Then there was the fact he vetoed Taft-Hartley. supersoulty's argument was at the time unions weren't bad, it's just that today they are evil corrupt spawns of satan and the corporations they fight are perfect little angels who mean no harm to anyone. Assuming Truman would agree is rather naive, but look at his other positions. He nationalized the steel mills for a brief period of time. He desegregated the military, which was considered social liberalism at the time. He advocated NATIONAL SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE. He won in 1948 running on class warfare issues. He fired MacArthur. Fair Deal. Does that sound like a Republican to you?
Saying that Truman would be a Republican is revisionist history of the lowest and cheapest level.
Well, i think that you win the prize for bending my words, twisting my beliefs, ignoring the obvious and the down right asinine action of putting words into my mouth.
First off, I am not 100% against unions and I'm not 100% pro-business. As I was telling Nym last night in a long conversation, the two sides of my family come from both traditions. On one side, my Uncle Mike is a Union president. On the other, my family has owned it's own small business for the past 60 years.
I find it sad that you feel so threatened that you must twist what I said to attack me. You must be desperate. What I said is that organizaed labor isn't what it was inthe time of Truman. Taft/Hartley came in an era when there was more curruption on the business end then there was on the labor end. Today, it's equal, but the advantage does sway towards labor. I related stories to Nym last night that I have been given by my uncle, who is once again
an union president about corruption and less than scrupulous deeds commited by organized labor. Does this mean that it is bad in principle? No it doesn't, but there must be control on the part of both parties involved. I think Truman would understand this view.
"Truman nationalized the steel mills". True, he did, but this was during a time of war when
labor unions were threatening a strike. It was done for purposes of nation security, because there was a national emergency. One can hardly condem him for doing so.
"Truman desgregated the military". And your point is? So what? I think that 99.9% of Republicans would do the same if presented with such a situation today. That might have been liberal then, but who gives a rats ass. Where the Republican Party stands today is to the Left of where the Dems were 50 years ago.
"National Socialized Health Care". Can you say Nixon, anyone?
"Class Warfare". There are plenty of populist Republicans today. Also, once again, you fail to understand that most Republicans today would support the issues Truman addressed in his "class warfare" campaign.
"He fired MacArthur". Ike would have done the same. I think that if the current Bush had a rouge general commanding the armed forces, he would probably fire his ass too.
"The Fair Deal". The Fair Deal was basically a mch smaller version of the New Deal. The Fair Deal was designed to cut down on a lot of waste (enormous waste) caused by the New Deal, while offering basic social services. We would have been fine if we stuck to this. Most Republicans wouldn't arguee aginst the basic social safety net provided by the Fair Deal. Things didn't start ot go over board until the "Great Society".
So what's your point? You clearly misunderstood the context of whatI was saying. What I said was "If Truman ran today with the same beliefs he had then, he would be a Republican". He would be a populist neo-con, just like Lamar Alexander.
Instead you decided to contort what I said to make me look like an idiot. Well, I'll let the forum members judge who the real idiot is, but I would certainly appriciate it if from now on you did stuff words into my mouth.