Talk:Henry M. Jackson

Free to SubAmericanise

New Deal Democrats borrowed a lot from Fascism and Communism, and were quite right to do so. The system would not have survived if it had hung on to what it was when Roosevelt got elected.

Both the USA and USSR were intent on imposing their own system on the rest of the world. There was no intention of allowing anyone to live differently from the USA in the long term. The USA prevented elections in Vietnam because the Communists were likely to win them. Democracy was never respected when it involved people choosing to move away from the USA.

New Deal Democrats also had no wish to end the domination of society by people who were mostly white, mostly male and almost all rich.

As the main article says, this does flow very naturally into Reaganism. Except Reagan depended heavily on white-racist votes in the formerly solid Democratic states of the US South. 'Neoconservatives' are embarrassed by this, of course. They want everyone to be an identical 'unit of the individual'. But that is the reality.

'Free Market' is also misleading. The USA has kept the vast mass of subsidy, guarantee and regulation that the New Deal imposed. The 'neoconservatives' show no faith in their own creed when it would cost them money if it were not so. No one said 'let the market find its own level' in 1987, when a crash threatened to bring down the system. Only when it comes to taking things away from poor people is regulation suddenly wicked.

'Classic Capitalism' failed in the early 1930s. What the New Deal created used to be called the 'Mixed Economy' and should still be called the 'Mixed Economy'.

I comment on wider matters because the main article does. I take it to be written by some of the 'Henry Jackson Society' crowd. Fine, so long as they allow 'right of reply'.

--GwydionM 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport name change

I changed part of the content to accurately reflect what actually happened in the above-referenced name reversion by the politicians. This came right out of his biography by Kaufman.

1. The actual name of the airport is Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. "Sea-Tac" is just a nickname everyone calls it.

2. The public was actually against changing the name back. They loved Scoop. It was business leaders, civic leaders & politicians in the two cities (Tacoma in particular) who were afraid of losing convention business without the name of their city in the airport title.--Hokeman 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Party denunciation

8BitJake, please provide a source for the bit about the Democratic Party denouncing the neoconservative "posthumously adoption" of Jackson's legacy. You saying it happened is not verifiable. (And please, please tell me that they used better grammar than that...) -- Jonel | Speak 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It currently reads: The Washington State Democratic Party officially denounced neoconservatives' posthumous adoption of Senator Jackson’s legacy in oral arguments speaking for a 2006 WSDCC resolution.

This makes no sense. I've also Googled for it and can't find anything. It's not clear, even from the sentence, whether the resolution was even passed. Can 8BitJake address this problem please? I don't want to delete it without giving him a chance to fix it, but right now, it flunks WP:V as well as basic grammar. -- FRCP11 22:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Rereading this, I see that this question has been pending for two months and 8BitJake has refused to answer it. I'm deleting the statement as violating WP:V; it's likely 8BitJake's confused interpretation of his own personal experience. -- FRCP11 05:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jackson was not a Neocon

Senator Jackson was not a neo-conservative and the neocon appropriation of his legacy did not happen in his lifetime and we don’t know how he would have reacted to it so I don’t see a point of mentioning the Neocons in this article on Senator Jackson. I propose removing all references to them from this article and will do so.--8bitJake 20:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I will restore them if you do so. It's an important part of his legacy. Even today, Wolfowitz calls himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat. -- FRCP11 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You should mention that on the page on the Neocons. Since Senator Jackson was NOT a neocon it has no place on this page. I am fully prepared to fight and win this edit war. I don’t give a rats ass what Wolfowitz calls himself that does not change one damn but that Senator Jackson was not a neo-con. --8bitJake 20:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere does the page call Jackson a Neocon. It correctly states that he was influential in the Neocon movement. This is a historical fact that is relevant to Scoop Jackson, and belongs on his page, as well as on a Neocon page. It's notable, verifiable, and you give absolutely no reason for deleting it. -- FRCP11 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It sullens his image and it is tantamount to revisionist historical slander and it has no place in a NPOV article. If you want to mention it go do it in the neocon page. NOT HERE! Go look at the official bio on the Henry M Jackson Foundation website. There is not one mention of him being a Neocon. --8bitJake 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "sullies" his image? Even if these facts do "sully" his image (which they don't--rather, they show that Jackson has had important influence beyond his lifetime, something very few politicians will ever be able to claim), that's not a reason to delete it. You greatly misunderstand what "NPOV" means if you think including additional facts (whose truth you have yet to dispute) violates NPOV. The Wikipedia biography is not supposed to be identical to the Henry M. Jackson Foundation website biography. There are many references to Scoop Jackson's influence on modern neoconservatism, all of which you deleted from the article. -- FRCP11 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Neocon twisting Senator Jackson’s legacy is on the article on the Neocons so it does not need to be here nor does it deserve to be here. --8bitJake 21:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Every statement in the article that you deleted is WP:V, and you have yet to point to anything otherwise. The article never calls Jackson a neocon, so I have no reason to accept your challenge. The argument that verifiable notable information that has nothing to do with whether Jackson called himself a neocon needs to be removed because Jackson didn't call himself a neocon is a non sequitur. I'm restoring the text, since you have yet to give a valid reason for unilaterally deleting material that was added by several other editors. -- FRCP11 21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I made my case and I defended it. You do not have a consensus and your changes to the article will be removed. --8bitJake 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times:

