Srce Tame

u Denveru

 Richard Nixon was the greatest president of all time Anonymous (ID: UUnYyPl7)  11/10/18(Sat)04:21:36 No.192879397
>>192879588 >>192879904 >>192880347 >>192880742>>192881206 >>192881352 >>192881477 >>192882182 >>192882466 >>192882667 >>192882729 >>192882811 >>192883013 >>192883034 >>192883312 >>192883461 >>192884188 >>192884340 >>192884426>>192884442 >>192884714 >>192884815 >>192886356 >>192887276 >>192887544 >>192889007 >>192892707

>named the jew
>right-wing populist
>promoted traditional values
>btfo bretton woods system
>ended the vietnam war
>made peace with china
>wasn't too pussy to use price controls during recession
>environmentalist
>wanted universal healthcare
>wanted universal basic income
>installed pinochet in chile
Watergate was fucking nothing... every President since has done far worse. Why did the Jew take him out?

Летећи Полип wrote:
Dobar je bio Nikson. Poslednji u toj zlatnoj seriji koja je počela od FDRa. Posle njega sve go kreten i sluga kapitala.

Journalists and pundits often fixate on a President’s personality and psychology, as if the office were born anew with each election. They ignore the structural factors that shape the Presidency. Yet every President is elected to represent a combination of ideologies, policies, and coalitions. That is the President’s political identity: Lincoln brought to power a Republican Party committed to free labor ideals and the overthrow of the slavocracy; Reagan, a Republican Party committed to aggressive free-market capitalism and the overthrow of the New Deal.
Every President also inherits a political situation in which certain ideologies and interests dominate. That situation, or regime, shapes a President’s exercise of power, forcing some to do less, empowering others to do more. Richard Nixon was not a New Deal Democrat, but he was constrained by the political common sense of his time to govern like one, just as Bill Clinton had to bow to the hegemony of Reaganism. Regimes are deep and intractable structures of interest and belief, setting out the boundaries of action, shaping our sense of the possible, over a period of decades.
Every President is aligned with or opposed to the regime. Every regime is weak or strong. These two vectors—the political affiliation of the President, the vitality of the regime—shape “the politics Presidents make.” That phrase is the title of Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek’s classic study of the presidency, which, when it appeared in 1993, completely altered how political scientists understand the institution and its possibilities.
In Skowronek’s account, FDR ran against the Republicans’ sclerotic Gilded Age regime. The combination of the President’s opposition and the regime’s weakness enabled FDR to launch a radical transformation of American politics. Presidents like FDR—Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and Reagan—are “reconstructive” leaders. They are revolutionaries and founders, creating the terms and conditions of politics for decades to come.
Lyndon Johnson was elected to deepen and extend a still vital New Deal regime, making his role one of “articulation,” which is also a potent position. (George W. Bush was another articulation President.) Nixon, by contrast, was elected to oppose the New Deal regime, but the regime was not ready for overthrow. This put him in a position of weakness: unable to overthrow the regime, he pushed and prodded where he could (shoring up opposition to desegregation via the Southern Strategy) and placated and pandered when he had to (instituting wage and price controls, creating the EPA). Presidents like Nixon engage in a politics of “preemption.” Andrew Johnson was a preemptive President, as were Clinton and Obama. Preemptive Presidents tend to get impeached.

At the end of each regime—after it has completed its three-quarter orbit of reconstruction, articulation, and preemption—comes the politics of “disjunction.” Jimmy Carter is the most recent case; before him, there was Herbert Hoover and Franklin Pierce. Disjunctive Presidents are affiliated with a tottering regime. They sense its weaknesses, and in a desperate bid to save the regime try to transform its basic premises and commitments. Unlike reconstructive Presidents, these figures are too indebted to the regime to break with it. But the regime is too dissonant and fragmented to offer the resources these Presidents need to transform it. They find themselves in the most perilous position of all—hated by all, loved by none—and their administrations often occasion a new round of reconstruction. John Adams gives way to Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams to Andrew Jackson, Carter to Reagan.

Летећи Полип wrote:Dobar je bio Nikson. Poslednji u toj zlatnoj seriji koja je počela od FDRa. Posle njega sve go kreten i sluga kapitala.

Летећи Полип wrote:I Ajzenhauer je isto bio dobar.

disident wrote:

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1541752522191.png