Literary Review

 Literary Review of the Unraveling of America by Allen Matusow

Included new entry of Churchill "Churchill Fought For the Working Class in the Early 1900s" that was being blocked

The book by Matusow describes the 1960s through different persepectives. The first section details the importance of John Fitzgerald Kennedy and his presidency in allowing America to improve despite the existence of socialism. Kennedy's presidency displayed how classical liberalism helped improve the United States by fighting for Civil Rights, using Keynesian economics to get the country out of a recession, created jobs, prioritized schools, wanted to send a man to the moon in the Space Race against the Soviet Union, created the Peace Corps, and fought agaist socialism. Kennedy was a bureaucrats nightmare for choosing to improve the United States through jobs and educations consistent with Christianity, Democracy, and capitalism. (Nixon is described in positive terms at times while he was a crook while Kennedy was criticized concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy was described having a "personal vendetta against Castro" while Castro had nuclear weapons pointed at the US in Cuba. It seems that Kennedy was defending the US against Cuba and there was no vendetta, but actually removal of nuclear threats. Kennedy is described being impressive throughout the book yet at times is criticized unfairly in the book. This is while racist affluent socialists in SDS are described being a part of the Civil Rights Movement.)

The book also significantly contrasts the mid 1960s when the disillusionment from Kennedy's assassination attempted to discourage Americans from being idealistic and courageous (Socialists envied JFK including Hoover, Sullivan and Nixon for being an impressive and innovative leader who practiced empathy and was a real Catholic Christian). The socialists attempted to cause a racial and class war between American citizens because the US had improved under Kennedy who was a classical liberal. The "counter culture" movement was created by socialists to prevent any further improvements by conservatives and classical liberals in the US. The socialists wanted Americans fighting against Americans based on race. (Racist socialists wanted to keep segregation and were oppressing and persecuting the Civil Rights Movement activists. The intention was for racist socialist bureaucrats to radicalize African Americans and minorities into aggression and violence against Caucasian racists so that bureaucrats could propagate further conflict and division so that there was no unity. The Civil Rights Movement kept civility and prevented a race war that was intended by the socialist bureaucrats in the 1960s.) Then the socialists in 1964 and 1965 attempted to foment class war. The bureaucrat socialists denied grants to Civil Rights activists like Farmer for ending segregation on buses, trains, and airplane while they gave grants to socialist "intellectuals". The socialist propaganda promoters gave free paychecks to poor socialists in order to instigate race and class war. Socialist "intellectuals" made propaganda to instigate class and race warfare identifying themselves with the oppressed while being affluent. (While being affluent they also helped themselves to tax payer funds.)  The intention was not equality but fomenting division and chaos. Despite all of this, Americans citizens still kept integrity and did not give in to incivility and violence. Idolatry was seen shapeshifting since the 40s from socialist nazism to beats to hippies to materialism to SDS to racism to marxism to rock and roll to the Liberation Party to weatherman to Black Panthers to communism to bureaucracy. Socialism is deception and does not have a stable basis. Despite the different iterations of tempting to disobey the commandments of Moses, socialism fails. We are created to practice empathy and not envy. 

Socialism is the Source of the World's Problems

In contrast to the start of the book that describes an impressive United States under classical liberal, JFK, the book also describes how socialism and counterculture attempted to diminish and decrease the United States in the mid 1960s. The book concludes that the existence of socialism in the mid 1960s contributed to the election of Ronald Reagen in the 1980s and clear repudiation of marxism in the US. This does not mean that socialism has disappeared but means that the socialists became covert socialists. The book describes how college affluent students were indoctrinated (and deceived) by socialist agents who may also have been FBI agents such as Black Panthers H. Rap Brown and Carmichael, Mark Rudd, LeRoi Jones, Marcuse, Savio, and Brown. The socialist agents preached hate and racism in order to cause a class and racial war between Americans. Affluent college students also decided to rebel against a quality education preferring to foment division in SDS and also shutting down classes for others. Despite such opposition from marxists against Education, Democracy, capitalism, and genuine empathy, it is stated that only 1 out of 5 students were marxists in 1967. Despite the abrasiveness and foolishness of marxists, only 1 out of 5 college students were socialists. This helps us know that the majority of students in the United States and in the mid 1960s preferred Christianity, Democracy, and capitalism to marxism.