"a new generation of Democrats wants to dust off and rehabilitate those traditional Democratic principles, which they believe were hijacked by the Bush administration.

They want, in essence, to return to the beliefs that originally brought the neocons to prominence, the beliefs that motivated old-fashioned Cold War liberals such as Democratic Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson. -- Jacob Heilbrun, "Neocons in the Democratic Party"

See also Peter Beinart's new book.

I suppose it's too much to expect an apology, but can you stop your nonsensical revert war now? In your passion to censor the article because of a misperceived "sullening" [sic], you deleted the link to the "Scoop Jackson Papers" at the University of Washington. I'm making a substantive edit to the article to reflect the Beinart book. Please don't violate WP:3RR. If you really care about Wikipedia and Scoop Jackson, why don't you try to translate your addition to the neocon section into the English language and find a cite for it? -- FRCP11 22:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Scoop Jackson Papers" at the University of Washington was a Dead link that I just fixed. This is not an article on Peter Beinart, Jacob Heilbrun or any Neocon and text about them will be deleated. I hope you do respect WP:3RR and note that you reverted first and have all ready violated WP:3RR--8bitJake 22:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sir, I have respected 3RR. I made substantive edits in an attempt at compromise, and you reverted each time, vandalizing twice. (It's not a violation of 3RR to fix vandalism.) You are in violation of 3RR. If you want to report me, I'll be happy to defend my actions, because I have adhered to Wikipedia standards and you have not. You have not attempted to compromise. You have not attempted to explain your position. -- FRCP11 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your complaint about consensus was just phantom, since you're now on your fifth revert of two different editors. -- FRCP11 22:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC

As you can see from the disputed edit, the text a single editor wishes to censor from the article is both notable and verifiable. The editor's argument against including it is the argument that Jackson was not a neoconservative himself, which may or may not be true, but is irrelevant to the fact that Jackson's political philosophy was highly influential over the modern neoconservative movement by the accounts of outside observers as well as neoconservatives themselves. -- FRCP11 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not Censorship. I am removing POV slander against the late Senator. --8bitJake 20:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You greatly misunderstand what "POV" means in Wikipedia. What's POV about the fact that Wolfowitz worked for Jackson, and says that Jackson influenced his political beliefs? I see you don't dispute that this is a notable fact, and don't dispute that this fact is verifiable. You thus have no basis for removing it. -- FRCP11 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

So what? That is completely moot. If you can find proof that the late Senator claimed he was a neocon straight from his own mouth then you could include it but you can’t so it does not belong here. --8bitJake 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Jake, this isn't Argument Clinic. You have to give reasons for deleting factual verifiable information in Wikipedia, and you still haven't justified it. -- FRCP11 21:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave my reasons. Senator Jackson was not a Neocon and you can not prove otherwise. Thus the Neocon fantasy has no place in the article about my late great Senator.--8bitJake 21:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I gave a verifiable cite calling Jackson a neocon forerunner. You deleted it without explanation. -- FRCP11 22:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• 8bitJake, neoconservatism and the left wing or the Democratic Party or liberalism are not polar opposites; they are not oil and water (Wolfowitz is a noted liberal on domestic issues for instance). The evolution of political movements is never as simple as that. *Please see Neoconservatism_(United_States)#Drift_away_from_New_Left_and_Great_Society and Neoconservatism_(United_States)#Left-wing_roots_of_Neoconservative_organizations.
• Also see the Amazon review of a major Jackson biography which links him with neoconservative admirers: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0295979623/103-6680571-9244660?v=glance&n=283155
• The article does not call Jackson a "neoconservative" (since the use of the term as we know it today begins a decade or more after his death, we're hardly going to find a quote proclaiming himself as one) (the origins of the term as used to day is still a bit murky to me) - it points out that his foreign policy policy positions have been publicly admired by neoconservatives who regard him as an early forerunner.
• Finally, Wikipedia is not a place for dogma and refusal to engage in reasonable argument. Bwithh 22:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

