He’s right about the first part of Kennedys term but Chomsky always leaves out the later part when he did a 180 and provided plenty of reasons for the powerful to neutralize him.
There was no 180. Kennedy was always a hawk. It's insane how much traction this Oliver Stone nonsense gets . . . afflictthecomfortable.org/2022/04/30/john-f-kennedy-goes-hollywood-oliver-stones-fantastic-history/
Excuse my ignorance, but Chomsky said Reagan wasn't that popular. How do you explain the 1984 election then? I think Reagan shifted the country to the right permanently. Even the Democrats had to shift to the right because they couldn't win elections anymore.
@Actually, Movies You should take a better look. It was a huge blowout. The Dems literally found out that the country had shifted massively to the right and had to run a right wing candidate and embrace Milton Friedman economics to stand a chance of winning another election. In Britain Labour became New Labour and they abandoned their previous stance. It can't be any clearer in my view.
I believe two factors lead to Reagan's '84 landslide: Mondale's unwillingness to use negative campaign ads and his pick for a woman to be his running mate.
Lots of presidents get re-elected who aren't very popular. It's called a two party system and people have the 'lesser of two evils' mindset. If you're the incumbent, you only have to beat one person. Reagen only had to beat Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. I didn't even know who those two were. He only won 58% of the popular vote and there was only 55% voter turnout. And elections are sort of rigged anyway. His administration did move the country to the right on domestic and social issues though.
Just lost much respect for Chomsky. There’s so much here wrong about what he said about Kennedy (and not even bringing up the assassination, quite convenient), space and time prohibit me. He mentions how we shouldn’t put hero’s on a pedestal. True, including him.
@@GreenandRedPodcast Kennedy was seeking rapprochement with Khrushchev and Castro defying his military and intelligence advisers. He was committed to withdrawing from Vietnam by 1965. (There are hard documents regarding this). He supported Sukarno in Indonesia and Nasser in Egypt. He spoke out in favor of Algerian independence and most assuredly did not sanction Lumumba’s assassination which was done under Eisenhower. He signed the first nuclear test ban treaty and committed troops in Mississippi. These actions and others taken as a whole and particularly averting war during the Cuban Missile Crises (on top of the Bay of Pigs and the subsequent firing of Alan Dulles) undoubtedly contributed to his death. Chomsky ignores all this with a broad, generalized denial. No context, no nuance. Indeed, no facts. It’s actually a fairly reactionary take. Michael Parenti rightfully skewered Chomsky for this retrograde view. No, JFK wasn’t perfect. So, alas neither is Chomsky. Sorry to break it to you.
@@Skylarking00 pls provide the “hard documents.” Something other than theory, speculation and Hollywood fiction from Parenti, Newman and Stone. Chomsky’s “Rethinking Camelot” and Buzzanco’s “Masters of War” are full of citations and “hard document” references. JFK was a hard core Cold Warrior. The speech he was going to give on November 22 said “our successful defense of freedom in Cuba, Laos, the Congo and Berlin can be attributed not to the words we used, but the strength we stood ready to use.” I hate to shatter the image of your liberal idol.
Where can I find the documents, not books about the documents but the documents
govinfo.gov
He’s right about the first part of Kennedys term but Chomsky always leaves out the later part when he did a 180 and provided plenty of reasons for the powerful to neutralize him.
There was no 180. Kennedy was always a hawk. It's insane how much traction this Oliver Stone nonsense gets . . . afflictthecomfortable.org/2022/04/30/john-f-kennedy-goes-hollywood-oliver-stones-fantastic-history/
Excuse my ignorance, but Chomsky said Reagan wasn't that popular. How do you explain the 1984 election then? I think Reagan shifted the country to the right permanently. Even the Democrats had to shift to the right because they couldn't win elections anymore.
@Actually, Movies You should take a better look. It was a huge blowout. The Dems literally found out that the country had shifted massively to the right and had to run a right wing candidate and embrace Milton Friedman economics to stand a chance of winning another election. In Britain Labour became New Labour and they abandoned their previous stance. It can't be any clearer in my view.
abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90043&page=1
I believe two factors lead to Reagan's '84 landslide:
Mondale's unwillingness to use negative campaign ads and his pick for a woman to be his running mate.
Lots of presidents get re-elected who aren't very popular. It's called a two party system and people have the 'lesser of two evils' mindset. If you're the incumbent, you only have to beat one person. Reagen only had to beat Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. I didn't even know who those two were. He only won 58% of the popular vote and there was only 55% voter turnout. And elections are sort of rigged anyway. His administration did move the country to the right on domestic and social issues though.
I wonder how RFK would respond now that hes running for office and claims his father was an angel
Big fan of white keanue
Just lost much respect for Chomsky. There’s so much here wrong about what he said about Kennedy (and not even bringing up the assassination, quite convenient), space and time prohibit me. He mentions how we shouldn’t put hero’s on a pedestal. True, including him.
JFK escalated a war and overthrew governments, Chomsky pointed it out for the next 60 years and you’re losing respect for Chomsky??
@@GreenandRedPodcast Kennedy was seeking rapprochement with Khrushchev and Castro defying his military and intelligence advisers. He was committed to withdrawing from Vietnam by 1965. (There are hard documents regarding this). He supported Sukarno in Indonesia and Nasser in Egypt. He spoke out in favor of Algerian independence and most assuredly did not sanction Lumumba’s assassination which was done under Eisenhower. He signed the first nuclear test ban treaty and committed troops in Mississippi. These actions and others taken as a whole and particularly averting war during the Cuban Missile Crises (on top of the Bay of Pigs and the subsequent firing of Alan Dulles) undoubtedly contributed to his death. Chomsky ignores all this with a broad, generalized denial. No context, no nuance. Indeed, no facts. It’s actually a fairly reactionary take. Michael Parenti rightfully skewered Chomsky for this retrograde view. No, JFK wasn’t perfect. So, alas neither is Chomsky. Sorry to break it to you.
@@Skylarking00 pls provide the “hard documents.” Something other than theory, speculation and Hollywood fiction from Parenti, Newman and Stone. Chomsky’s “Rethinking Camelot” and Buzzanco’s “Masters of War” are full of citations and “hard document” references. JFK was a hard core Cold Warrior. The speech he was going to give on November 22 said “our successful defense of freedom in Cuba, Laos, the Congo and Berlin can be attributed not to the words we used, but the strength we stood ready to use.” I hate to shatter the image of your liberal idol.
Kennedy was literally one of the worst post WW2 US presidents, along with Nixon, Reagan and Bush.
@@np4653 is that bush 2? If so, how do you rate bush 1?
it's the first time I've realized Chomsky is full of it...!!
You're feelings hurt because of the facts that JFK was an imperialist.