While marxism wanted to eradicate classical liberalism and conservatism, it was actually socialism that declined in the 1960s and later led to the popularity of humble conservatism that was anti-establishment under Carter and Reagen. Despite the oppressiveness and negativity of marxism, moderates were able to persist protecting Democracy and capitalism from racist marxists. Instead classical liberalism and conservatism increased,  and marxist counter culture (not actually culture but heathenism) declined. This was described in how racist socialist groups declined in the 1960s including SDS, weatherman, Black Panthers, marxists, and progressive liberal party. SDS declined seen in how students were barricading universities instead of helping others get a quality education. Instead of fighting the source of inequality that is socialism and socialists, affluent college students trashed their universities and cities. Socialists fought against police in order to be allowed to trash schools and universities. Marxists went to schools and staged sit ins to indoctrinate students in socialism. When confronted with the National Guard on different occassions, the coward socialists dispersed. Marxist students only fought against police when they had more numbers and never against marshalls and the National Guard. Matusow described in great detail the cowardice of marxist affluent students who were neither fighting for the working class nor for their own betterment but for disorder and non-sense. Marxist affluent students wanted to end Democracy and capitalism and instead created a rise in moderates and conservatives who saw that marxism is essentially parasitic and deleterious.

Constructive Criticism Concerning How the Civil Rights Movement Had Nothing To Do With Racism and Marxism

At times the book describes that the racist and marxist groups originated from the Civil Rights Movement. This is a lie. The Civil Rights Movement was anti-violence and anti-segregation. The racist groups and marxist groups were pro-violence and pro-segregation. The Civil Rights Movement is mutually exclusive from the racist marxist groups because pacifism has nothing to do with aggression. The book at times makes statements that the marxist groups were with the Civil Rights Movement, helped, or were derived from the Civil Rights Movement. This is a lie. Independent individuals who may have become radicalized and chosen to practice marxism in the times of the 1960s were no longer Civil Rights activists. Yet it may have been that marxists attempted to obfuscate the truth by calling themselves Civil Rights Activists in order to blame the Civil Rights Movement for riots and looting. This was also to make it appear that Democrats were distruptive and chaotic when in fact it was marxists who were rioting and looting. Marxists projected their evil actions onto Classical Liberals and Christians. (The book was written in the 70s or 80s and may have not conflagrated marxists with the Civil Rights Movement and classical Liberals with malicious intent. The book does describe that marxists were disruptive and disobedient and actually the source of conflict and quarreling). However at times it does criticize Civil Rights leaders with intense scrutiny (MLK could have retired early from the Civil Rights Movement in 1964) while easing off on Hoover (lied to JFK about MLK being a communist and Hoover kept bugging MLK until 1966, yet JFK is described as having allowed the espionage. Hoover was responsible for the espionage and also persecuted JFK and MLK), Sullivan, and Nixon (a "reformed" Nixon was a lie because Nixon was always a crook). Civil Rights Activists kept their integrity and values and were never a part of socialism. Although the book does describe marxist groups as the culprit of the instability in the 1960s.