8bitJake's complaint

8bitJake repeatedly complains that Jackson is listed as Category:Neoconservatives. But he's not. He's listed in Category:Neoconservatism, which is a different animal, and is relevant, since Jackson's political philosophy is the father of neoconservatism. Just because the Sunnis and Shia disagree with each other doesn't mean that they're not both descended from Mohammedan Islam. -- FRCP11 22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That is a load of revisionist crap. Leave my late Senator alone. --8bitJake 22:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You don't get to choose who admires Scoop Jackson. Maybe you should look more closely at neoconservatism as a personal philosophy if you're really a Scoop Jackson fan? The modern Democrats have betrayed his legacy. -- FRCP11 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Really I met with my Congressman Norm Dicks last week who served with Scoop and he supports Congressman Murtha solution Iraq.--8bitJake 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with Jackson? And anyway, the article is not suggesting that if Scoop Jackson was alive today, he'd be a Rumsfeld ally. Its noting his influence on neoconservatives. And neoconservatives are not one monolithic camp of thought - Francis Fukuyama has notably distanced himself from the Iraq invasion for instance. Bwithh 22:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• 8bitJake, here is the lead paragraph from a review of one of the first major histories of the development of neoconservatismin Foreign Affairs magazine - possibly the most reputable American journal of international relations: Article link]. Lead: "For 14 years, from the 1973 Jackson-Vanik amendment until the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a group of intellectuals known as neoconservatives shaped, and sometimes dominated, American foreign policy. They wrote for Commentary, The Wall Street Journal, and later The National Interest. They acted through organizations like the Committee on the Present Danger and the Committee for the Free World. They held important positions in the AFL-CIO leadership and in the office of Senator Henry M. Jackson, then the most powerful Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And during Ronald Reagan's first term, they occupied influential posts in the State and Defense Departments."
• 8bitJake, you are in danger of losing your editing privileges if you continue vandalizing the article. Please take some time to discover more about how Wikipedia works Bwithh 22:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to remove the vandalism and right wing libel about my late senator that were on this page. They failed to prove that Senator Jackson claimed he was a Neocon so there is no reason to disgrace his article with mentioning this cult.--8bitJake 22:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You greatly misunderstand the definition of vandalism and libel when you delete factual and verifiable statements that have cited sources. Please read the FAQ. -- FRCP11 22:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to RfC: While I do have some issues with portions of the deleted edits and think that they could be cleaned up, I do agree in principle that Mr. Jackson was a forerunner and an inspiration to SOME neocons. He was, after all, hawkish on foreign policy. The discussion on the neocons not taking his stance on domestic issues provides balance. IMO, there is room for compromise. youngamerican (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have be offering a compromise of keeping the listing of the Necon worship of Senator Jackson on the Neocon page but keeping it off this page since it can't be proven if he would approve nor can it be proven to have endorsed any of the policy and world views that the modern Neocon cult subscribes to. --8bitJake 23:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize how much you hurt your credibility when you can't string a sentence together? Have some respect for your readers. Also, repeatedly asserting something and refusing to respond to evidence contradicting your assertion doesn't help your credibility, either.

Finally, can you answer the question about the WSDPP already? Where is this reported? -- FRCP11 23:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

By listing the late Senator as a neoconservative or as an influence on the band of liars and war-criminals it implieD that he condones the current bloody war. It read as guilt by association and it should not be here. --8bitJake 23:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The article actually only cites his influence on neoconservatism, and does so with a plethora of sources. Your statements "band of liars," "war criminals," "implied that he condones the current bloody war" and "guilt by association" are all POV statements, and should not be - and are not - reflected here. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And as has been pointed out multiple times now, the article does not call Jackson a neoconservative. That 8bit continues to insist otherwise -- even as he ignores the more important question in Democratic Party denunciation -- makes it difficult to discuss this rationally. -- FRCP11 05:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Jackson was not a neoconservative so the inclusion of neoconservativism in this article is slander. It is guilt by association of a beloved member of my state political party. I have written the Henry M Jackson Foundation in regards to this article.--8bitJake 15:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)