything he stood for that eventually led to the election of Donald Trump. 

Obama would go on to bomb a Doctors Without Borders encampment- the only Nobel Prize winner in history to bomb another Nobel Prize winner.  

 

[rockaction]

There was real resentment about the prize among conservatives, as you pointed. There hadn't been a single significant change in policy from W. Bush's administration and here was this messianic character receiving the award for being not much else but a projection of wanted peace upon him.

It truly revealed to those in the organizational right that the international organization, funding, press, think tank world, and about any other institution you can name's desire to have a left-center government in the United States, lest we (the centre-right) rock the boat in the West too much. What it revealed to me was that the rest of the West was living in 1984 and we were the only ones, confused and unable, to fight the darkness that is and was Islamofascism. 

 

[rockaction]

ren and I probably vehemently disagree with each other about the Middle East and its causes and solutions -- but some of our notes about the processes we go through to achieve our goals, often which are similar, are strange bedfellows indeed. 

 

[timschochet]

There was real resentment about the prize among conservatives, as you pointed. There hadn't been a single significant change in policy from W. Bush's administration and here was a messianic character receiving the award for being not much else but a projection of wanted peace upon him.

It truly revealed the international organization, funding, press, think tank world, and about any other institution you can name's desire to have a left-center government in the United States, lest we rock the boat in the West too much. What it revealed to me was that the rest of the West was living in 1984 and we were the only ones, confused and unable, to fight the darkness that is and was Islamofascism. 

My impression at the time, and you can tell me if you agree with this, is that Obama himself seemed very uncomfortable with the award. He knew he really didn’t deserve it. 

 

[rockaction]

My impression at the time, and you can tell me if you agree with this, is that Obama himself seemed very uncomfortable with the award. He knew he really didn’t deserve it. 

In fairness to President Obama, this was the exact impression I got, and this award actually began the tension between he and the left-wing elements of the media, which has been duly noted by more than conservatives. They wanted to celebrate. He knew what had actually just happened. A vapid, vacuous gesture by an ossified committee to somebody who really didn't want what they were selling, promising, or influencing. He accepted it with grace but probably rather would not have the honor quite yet into his tenure as leader of the free world, much like when Dylan didn't pick up his Pulitzer for a while.  

Regardless, that's a very astute observation.

Sorry to Hipple this morning. Let's see if @Yankee23Fancan drag his ### away from the workday. 

 

[timschochet]

Obama would go on to bomb a Doctors Without Borders encampment- the only Nobel Prize winner in history to bomb another Nobel Prize winner.  

Only due to a quirk of history. Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain were slated to win the prize for the Munich Agreement. But World War II got in the way. 

 

[timschochet]

On December 13, 2000, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 majority, ruled on Bush vs. Gore, which put an end to the Florida recount. Hours later, Al Gore conceded the election. 

This was, in retrospect, one of the most pivotal political moments of the last 20 years in this country. Coming as it did right at the beginning of the 21st Century, it could even be viewed as the beginning of our current political divide. 

My own thoughts, then and now, were mixed. The Supreme Court decision appeared to be a classic flip flop, with the liberal judges defending federalism and states rights (specifically the right of Florida to figure out its own election process) and conservative judges ignoring it. As for the two campaigns, it was pretty sleazy of the Bush campaign to try anything to avoid a recount for a vote that was only a few hundred in difference; however it was even sleazier of the Gore campaign to attempt to cherry pick certain counties in order to achieve the most favorable outcome. Then there were the stage protests...neither side did anything to be proud about. 

That being said, the classiest moment of the entire affair came about when Gore conceded. Hard to imagine our current President offering a graceful surrender in that situation. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

On December 9, 2008, Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois was arrested on charges of corruption. His main crime: attempting to “sell” the Senate seat left vacant by the Presidential election of Barack Obama. 

I was struck at the time by the brazenness of Blago’s action, and also the speed: Obama wasn’t even sin the White House yet. Technically he was still the senator. And here is this governor with the mop top peddling the vacancy for cash. 

He took the corrupt practice of patronage a step beyond venal corruption and did so clumsily.  Probably inevitable this would happen in Illinois politics or perhaps Louisiana politics before anywhere else as they tend to be the canary in the coal mine for such matters but it could have happened anywhere and in any party.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

On December 10, 2009, Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. 

In retrospect, I don’t think this helped his prestige in the United States at all. Obama had barely been President for less than a year; his accomplishments were negligible particularly in terms of peace. Conservatives resented the award with some justification. I believe that, looking back, this was at the start of the resentment against Obama and everything he stood for that eventually led to the election of Donald Trump. 

He had done less than John Lennon as far as giving peace a chance.  Not a worthy winner, but it is a beauty prize so not of real consequence except in perception.  As you point out perception is politics and it does reverberate.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

On December 13, 2000, the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 majority, ruled on Bush vs. Gore, which put an end to the Florida recount. Hours later, Al Gore conceded the election. 

This was, in retrospect, one of the most pivotal political moments of the last 20 years in this country. Coming as it did right at the beginning of the 21st Century, it could even be viewed as the beginning of our current political divide. 

My own thoughts, then and now, were mixed. The Supreme Court decision appeared to be a classic flip flop, with the liberal judges defending federalism and states rights (specifically the right of Florida to figure out its own election process) and conservative judges ignoring it. As for the two campaigns, it was pretty sleazy of the Bush campaign to try anything to avoid a recount for a vote that was only a few hundred in difference; however it was even sleazier of the Gore campaign to attempt to cherry pick certain counties in order to achieve the most favorable outcome. Then there were the stage protests...neither side did anything to be proud about. 

That being said, the classiest moment of the entire affair came about when Gore conceded. Hard to imagine our current President offering a graceful surrender in that situation. 

We've had several discussions lately about how divided we are as a nation, and how we can reconcile those divisions.

When I think of things we can do to overcome our partisan divide, I too immediately think to re-litigate the 2000 recount.

 

[timschochet]

When I think of things we can do to overcome our partisan divide, I too immediately think to re-litigate the 2000 recount.

Lol good point. But it’s a key moment in our recent political history. No need to relitigate but worth remembering and discussion.