"[Describing 1961] Participatory democracy was SNCC's implicit goal, anarchism its intuitive philosophy."- (page 346)

"How black power evolved out of the civil rights movement and then failed ideological challenge was one of the decade's more melancholy stories."- (page 345)

The author described that in 1961, SNCC's goal was "participatory democracy" when in fact it was desegregation and enfranchising disenfranchised African-Americans. Initially in the early 1960s, SNCC was working by using pacifism and civil disobedience consistent with MLK's beliefs. The goal was not anarchism nor marxism that was called "participatory democracy" by socialists that included rioting, looting, and harassment. The goal of SNCC in 1961 was breaking apart racist segregation laws in public places and educating African-Americans on their voting rights. This could hardly be called anarchism or "participatory democracy" that was used by marxists to call for harassment of liberals and conservatives. The description was not true because anarchism and harassment was used by marxists in 1965 and was described as "participatory democracy". SNCC in 1961 was harassed and reviled by racist socialists for educating disenfranchised African-Americans on their voting rights and helping them learn how to vote. Racist socialists were actually anarchists and used "participatory democracy" against SNCC in 1961 for educating and helping their African American brethen to exercise their right to vote.

There was a specific quote that described that nationalism (hating other nationalities or ethnicities) "evolved" from the Civil Rights Movement, yet it actually originated from marxism. The socialist Caucasian racists oppressed pacifist African Americans, Caucasians, and minorities in order to lead to a race war. Racist and idolatrous African Americans and minorities attempted to radicalize individuals to use violence and aggression against racists in order to keep promoting violence and racism. The righteous Civil Rights Activists were not a part of calling for violence and resisted hate. To equate the marxist racists to Civil Rights is to equate unneeded war with pacifism or racism with equality. 

MLK preached non-violence and pacifism throughout his protests and activism. He also led others to civil disobedience rejecting rioting and looting that was what H. Rap Brown and Carmichael were calling for while they were infiltrating SNCC leadership since the mid-1960s. Because the Civil Rights Movement had desegregated public spaces in 1964 and was looking to eliminate Jim Crowe voter discrimination laws and housing segregation, Hoover and the FBI probably trained, funded, and supported H. Rap Brown and Carmichael to oppose MLK. SNCC was being infiltrated and led to socialism and racism since they had helped desegregate buses, trains, and airplanes with James Farmer and were looking to educate disenfranchised semi-literate voters on their voting rights teaching them how to read and vote. The socialist racists including H. Rap Brown, Carmichael, Newton, Cleaver, and Seal tried to lead African Americans to a race war while racist Caucasian socialists (Hoover, Sullivan, Nixon, Wallace, and the FBI) were instigating for violence through racism. While H. Rap Brown and Carmichael were calling for violence, there were riots and looting that occured in 1965. 

Matusow described that Black Panther leader Cleaver was a nationalist but not a "racist". Cleaver was a jihadi muslim marxist and racist who worked for Nixon. Cleaver attempted to create a marxist third party in order to shift votes from the 1968 Democratic nominee to the third party and give the election to Nixon. (Cleaver was actually a racist and not trying to foment serenity.) Eventually, Nixon preferred racist Wallace as a third party candidate "populist" who hid his racism in the 1968 election to take votes from Humphrey appearing to be an "anti-bureaucratic Christian Protestant" instead of the California Peace and Freedom third party led by the Black Panthers.

"More successful was the Panthers opening to the white left, a demarché made possible because Cleaver was one nationalist who was not racist as well. In December 1967 he opened negotiations with the California Peace and Freedom Party, a predominanly white group that hoped to provide a radical alternative to the two major parties in the next presidential election..." The Panthers would have exclusive responsibility for defining the Peace and Freedom program for the [idolatrous and marxist] African American community. [Idolatrous marxist] Caucasians could define the party program for Caucasians.- (page 371) [Marxists attempted to create a third party to prevent the Democrats from winning the election of 1968 and give the election to Nixon, the crook. There was also no unity between racist marxists because they hate ethnicities that are not their own. Nixon still preferred Wallace.]

