You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 4

PLAYS: 14

(1960 ended up like just about every other year before and since: Crisis)

It's getting about that time of year when the long glances back start. For C&L and just about every other blog it will be a look at 2009; what went on, what didn't go on, what crisis did we land in or avert. How did life as we know it change this particular year.

Since Newstalgia is mostly knee-deep in the past,I thought I would kick off the roundup of year-enders with a look at 1960 and how the world changed during that particular 12 months, and how a lot of it has remained the same.

1960 saw the election of a new President and the Cold War entering new and uncharted territory. It saw Africa emerging as a continent of newly independent nations, the Middle East contemplating Israel as a nuclear neighbor. Latin America was deemed the next hot spot in East-West relationships and Germany struggling with its divided status.

On December 28, 1960 CBS News ran a one-hour round table discussion between Edward R. Murrow, Howard K. Smith, David Schoenbrun, Daniel Schorr and other notable CBS News reporters, weighing the issues that made 1960 a memorable year.

Howard K. Smith: “Well, I think our change is about as drastic a change as you can have under constitutional government. I’ve emphasized the fact that the Presidents and their intents differ drastically. But the men around them differ too. The emphasis in the previous administration was on businessmen. At present I think scholars probably have a plurality. It’s said that if all the appointees made by Kennedy so far were to walk down the hall together there would be a deafening jangle of Phi Beta Kappa keys. And there are three Rhodes Scholars among them. Many of them are famed for some very useful and active ideas, but the main thing that induces me to believe this will be an active administration is the fact there has seldom been, since the Civil War, such an accumulation of crises and merely problems as there is now and we have to act or there will be disaster.”

Always the threat of disaster and some crisis. No matter when.

1960 or 2009 - it doesn't really change.

. . .and neither does the cost of keeping blogs together.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 146

PLAYS: 5

(C. Douglas Dillon - bringing the date to the prom)

With the recent news of Sec. of State Clinton's defense pact with Colombia, I was thinking about how our foreign policy has been something of a hit-and-miss situation with regards to Latin America in recent years.

Historically, Latin America has always seemed like the girlfriend you had under the bleachers but never took to the prom (h/t Susie!) - someone you needed in a pinch, but never took very seriously. We had the Good Neighbor Policy during World War 2 and the Alliance for Progress during the Cold War. Both overtures were made out of fear. Certainly fear the Axis would establish a beach head during World War 2 and definitely a fear of Cuba's close association with the Soviet Union during the Cold War would lead to a communist sweep of the Southern Hemisphere.

We have usually always pledged undying love and support but only in crisis - not on the day-to-day. Because of that, I don't think the average American really knows anything about the vast expanse of land just south of us - nothing about the people, the culture, the politics. We know all about the drugs, immigration and NAFTA - but nothing of the inner-workings of a continent so close to us. And that is ultimately our problem.

So, in an effort to put some historic perspective on what we do overseas - not only in Latin America but Africa and the rest of the world, I'm going to regularly include some of our Foreign Policy issues of the past so hopefully some light can be shed on what we need to do if we're planning on staying the super-power we so much like being. On top of that, ignorance of your culture and the world not only isn't cool - it's dangerous.

Here is a Press conference from August 22, 1961 featuring Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon, giving an outline of the events at the Punta del Este Conference in Uruguay.

C.Douglas Dillon: “No matter how good their intentions, no matter how much national effort is brought to bear upon their enormous problems, the leaders of Latin America cannot translate their ambitious plans and dreams for their peoples into reality without financial and technical assistance from the United States. And on the long term basis, which is indispensable to sound programming. We must recognize the questions about the future of the Alliance for Progress are not our prerogative alone. They’re also being asked in Latin America about us, about our intentions, about our capacity to help make The Alliance for Progress a success. These questions were raised in open meeting at Punta del Este by the representative of the Castro regime. Who boasted that only their monolithic form of statism could produce progress."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 152

PLAYS: 23

(Nixon in Caracas - It wasn't kisses they were throwing)

A look back at our previous stabs at foreign policy tonight. This one has to do with the ill-fated Vice-President Nixon Goodwill tour of Latin America in 1958.

The reaction was particularly hostile towards Nixon and it came as something of a surprise to the White House.

Initial reaction was Communist sympathizers whipping up anti-American sentiment, and targeting Nixon during his visit as a show to the world that the U.S. was losing support in the Southern Hemisphere.

But it seems the Anti-American sentiment had very little to do with Cold War posturing - we were simply the bad guys and no one in Washington wanted to admit it.

Shortly after the visit was cut short, CBS Radio ran a special edition of their "Radio Beat" discussion series and asked the question "what went wrong?"

The broadcast, from May 15, 1958 featured Moderator Stuart Novins and Galo Plaza, former President of Ecuador. Adolf A. Burleigh, former Assistant Secretary of State. Serafino Romualdi, Inter-American Representative for the AF of L/CIO (and also, it was later found, a long time CIA agent). Robert Alexander, Associate Professor of Economics at Rutgers University, Frances Grant, Secretary General of the Inter-American Center for Democracy and Freedom and CBS news correspondent Wells Church, who was traveling with the Nixon party.

This one hour panel discussion focuses on why the U.S. presence in Latin America has cultivated such a degree of hostility, and what has happened to U.S./Latin American relations since the end of World War 2.

