Today’s reading shows us some of the behind the scenes factors that played into a gradual decrease in trust towards the government within American society. Zinn points out that Americans shifted from 26% to 53% ratings of agreeing with the statement “Is the government run by a few big interests looking out for themselves” from 1964-1972. Obviously the Vietnam war had a lot to do with this. Lack of true information conveyed to citizens, a disapproval of taking on the war in the first place by a majority of citizens, and an uneasiness about the United States’ true intentions behind the war all led to this diminishing patriotism and rise in distrust.
While, we have read and heard about this in class, and saw it in Platoon, I was particularly interested in the argument that “corporate influence is a permanent fact of the white house” (p. 547). I do find it strange that so much of each presidential candidate’s money comes from these private donors, back then and even today. Who could believe anything besides the fact that these corporations are essentially buying their hand in a say in government? I thought it was interesting that Zinn described Nixon “leaving” (really removed) office, and replacing him with Ford was like “getting rid of the apples, but saving the barrel”. I think this was not only an example of the way al ot of systems in American (especially political and economic) continue to just simply be passed down in new forms. If I were alive and educated well in this time, I absolutely would have questioned the intentions in rehiring someone so similar to a person who gravely misstepped. But it goes back to the same point: Nixon had to go, but the voice of the corporations did not. They just had to be spoken from a new mouth.
The last point I found interesting was that of the Mayaguez Affair in 1975. American soldiers were captured, but eventually released. However, the United States, coming right off losing to the smaller Vietnam in their recent war, felt it needed to assert itself. In doing so, it ignored messages of a likely freeing of these Americans, and sent troops and ammunition in order to save them heroically. I found ironic that more troops were killed saving those captured, than the initial amount of those actually captured. Zinn asserts that it was “necessary to show the world that giant America, defeated by the tiny Vietnam, was still powerful and resolute” (p. 552). This shows the ego that America had, and is a prime example of how sometimes our egos can bring more harm than good.
I think this trend of a new person, same rhetoric is super common but also dangerous. It is seen in real life when people went from slavery to strict Jim Crow laws, but it also made me think about the Hunger Games and how President Coin wasn’t going to be any better than President Snow. I think the really dangerous thing about this is how easily people fall for this and aren’t educated enough on the actual issue to recognize when they are being tricked.
I think that your response to the reading is very well done. When Nixon resigned, his vice president Ford took over. I think well logically it makes sense because he is the next in command, Ford is part of the same campaign that Nixon was a part of and so they were able to kick him out and claim a new start but the bones remained intact. He was Nixon’s VP for a reason. Do you think that other than assurance to the American people this switch actually made anything better? While Ford did receive America in shambles, he essentially made it worse by rushing to prove that we were in fact the best. In my opinion, the change in leadership did not yield anything other than a symbolic change.