"For the new left, the image of America the bloodsucker organized the data of politics in a compelling and persuasive new way. But it also deflected the movement onto a disastrous course by fostering a romantic sense of identification with Third World guerillas, by bringing old left Marxism back into fashion, and by undermining the movement's commitment to democratic values."- (page 326) [The socialists including Hoover, Nixon, Wallace, and the FBI along with the Black Panther leaders who also were FBI attempted to make the US seem parasitical while actually espousing racism and marxism. (Liberals and conservatives were called parasitical while it was marxists who were actually parasitical.) Civil Rights Activists prevented a race war despite FBI socialists instigating in the 1960s. Vietnam was essentially an unneeded war where billions of dollars were appropiated by socialist bureaucrats from tax payers to cause conflict in Vietnam by Kissinger, Hoover, and Nixon and also to decrease Johnson's popularity. How else was Nixon going to beat a Democratic nominee in the 1960s? When there were considerations for peace talks for Vietnam by Johnson in multiple times, both sides of Vietnam refused and the war kept being escalated. It seems that the intention was to make Johnson seem like a warmonger while Nixon was made to appear like a "peacemaker". The Vietnam war was designed to cause unneeded warfare in Vietnam, make Johnson appear like a deranged warmonger liberal, and also to make socialists appear "kind and pacifists". In reality, Vietnam may have been persecution from marxists against Vietnam, Johnson was threatened to keep escalating the war, and socialist marxists were warmongers and parasitical. That is why marxism and socialism can not be equated with Civil Rights.]

"Black ghettos, they said, were internal colonies victimized by American imperialism precisely as were the colonies of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It followed that black rioters were no less revolutionary guerrillas than the Vietcong-urban guerillas waging war in the belly of the beast. SNCC chairman H. Rap Brown selected August 18, 1965, as the independence day of the internal colony because on that day 'the blacks of Watts picked up their guns to fight for their freedom' [the Black Panthers worked for racist bureaucrats of the FBI trying to instigate their bretheren through lies to a race war... "Declaration of Independence".] That was our Declaration of Independence, and we signed it with Molotov cocktails and rifles.'"- (page 327) [The marxists in the US wanted to cause a race war and justify it based on Vietnam's war. The marxists were not liberating anyone (they were working for the establishment to foment unneeded war in the US while ridiculing MLK and the Civil Rights Movement that was freeing people from racism and marxism). Malcolm X who was an African American Imam realized this and renounced jihadi racism and socialism. Once he was educating people on self-empowerment with self-education and without violence and racism, he was shot by African American jihadi muslims. Che Guevara attacked innocent Bolivians in Bolivia. Marxists were not looking to liberate Africa, Asia, nor Latin America. Chinua Okechebe wrote socialist propaganda complaining that Christianity was improving Africa and that no one wanted to practice paganism in Things Fall Apart. Apparently, individuals prospered because of Christianity and renounced idol worship. Then there was the persecution of farmers in Zimbabwe and South Africa because of envy. Marxists had times of famine because they did not want to or did not know how to work the land once they murdered industrious farmers in Africa. The marxists in America in 1965 instead were causing destruction, rioting, and looting.

"In August 1967 Stokely Carmichael, past SNCC chairman, joined revolutionaries from 27 Latin American countries for a conference in Havana to discuss ways of implementing Che's recent call for 

'Two, three, many Vietnams.'"-(page 327) [So they were pacifists but wanted more warfare? Then Vietnam was used to attempt to promote socialism and racism in the US and other nations. If they were pacifists wouldn't they want no Vietnam [wars]?"

"Martin Luther King was on the streets during the riot, preaching nonviolence."- (page 362)

MLK was in the streets and in the slums during some of the rioting telling African Americans not to riot and loot. The Civil Rights Movement never called for violence and instead called for civil disobedience through peaceful resistance. H. Rap Brown and Carmichael were partly responsible for the rioting and looting along with Caucasian socialist racists who were instigating African Americans, non idolatrous Caucasians, and minorities through intimidation, revilings, and harrassment. Despite the instigation and calls for aggression from jihadi socialists in the Black Panthers, Caucasian socialist terrorists in the Weatherman and FBI racist socialists, the vast majority of African Americans decided to persevere practicing non-violence and civil disobedience. There were also pacifist, anti-socialism, and non-racist Caucasians who fought for the Civil Rights Movement. The FBI attempted to prevent Caucasians and African Americans from working together to end racism and wanted a race war in 1965. (Carmichael told SNCC members that Caucasian members of SNCC should be expelled despite also risking their lives to end racism. Carmichael, prior to Mark Rudd doing the same, told students in a college to oppress the administration and demand for a marxist and socialist education instead of a liberal education causing conflict. )