Stuart Novins:

“ Vice-President Nixon is back in Washington. He and Mrs. Nixon have had a grueling personal experience. It’s not pleasant, to the say the least, when what starts out as a goodwill trip ends in booing, stone-throwing and a situation dangerous enough to cause the White House to alert Marines and paratroopers. It’s fair to say, I think, that this also was an unpleasant experience for most Americans. The realization that we are not liked is always shocking. But sober second thoughts follow the initial impact. Is it that we are not liked by large segments of South American, or is it simply that the Communists don’t like us? Does it matter whether we’re liked or not? Do we need to reexamine our national policies relating to South America? Is there a real communist threat there?"

It's starting to look like it may actually have been a good thing that Pat Buchanan spouted off so nakedly about Sonia Sotmayor this week -- not so much that he did it, but that in doing so, he's finally provoked a serious response to the meaning of his ongoing presence in our national discourse.

People are finally starting to ask the question I asked back in 2006:

How much longer, one has to wonder, will our mainstream press continue to pretend that Pat Buchanan has not gone completely around the bend? That he is no longer the avuncular conservative from old episodes of Crossfire but a full-fledged extremist trying to resurrect the once-discredited ethos of white supremacism?

The evidence was more than abundantly clear back then, with the publication of his book State of Emergency, which was a vehicle for essentially a regurgitation of warmed-over eugenics theory from the 1920s. Buchanan was all over TV as well, spouting nonstop the fear that white people were losing their majority and with it their political power, swept away by a tide of brown people from Latin America.

Alexander Zaitchik's report for the SPLC hit the nail on the head:

To put it plainly, State of Emergency is a white nationalist tract. The thesis is that America must retain a white majority to survive as a nation. It is rooted in a blood-and-soil nationalism more blood than soil. The echoes of Nazi ideology are clear and chilling. As Buchanan helpfully explained to John King, who was interviewing him in one of his several CNN appearances: "We gotta get into race and ethnic questions."

Indeed, Buchanan has a not-inconsiderable role in the history of white nationalism in America in the past 20 years -- particularly the role he has had in mainstreaming supremacist beliefs, many of which are either fallacious or crudely racist. Leonard Zeskind devotes a sizable chunk of his marvelous history of the movement, Blood and Politics: The History of the White Nationalist Movement from the Margins to the Mainstream, to dealing with Buchanan and his sizable impact.

After all, he's been at this a long time. In a columm he wrote back in 1989 defending David Duke and chiding the GOP for overreacting to him, he counseled movement conservatives thus:

"Take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, [such as] reverse discrimination against white folks." (syndicated column, 2/25/89)

At the time, Duke had just finished running for president on the Populist Party ticket. His chief platform position in that campaign: stopping immigration before Latin Americans overwhelm the country. A couple of years later, Buchanan tried to claim that Duke was copying him, but it's clear from the chronology that it worked the other way around.

The good thing about the attention Buchanan has brought on himself is that it may finally shine a spotlight on the persistent and malignant influence of white nationalism on our national discourse and our body politic. Looking as we are at pan-racial, multicultural future, our success is going to hinge on our abilities to find ways to break down the old racial barriers that were erected by white supremacists -- whose worldview was dominant in the USA for decades -- a century ago and more. And as Pat Buchanan has been demonstrating, they will only go kicking and screaming.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (273)

PLAYS: (626)

From The Daily Show April 21, 2009, This Week in Demagogues. Jon Stewart wonders just how badly President Obama's trip to the Summit of the Americas could have played in the U.S. media and why anyone cares what Dick Cheney thinks. Of course, as usual the Fox "News" pundits supply him with an endless amount of material.

    What with Iraq's "success" so fragile that it might shatter, Afghanistan becoming even more deadly than Iraq ever was, Pakistan threatening retaliation for cross-border raids, Russia baring its teeth over the Caucusus conflict started by John McCain's pal - with all those, you know the last thing America wants is a disturbance down South America way.

Unfortunately, that's what's happening. Bolivia is swiftly slipping into violent chaos and the Bolivian leader, Evo Morales, has blamed it all in American provocateurs. He has expelled the US ambassador to Bolivia and, in solidarity, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has sent the ambassador to his country packing too. Washington has responded by throwing out envoys from Bolivia and Venezuela and freezing the assets of three aides to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

In Washington, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the US regretted the actions of Venezuela and Bolivia.

"This reflects the weakness and desperation of these leaders as they face internal challenges, and an inability to communicate effectively internationally in order to build international support," he said.

Bolivian and Venezuelan allegations - including that the US supports continuing anti-government protests in Bolivia - were false "and the leaders of those countries know it", Mr McCormack added.

Meanwhile, Honduras has refused the credentials of a new US ambassador, postponing his appointment.

...Freezing the assets of the three Venezuelan aides, the US Treasury accused them of "materially assisting the narcotics trafficking" of rebels in Colombia.

Analysts say the trio - Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios, Henry de Jesus Rangel Silva and Ramon Rodriguez Chacin - are members of Mr Chavez's inner circle.

Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega may yet tell the US ambassador there to take a hike too - he's saying he backs he Bolivian leader.

Perhaps Ortega is remembering when the current US Director of national Intelligence, John Negroponte, was working in Honduras on CIA covert operations in support of the contras. Those covert operations involved several other figures who are part of, or close to, the Bush administration. It's OK to be paranoid when you have evidence they really are out to get you.

Now, just to make matters worse, the feud with Russia is getting all tangled up with the diplomatic feud in Latin America, as Russian forces get ready for joint military exercises with Venezuela.  If there ever was or could have been a unipolar world, neoconservative foreign policy has ensured that it isn't to be. With much of America's military tied down in protracted occupations, fought to exhaustion by ragtag militias, other nations aren't as cowed as the used to be.