Because it is easier to point people in an outside direction and say ‘they are our enemy, vote for us to keep you safe from THEM’ than it is to get people to grapple seriously with the importance and implications of government policy. Not to mention depth does not play well to 15 second soundbytes you get on mainstream media.
It also provides cover for policies you know people won’t like, but that your paymasters/ donors really want. Like a good magic trick, get people looking one way while you do something else.
You’re correct. Whereas communism was a threat, muslim hate is an opportunity for a certain part of US politics (and economic interests) to provide excuses for doing what they want. I shiver to think what that means in terms of present and future US (and world) politics.
Maybe Leo Strauss as the spiritual father of neoconservatism, which blurs the “differences” between the two parties and leaves us to fight hellaciously over minutiae.
If you mean the current state of politics where we no longer elect “acceptable” Republicans, then that would be George W. Bush, whose final term led to the rise of the Tea Party and a reaction against mainstream Republicans.
Jefferson, for writing a Bill of Rights so out of touch with the National Religion so many Americans want. Additionally, for accepting the 3/5ths compromise which perpetuated slavery and racism throughout the Union. We can throw in the Louisiana purchase for bringing all the damn liberals to CA, as well as leading to the rise of Big Oil in the West. ;)
To a degree, we can blame Martin Luther King Jr (and Gandhi) as well, as segregation would still be alive and well, IMHO, without the non-violent movement to end it. If it had been led by Malcom X instead, we likely would have had a race war, with no doubt who the physical victors would have been (but 50+ years of ongoing racially-motivated terror attacks, I’m sure, and no end to the Cold War were that the case, IMHO).
I blame myself. Back when I first saw The Road Warrior, I said “That’d be pretty awesome if civilization ended and we could whip around in murdermobiles, armed with crossbows!” My bad.
I would think, but for one thing, you would have to pick Nixon of these two. But perhaps if you pick Nixon you have to really pick LBJ for creating the conditions that led to Nixon’s return from the dead.
I do think Reagan, while he had governmental experience by the time he became president, helped create the cult of personality that Trump later exploited.
Also, if you look at who worked for Nixon and Reagan you come up with a who’s who of right wing wackos.
Well, Nixon was a criminal. Reagan was a beloved leader. Nixon did the dirt, Reagan allowed the dirt to become part and parcel of the party. Your last point is, of course, right on. Ultimately the puppet masters caused the most damage. And they still do.
Communism was every bit the same opportunity. It led directly to the kind of crazy over-arming and industrial/defense complex that Eisenhower warned of (even though he was rather complicit in its creation) which has been a wolf by the ears the American economy has yet to be willing to deal with.
I agree on Reagan, but more so because of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. You saw an almost immediate rise of hyper-partisan ‘reporting’ once it was repealed. Limbaugh hailed it as the lifting of the Iron Curtain for American media figures such as himself.
Reagan. In a modern setting, he found a way to dehumanize and make it okay to let people of our population die in a way his supporters gloss over. Now they just find a new group to do it to every election cycle.
