6 ms·

Sure, future administrations are complicit, but people didn't really "believe" the way Nixon believed until he brought the full power of the Federal government

Sure, future administrations are complicit, but people didn't really "believe" the way Nixon believed until he brought the full power of the Federal government and an extensive political organization to spread fear in the general populace. Up until that point, enough people didn't believe in his course of action that his own people wouldn't give him the answers he wanted.

ska 11y ago
By all means history should remember his failings here and elsewhere. I just mean the responsibility for the state of things today, and for improving it, lies solidly on other shoulders today. And that is where the focus should be. There should be no support for a narrative of "oh, but those were the bad old days, things are better now". They are not.
- fweespee_ch 11y ago
  > By all means history should remember his failings here and elsewhere. The original post was discussing the history: > I think the disturbing part is people, even now, deny this is the reason Nixon pushed for it. I just can't understand it. :/ > Nixon basically shat on the results of his own commissions by members of his own party when he didn't like the results. History is littered with evidence this man had an agenda yet people act like the "Drug War" wasn't created as a political tool. ---- > I just mean the responsibility for the state of things today, and for improving it, lies solidly on other shoulders today. And that is where the focus should be. There should be no support for a narrative of "oh, but those were the bad old days, things are better now". They are not. That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Literally the entire content of my post [beyond quotes] was discussing past history concerning a single president. Stop tilting at windmills. ---- Edit since I'm rate limited and don't care that much: Look, the historical context of stuff like this interests me. If you find it boring...shrugs
  - ska 11y ago
    Literally the entire content of my post [beyond quotes] was discussing past history concerning a single president. Which is what I was responding to. No windmills here. I believe it's fine as a historical exercise, but useless with respect to the state of drug policy etc. today. And think the effort much better targeted elsewhere as focusing on this piece of the history is, in my view, actively distracting from anything useful. Vilifying Nixon is easy and boring. And yes, I think to the degree that it has traction, it does support a fallacious narrative about the current state of things - or at least is trotted out in support of it, which I'll grant is not quite the same thing. Just my two cents.

ska 11y ago

By all means history should remember his failings here and elsewhere. I just mean the responsibility for the state of things today, and for improving it, lies solidly on other shoulders today. And that is where the focus should be. There should be no support for a narrative of "oh, but those were the bad old days, things are better now". They are not.

fweespee_ch 11y ago
> By all means history should remember his failings here and elsewhere. The original post was discussing the history: > I think the disturbing part is people, even now, deny this is the reason Nixon pushed for it. I just can't understand it. :/ > Nixon basically shat on the results of his own commissions by members of his own party when he didn't like the results. History is littered with evidence this man had an agenda yet people act like the "Drug War" wasn't created as a political tool. ---- > I just mean the responsibility for the state of things today, and for improving it, lies solidly on other shoulders today. And that is where the focus should be. There should be no support for a narrative of "oh, but those were the bad old days, things are better now". They are not. That has nothing to do with what I was saying. Literally the entire content of my post [beyond quotes] was discussing past history concerning a single president. Stop tilting at windmills. ---- Edit since I'm rate limited and don't care that much: Look, the historical context of stuff like this interests me. If you find it boring...shrugs
- ska 11y ago
  Literally the entire content of my post [beyond quotes] was discussing past history concerning a single president. Which is what I was responding to. No windmills here. I believe it's fine as a historical exercise, but useless with respect to the state of drug policy etc. today. And think the effort much better targeted elsewhere as focusing on this piece of the history is, in my view, actively distracting from anything useful. Vilifying Nixon is easy and boring. And yes, I think to the degree that it has traction, it does support a fallacious narrative about the current state of things - or at least is trotted out in support of it, which I'll grant is not quite the same thing. Just my two cents.