"Personally, I'd rate the Regan administration as way worse than the LBJ administration. LBJ had some decent accomplishments: Civil Rights Act, Medicare/Medicaid, Student Loan Program, FOIA. Regan had nothing equivalent. "
So, you think the Great Society had a positive impact? There is certainly a sense of irony about the Civil Rights act since LBJ was so adamantly against it for the previous 20 years. It was a Republican ideal that he co-opted in order to garner votes and stay in power. Politics as normal. "This civil rights program about which you have heard so much is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I fought it in the Congress. It is the province of the state to run its own elections. I am opposed to the anti-lynching bill because the Federal Government has no business enacting a law against one kind of murder than another...(And) if a man can tell you who you must hire, he can tell you who not to employ. I have met this head on." - Lyndon B Johnson Anyway, the 1965 vote had more Republicans vote for it than Democrats even though they were a minority in congress. It wouldn't be hard to argue that it's not his legacy at all. It wouldn't be hard to argue that Nixon did more for civil rights than Johnson (though it may be for the same reason: to protect his position). He signed the voting rights amendment, equal opportunity legislation, and encouraged affirmative action. He even signed Title IX, even though he thought it might be the end of college sports (see Maryland University now for confirmation). "Obviously you have to balance those out against Vietnam and the debacle there." Compared to the destruction of the Soviet Bloc by Reagan (which may seem like a shame to some readers). "LBJ did a lot to strengthen the country but caused it a lot pain as well. His legacy in both areas continues to be felt today. " Yeah, the Immigration Act of 1965 that he signed is really being felt as illegals continue to overrun our country. Then there is the destruction, or at least erosion, of the traditional family unit, particularly in the Black community. But that is probably all good with the progressive folks, who resent a traditional family unit anyway. Here is some good info from Walter Williams about the "positive" impact of the Great Society on Blacks. Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school. Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It's also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation. Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands. Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it's not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands. Or this great read from Thomas Sowell. August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the major turning points in American social history. That was the date on which President Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his "War on Poverty" program in 1964. Never had there been such a comprehensive program to tackle poverty at its roots, to offer more opportunities to those starting out in life, to rehabilitate those who had fallen by the wayside, and to make dependent people self-supporting. Its intentions were the best. But we know what road is paved with good intentions. The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society -- and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word "liberal" so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation. In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as Section 8 housing. Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed. The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the "root causes" of crime and creating new "rights" for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed. The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life. Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the 1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration, which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far fewer urban riots. Neither the media nor most of our educational institutions question the assumptions behind the War on Poverty. Even conservatives often attribute much of the progress that has been made by lower-income people to these programs. For example, the usually insightful quarterly magazine City Journal says in its current issue: "Beginning in the mid-sixties, the condition of most black Americans improved markedly." That is completely false and misleading. The economic rise of blacks began decades earlier, before any of the legislation and policies that are credited with producing that rise. The continuation of the rise of blacks out of poverty did not -- repeat, did not -- accelerate during the 1960s. The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty. In various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled between 1936 and 1959 -- that is, before the magic 1960s decade when supposedly all progress began. The rise of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations was greater in the five years preceding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than in the five years afterwards. While some good things did come out of the 1960s, as out of many other decades, so did major social disasters that continue to plague us today. Many of those disasters began quite clearly during the 1960s. This quote from Star Parker seems appropriate: Thirty-five years of Great Society social engineering have forced the disadvantaged to live under the control of the federal government. Politicians control their housing, their food supply, their schooling, their wages, and their transportation. A centralized government makes decisions about their childcare, healthcare, and retirement. It controls their reproduction through abortion and wants to control their deaths through euthanasia. - Star Parker and this one This was nothing less than a prescription for the utter destruction of traditional black families, and had it been proposed by the Imperial Wizard of the KKK such a program would have met with a quick and well-deserved fate. But embraced by liberal intellectuals and politicians, the war on poverty was the policy equivalent of smallpox on inner-city black families *A Patriots History of the United States*, pp. 68 Yes, that's a great legacy there. "Regan, there was no equivalent upside, in my opinion." Sure. It is opinion. I am glad you realize that and aren't proclaiming it as Gospel. What about Carter? There was no time elapsed between their two terms. I'll give Carter some props. I will say he was probably honest. Incompetent? Sure. But he was honest. J - "He hasn't got the depth of mind nor the breadth of vision to carry great responsibility... Johnson is superficial and opportunistic." Dwight Eisenhower on LBJ "He tells so many lies that he convinces himself after a while he's telling the truth. He just doesn't recognise truth or falsehood." Robert F Kennedy on LBJ "I never trust a man unless I've got his pecker in my pocket "- L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:347221 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
