Monday, May 01, 2006

"Comfort the Afflicted and Afflict the Comfortable"

John Nichols of The Nation gives us "Galbraith for President" that supplements an earlier post I dropped on JKG. Interesting aside on Presidential possibilities not obtained due to the Constitutional birth/citizen requirement yet the real meat of the matter, with my emphasis supplied, comes with,

When he was one of President Kennedy's most trusted aides – and, ultimately, the ambassador to India – Galbraith was dispatched to Vietnam to survey the country to which Kennedy was being advised by others to dispatch military forces. Galbraith, who tried harder than just about anyone else to avert the turn toward quagmire, sent back a memo in which he reflected on the difficulty of distinguishing "friendly jungle" from "Vietcong jungle" and asked, "[Who] is the man in your administration who decides what countries are strategic? I would like to...ask him what is so important about this real estate in the Space Age."

As Galbraith biographer Richard Parker noted in his essential review of his subject's attempt to prevent Cold War hawks from convincing Kennedy and then Lyndon Johnson from expanding U.S. military involvement in southeast Asia, it was in the fall of 1961 that, "Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics."

(Parker's recent biography, John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life, His Politics, His Economics [Farrar, Straus & Giroux], is necessary reading, as are Galbraith's own books, particularly 1958's The Affluent Society, with its Keyneseian indictment of "private wealth and public squalor" in American life, and 1992's brilliant The Culture of Contentment, which offers what is still the best explanation of the contemporary crisis in its observation that, "The long years of high budget deficits when they were not needed made it seemingly impossible to initiate stimulating public expenditures when they were now needed. The celebrated tax reductions for the upper-income brackets and the accompanying economics in welfare distribution had substituted the discretionary spending of the rich for the wholely reliable spending of the poor.")

I've at least partially accepted that LBJ's "War on Poverty" was really a "false war" (with a German word that I can't recall or locate used by the scholar I read many moons ago) in that the spending was rather miniscule and certainly not given the time needed for real change. Even though Nixon had some smart guys at his side his basic approach was conservatism. Carter's brief time post Watergate barely counts plus his administration was hardly grand. Since LBJ we've had Republican and Republican Lite with Clinton veering rather right after 1994. Congress has blocked any Progressive approaches since certainly 1994. I'm an unreconstructed Keynesian for the most part and JKG was a hero of mine. Have yet to read enough of his work and life.

I do hope his ideas will get coverage despite the media whoring after TomKat and Brangelina and the "Missing White Woman/Child" of the week/day or the Duke Lacrosse Rape case or ... JKG believed in whit rather than war yet I don't think he suffered fools. I think he'd be fine with me to close with my standard ending. So here's "Peace ... or War!"

No comments: