My brother Andrew and I edited the journals of our father, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., covering the years from 1952-2000 which were published in October by Penguin under the title, Journals. My father's intimate recollections of those times and of its larger-than-life American political personalities earned extraordinary praise. The New York Times' Janet Maslin called Journals "moving and monumental." In the Los Angeles Times, historian Douglas Brinkley labeled them "a deeply revelatory and no-holds-barred tour de force tome." The editor of Newsweek Magazine, Jon Meacham, wrote in a front-page review in the Sunday Washington Post book section, that "it will be a long time before we see another collection of journals as rich, as fascinating and as illuminating as Schlesinger's." Chief political reporter, Marty Nolan, in the Boston Globe, said "for those who wish to understand the politics of the past five decades, Journals is essential." Newsweek chose the book as one of the ten best of the year.
Thus it is probably silly for me to quibble about one commentary concerning Journals that, in its rare criticism of the book, was so off-the-wall that only a son could take it seriously. But it comes from a well-known journalist named George Packer who writes for The New Yorker and blogs for its website. On December 11th, Packer posted a bizarre blog on The New Yorker website that, for all its wackiness, nonetheless, I felt, demeaned my father and requires, in my view, some sort of reply.
Let me say, having met Mr. Packer a few times, he is a congenial sort of fellow, but he has proven to be wrong on most issues. He was a fervent supporter of the Iraq war. He bought into the neo-liberal line most of the Bush years. And now in his blog "review" of Journals, he attributes the downfall of liberalism in the post-JFK years to a conspiracy -- did I read this correctly? -- of a "small group of the rich and famous" led by Arthur M Schlesinger Jr. whose views of American politics were far too complacent and elitist in outlook. Liberalism's collapse lay, according to Packer, in my father's overwrought "social schedule", where he apparently frittered away his time among the idle and wealthy, leaving his "political creed in its decadence" (By the way, my father during this period of dissipation authored some eight books all in one way or another in defense of liberal values.)
I suppose that one can treat this critique as a backhanded tribute to my father's putative power: namely, while on the one hand he partied away, on the other he (and his coterie) allowed American liberalism to descend into the hands of the Democratic leaders of the era, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis and Gore -- all losers. Mr. Packer finishes his musings with the remarkable posit that, due to the "smugness" of my father and his washed-out progressives friends, Ronald Reagan "seized the language and claims of populism from liberals." Huh?
Grant Mr. Packer this -- he is at least a consistent fantasist across the board. Fortunately my father loved a good fight. Were he alive today, he would regard such an ad hominem assault on his character as the price one pays to influence the public debate in America. And he would have replied in kind. As he said in his Journals, "It makes me feel young again."
The first stages started with the rise of McCarthy and Nixon, two obvious clowns allowed to get out of control.
The fear of inflation in the Seventies
turned many liberals into cowards. How else explain a Jimmy Carter who would have been considered pretty conservative by FDR standards?
Carter, then, gave us Reagan, an amazing feat that only an inept pseudo Democrat could pull off. He went off to build houses as Reagan began to loot the country.
Finally Clinton: much more conservative than people realize, based mostly on his need to be liked and to compromise whenever a fight appeared on the horizon.
I could go on about the failure of the so-called Liberals to oppose the idiot Bush Klan: I'll close with two pieces
of evidence: Iraq and the destruction of the Supreme Court.
Nausea is setting in.....
One of the tools is to lie about anyone that would oppose them. Packer is just another of a long line of stooges. YOU MUST STAND UP TO HIM WITH THE FACTS.
I know nothing about Packer, although his support of the Iraq occupation and his misrepresentation of Gore (who did not lose but had the election taken from him) indicates to me that this guy really isn't paying attention.
Schlesinger's diary for January 1966 tells us that McNamara knew the US military could not "win" in Vietnam no matter how many more years of blood and treasure were squandered. Sound familiar?
The conferees at the AEI also saw that society had to place the younger generation somewhere so they "housed" these students in universities where "unfortunately" students read the Feminine Mystique and the New Radicalism and progressive ideas and "anti-materialism" were advanced.
The assassination of Medger Evers in June of 1963 launched the era of 1963 to 1968 when the movement "discredited itself" and became "morally bankrupt." Nixon was finally elected. So ended the "Democratic Narrative."
No matter that RFK and MLK were assassinated and the MIC continued its war of choice and the infamous tactics of COINTELPRO well used to discredit the movement. Watergate was not mentioned. They are rewriting history to suite themselves.
The Right sees itself as having gotten everything they wanted from Bill Clinton such as deregulation and consolidation of media and business monopoly. Clinton was "business as usual." Janet Reno was just another Alberto Gonzalez.
I watched the program on C-Span's Booknotes last Saturday. The thesis of the book was that liberalism was really the exception to underlying conservatism in the US. The New Deal was brought about by the crisis of the Great Depression. After WW II, everything would have returned to "normal" except for the advent of the baby boom, the war in Vietnam, women's liberation, the assassination of JFK, the Civil Right's movement, and the mythology created around JFK who the participants viewed as basically a "conservative."
Your father was blamed for creating and perpetuation the Camelot Myth. Also sharing the blame was Jackie Kennedy who "unduly influenced" Eastern intellectuals and elites into believing in the myth - the purpose of which was to idolize the memory of the liberal leftist legacy.
That is where all of this "nonsense" is coming from - where else?
Now we can get back to "normal."
The obvious reason for the success of conservatives from 1968 on is racism. LBJ was right. When he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Johnson said "We have just lost the South for a generation." Packer and those of his ilk spend their time trying to appease the most racist, ignorant, superstitious and backward segments of the electorate when they are not actively trying to undercut and discredit progressives. Who has done more harm to liberalism?
As your trolls would say-get the revised edition of TROLL'S LIST... in our fetidly filthy hands for while our brains are feces they wouldn't make a digle berry on a newly hatched gnat's ass. We need help.
I did find myself a little annoyed by his Sally Field-like musings of "does the President like me, or doesn't he"? I also found it elitish in tone, particularly the constant references to "So and So" being "in good form tonight". But, having spent too many years of my life around the intellectual elite of Princeton, of which I have long repented, one might understand my distaste for such affectations.
Packer is a sorry excuse for using name calling and lumping individuals together as losers.
I will send him an e-mail and set him straight.
lol
Sir calling Al Gore a loser is a serious insult to the concept of democracy, because Al Gore, a winner, was the VICTIM of the most egregious political coup of all time and led to the disasterous years of Dumbya/Cheny and the gang of thugs known as the GOP. They probably threatened Gore's family and that is why he did not fight the theft. Or he had some silly respect for the Supremely corrupt Sumpreme Court.
You owe Al Gore and democracy an apology. Though I doubt you will give one. I imagine a act of mental sophistry to try and explain your error.
Take Care, and know who the enemy is.