"They [African American socialists and marxists] looted not in the name of socialism but because looting was one way to acquire the material possessions that they believed, in typical American fashion, would make them happy."- (page 364)

This statement is false since socialism calls for stealing and aggression. To justify looting by blaming capitalism seems a bit dishonest. Capitalism is to be blamed for not dominating and resisting envy and coveting? It is not socialism's fault for the rioting and looting, it is capitalism and Christianity's fault? No! (This is the faulty and disingenous argument being made.) Seems illogical and permissive of sin, consumerism, idol worship, looting, rioting, and socialism or as socialists call it "participatory democracy". Socialists were looting in the name of marxism and communism. Socialist rioters were also receiving free paychecks from OEO offices for community action instructed by Bobby Seale, LeRoi Jones, and Saul Alinsky.

"With the onset of the guerilla fantasy, the corruption of the new left commenced. In the early years movement people tried to live their values by practicing participatory democracy in their organizations, cultivating open relationships, and creating their own community."- (page 330)

In 1965 when Vietnam began, marxists attempted to loot and riot. Marxists blamed everything on liberalism while being the source of problems in the US (Community Action Programs) and abroad (Vietnam war). Matusow stated that the marxists were in fact corrupted, yet conflagrates "movement" or Civil Rights Movement with "participatory democracy" that is harrassment and persecution of liberals and conservatives. Matusow described that marxists used "participatory democracy" in 1965 to describe the college affluent marxist's harrassment of moderates and barricading of universities. Then describes in 1961 and the beginning of the "movement" that Civil Rights Activists were using "participatory democracy" when it was pacifism and civil disobedience. This is done on multiple occassions similar to how marxism is conflagrated with the Civil Rights Movement on multiple occassions. Harrassment and persecution is not pacifism and civil disobedience.

"In the planning stage the Resistance argued for nonviolent civil disobedience, even in the face of arrest. But SDS-ers and other militants flatly rejected nonviolence, hoping to move the antiwar movement 'from the level of moral protests to a show of power.' In the end, no compromise was possible; so it was agreed that the factions would demonstrate on different days of the week [leading to the barricading of street intersections and colleges by affluent college marxists].

The resistance was not a resistance movement because the marxists were a part of the establishment. It is dishonest to call the establishment and marxists, that oppressed different ethnicities and the working class, a resistance movement while calling themselves "oppressed". College affluent marxists did not actually argue for pacifism and civil disobedience because they trashed streets and college campuses while saying they were "oppressed". Matusow describes that marxists were anti-democracy but then calls the marxists a "resistance movement" who argued for civil disobedience. This is false because marxists hate civility and pacifism. This false equivalence occurs multiple times.

"But even as real guerillas employed inhumane means to achieve the humane ends of revolution [false and illogical lie akin to "by any means necessary" lie] so now new leftists began to wonder whether, given their new seriousness, they could any longer afford to indulge their values. Democracy was the first casualty."

"In an even more dangerous departure, Carl Davidson, explicitly rejected the very norms of democracy itself."- (page 330)

Matusow spoke truth about deranged idolatrous marxists that they resent and hate democracy because it allows people to improve and have choices. Marxists hate self-improvement and want everyone to be stagnated in idolatry. True liberals and conservatives hate fascism, totalitarianism, marxism, and sycophantry. "Participatory democracy" that is actual harrassment and persecution of moderates is not democracy, is not revolution (not like the American Revolution where there was actual resistance to oppression from tyranny and creation of democracy and the Bill of Rights), and not utilitarian. Democracy respects the rights of others instead of throwing temper tantrums. We can change the tv station or turn off the tv instead of harrassing others and preventing them from speaking truth like it happened to Humphrey in 1968 with marxists overshouting him at a speech.  (Nixon still resigned in 1974.)

