Monday, February 21, 2011

No Surprises Here

Linda Chavez, the most vituperous supporter of illegal immigration among all RINOs is now making an alleged case for conservative support for LBJ. Johnson was of course one of the worst Presidents this Republic suffered under.

Conservatives revile Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th president, for his massive expansion of federal power and the welfare state. But he deserves credit in my book for two important accomplishments of his five years in office. After becoming president when John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963, Johnson used his considerable influence with his former colleagues in the U.S. Senate (he had been majority leader before Kennedy tapped him for vice president) to secure passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That law transformed the country, largely bringing to an end nearly 200 years of state-supported discrimination on the basis race. Without Johnson’s support — a former opponent of civil-rights laws — the bill would never have passed in its current form and the nation might have endured decades more struggle to realize the principle that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

But Johnson also deserves credit for his willingness to fight the expansion of communism in Southeast Asia. Historians can argue with his tactics and his micromanagement of the Vietnam battlefield from the Oval Office, but he was a fierce opponent of communist tyranny, something that cannot be said of many liberals in his era and after. The disgraceful scenes of Americans fleeing South Vietnam on helicopters, abandoning their allies on the ground, occurred not during LBJ’s tenure, but during his successor’s, Richard M. Nixon.

Johnson basically surrendered the fight against North Vietnam after the Tet Offensive, ending bombing and special operations attacks on North Vietnam, all mostly because the war was threatening the expansion of the welfare state. And his meddling was not just interference in the operation of the war, but a deliberate policy of not winning.

But Chavez seems to have forgotten that we have a new Jim Crow, a new segregation, a new regime of legal discrimination based on race and sex. That is the tyranny of affirmative action. From blacks over-represented in Federal employment, to private corporations like Wal-Mart openly practicing race based discrimination in its legal representative hiring and contracting. Just as she benefited personally from illegal immigration, she also benefited from the open regime of discrimination against whites and men. No surprises there.

2 comments:

Polichinello said...

She's wrong about Nixon's presiding over the fall of Saigon, as well. It was actually Ford, in 1975, who was prevented from aiding S. Vietnam by the Democratic Congress. Tactical air support could have broken the N. Vietnamese invasion. The only reason, really, the N. Vietnamese had to invade was because Nixon's policies had largely defeated the Viet Cong.

Federale said...

I would say that it was Nixon's early withdraw plans, start and stop lackluster bombing campaigns, failure to cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail and other bad decisions that contributed to an NVA victory. Ford was presented with a fait acompli. Nixon could have won the war in 1969 with bombing, mining Haiphong harbor, and invasions of NVA areas of Cambodia and Laos.

But then we can also say that it was Kennedy who lost the war because he surrendered on Laotion "neutrality" and supported the murder of Diem.

But you are technically correct that Ford was left holding the bag. But it was Kennedy and his ilk that cut off funds for the South.