Socialists Hate Pacifism and Civility

"On the cover of the issue of August 24, 1967, the New York Review put a diagram of a Molotov cocktail, while inside Andrew Kopkind, in the midst of dismissing MLK for having failed to make a revolution, wrote, 'Morality, like politics, starts at the barrel of a gun.'"- (page 387)

In a socialist magazine, socialists criticized MLK for making progress against racism and racial segregation through civil disobedience. Racist socialists ridiculed MLK's impressive accomplishments and instead promoted marxism and violence in 1967 (how did the riots happen in California?) Socialist "intellectuals" said that MLK had  failed to make a "revolution". If by "revolution" they meant stealing from the tax payers, promoting looting and rioting, preaching hate and racism, using and selling illicit drugs, enving amazing Civil Rights Activists, causing conflict and division, creating a race and class war, using aggression and hostilities, promoting a caste system, surveilling illegally through bugging private phone calls, stalking and harrassing individuals who think differently, and calling themselves "oppressed", then no. MLK did not do that. Maybe that is why he was so impressive.

MLK did desegregate buses in Montgomery, helped give employment to African Americans and minorities, fought for better wages for sanitation workers, fought for desegregation in schools, universities, restaurants, theaters, shopping centers, libraries, stadiums, airplanes, trains, sports, jobs, and in civil society. MLK did all that by believing in GOD Almighty, practicing genuine empathy, civil disobedience, and pacifism. MLK caused the 1963 Civil Rights Legislation to be law. Then he helped the 1965 Voter Registration Law to pass eliminating racist laws that prevented African Americans and minorities from voting. Then he went to the North and desegregated the housing market in 1968 with the passage of the Equal Housing Bill. All of this while being harrassed, threatened, envied, reviled, slandered, gangstalked, bugged, lied about, arrested, mocked, ridiculed and there are socialists that still say, "MLK failed to make a revolution", while being born with money and calling themselves "oppressed" for having to have discipline in college.

Socialists Lied About Medicare and Medicaid in 1965

"Like so many other welfare programs, Medicare-Medicaid represented a ruinous accomodation between reformers and vested interests, in this case the organized doctors. The American Medical Association... paid twenty three lobbyists a total of $5,000 a day to prevent passage"

"The law, therefore, provided that hospitals would be reimbursed for their reasonable costs and physicians for customary fees. As it turned out, this formula not only guaranteed that the medical profession could continue as before; it guaranteed medical price inflation as well."- (page 228)

Socialists in the mid 1960s lied about Medicare and Medicaid being unneeded and unnecessary. Socialists did not want Medicare to pass legislation because it helped elderly people from the working class. Medicaid also helped individuals with physical discapacities obtain medical care. Socialists said that charity medicine that was free was a better alternative to Medicare and Medicaid, yet not many physicians and facilites offered free medical care. Medicare and Medicaid actually increased the number of physicians and facilities that offered medical care services to individuals that needed medical care. Socialists said that free medicine was better to Medicare yet did not describe how Medicare actually increased services to individuals who did not have access to free medical care. Socialists were envious that older citizens and individuals that needed medical care had their expenses paid by the government. 

Once Medicare and Medicaid were passed, socialists decided to lie about how Medicare was expensive for the budget, caused increased costs of medical care through inflation (although the socialists increased fees of hospitals and doctor services once they knew the tax payers were paying for medical care), and also that the services did not actually help Medicare and Medicaid recipients. All of this was to decrease the popularity of the Democrats, oppose great legislation that helped the working class and needy, and oppose Democracy. Socialists said many lies about how Medicare and Medicaid did not help the working class and the needy. Medicare and Medicaid did actually help individuals obtain needed medical care. This describes the envy of socialists who envy that individuals can choose to practice genuine empathy instead of greed. 

"Medicare not only increased the cost of medicine for society as a whole; it provided far fewer financial benefits for most recipients than was commonly believed."- (page 229)

Medicare Helped Pay For Medical Care

"For that small minority of old people who had both long periods of hospitalization and small savings, Medicare was everything it was cracked up to be."- (page 229)

"But the average aged person was little better off."

"True, he paid only 29 percent of his medical bills directly out of pocket in 1975, compared to 53 percent prior to Medicare."

Medicare actually helped pay for the medical expenses of the elderly. This was something new that did not exist prior to Medicare. Democrats were able to make great legislation by helping elderly patients pay for their medical care through tax payer funded resources. This describes how the Democrats were impressive in the 1960s with legislation that helped its citizens. Socialists said Medicare and Medicaid were not all that helpful. Yet it is known that Medicare and Medicaid actually did help the working class and elderly. By 1976, Medicare and Medicaid helped finance the medical care of one out of every five US citizens. This was when free medicine was not widely available, yet Medicare helped finance the medical care of the elderly starting in 1965. Medicare helped individuals pay less out of pocket while there was no medical insurance for the elderly in the past. Socialists said Medicare was expensive and that it actually produced no significant benefits to elderly patients. It is noted that mortality rates for the elderly decreased after Medicare in 1965. There has to be correlation between accessing medical care with Medicare in 1965 for elderly patients and decreased mortality rates from major diseases. Medicare had to have helped elderly patients since they were accessing medical care.

Medicare and Medicaid Actually Helped Individuals Obtain Medical Services

"Actually, the poor had not fared all that bad prior to Medicaid, thanks to the willingness of doctors and hospitals to dispense charity medicine."- (page 230)

Matusow described how charity medicine had helped patients of modest means. Yet it seems that Medicare and Medicaid actually increased access to medical care for individuals of modest resources in 1965. It may be that there were physicians and facilities that offered free medicine prior to Medicare, yet Medicare and Medicaid actually allowed more individuals to obtain medical care and medical services compared to prior to the Medicare law being passed. Socialists probably downplayed the accomplishments of Medicare and Medicaid in order to prevent voters from voting Democrat, diminish the popularity of the Democrats, and also lie about how individuals of modest means had access to medicine prior to Medicare and Medicaid. There were statistics that did not make sense concerning how individuals of modest means were able to have access to medical care yet had more admissions. The statistics may have been false since after 1965 the mortality rates of major diseases had decreased and can be correlated to Medicare. Infant mortality rates also decreased after Medicare and Medicaid, yet socialists attributed the improvement due to birth control. This seems false also since infant mortality rates decreased because women from modest means were able to see a physician during their pregnancy. Socialists said that the decrease in infant mortality rate after 1965 had decreased due to birth control which seems false. 

It was also stated that Medicare and Medicaid recipients saw physicians 5.6 visits per year compared to 4.9 of affluent individuals and had worse health (increased hospital admissions). It is probably not true and was to lie about Medicare. (Elderly individuals may have had chronic disease prior to Medicare, and Medicare may have helped obtain medical services. This means Medicare was not the reason for increased hospital admissions and it may have been inability to access medical services prior to Medicare.) Medicare was blamed by socialists for increased hospital admissions and also increasing the cost of medical care. The cost of medical care increased because socialists increased the price of medical care. 

""For one thing, Medicaid did not buy a better brand of service than charity medicine had dispensed."

"After 1965 death rates resulting from the major diseases dropped sharply, and so did infant mortality rates."

"After Medicare, old people saw doctors more frequently and stayed in hospitals more days per admission (though their admission rate did not rise.)"

"As for the rapidly declining infant mortality rate, it may be linked to the increasing proportion of poor pregnant women who visit doctors in the first trimester, or just as plausibly, to improved birth control techniques that have reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies."- (page 231)

Medicare and Medicaid probably did help reduce inequality and inegalitarianism in the US. After the passing of the 1964 Civil Rights Legislation created in 1963 by JFK, Medicare and Medicaid were additional legislation that fought systemic inequality. Socialists attacked the 1963 Civil Rights Legislation and also Medicare in 1965. Socialists said the legislation did not improve the lives of US citizens yet actually provided access to medical services that did not exist in the past that led to decreased mortality rates of major diseases after 1965. Socialists said that free medicine was better for individuals of modest means yet charity medicine was not available everywhere. Also socialists said that tax payers lost money for paying for Medicare, when individuals voted for Democrats that promised healthcare insurance for the elderly. In Democracy, there is a choice. Individuals in the US in the 1960s decided to vote for Democrats that legislated Medicare into law. 

Individuals knew that their tax payer funds were going to Medicare and Medicaid. The socialists described that the money that went into Medicare and Medicaid was for services that were once free of charge or with reduced pricing. I doubt free medicine was easily available and instead Medicare and Medicaid actually provided needed services for the elderly and needy in more areas than was the case in the past. I think that more than "appearances", Medicare actually helped the elderly and the needy. 

"Since some Medicare benefits and all Medicaid benefits aided poor and near-poor persons, these programs appeared to reduce income inequality.  Taxpayers lost money income, and the needy gained income in kind. But, as so often happens in the world of welfare, appearances can be deceiving. Most of the government's medical payments on behalf of the poor compensated doctors and hospitals for services once rendered free of charge or at reduced prices."- (page 231)

Medicare By Itself Did Not Cause Medical Care Price Inflation

It is most probable that the price inflation of medical care occurred due to socialists deciding to raise hospital's and doctor's fees arbitrarily. This was because tax payers were paying for medical care. Socialists said that the 14% per year price inflation of medical care in hospitals was due to Medicare. The price inflation of medical care prior to Medicare in hospitals was still 7% prior to Medicare being made law in 1965. This means that there was price inflation in hospital prices even before Medicare. Therefore Medicare was not completely responsible for price inflation as socialists say. 

The actual reason for price inflation doubling was because socialists deciding to increase hospital and doctor's fees. This was because Medicare did not dictate to doctors how to practice yet also did not create cost containment measures. This meant that socialists used Medicare to increase medical care prices by charging more for medical care. They also did that in the 1990s when they attempted to prevent private HMOs and managed care plans from reducing the cost of price inflation. Socialists actually prefer high medical cost inflation because it makes healthcare unaffordable, leads to chronic disease, and creates profits. This began in 1965 with socialists using Medicare to raise prices and not because of Medicare by itself. JFK wanted Medicare insurance to help the elderly similar to how desegregation legislation looked to eliminate the caste system in the US and help African American and minorities obtain jobs and education in the 1960s. The socialists probably first tried to oppose Medicare from passing into law having 23 lobbyists opposing the bill in 1965. When Medicare still passed into law, the socialists then tried to misutilize Medicare to increase the pricing of medical care. Socialists were responsible for price inflation prior to Medicare and also increased hospital fees almost double after Medicare since tax payers were funding the medical care of the elderly. This describes how socialists arbitrarily increased medical fees. Socialists hate efficiency and genuine empathy. This describes how socialists not only blamed Medicare for arbitrary price increases but also misutilized Medicare to cause price increases. Socialists said that elderly patients and the needy were better off with charity medicine because it was free, yet Medicare and Medicaid actually did help the needy. Then socialists increased arbitrarily the pricing of medical care and blamed Medicare and Medicaid for the socialist's greed. Also Medicare was derived from JFK. (The socialists also used Medicare prescription plans in the 2000s to prescribe and pay for bad pharmaceutical medication seen in Vioxx, Celebrex, Actonel, and Fosamax. The bad medication caused additional healthcare spending for adverse effects and contributed to misuse of Medicare. This was due to socialism and socialists.)

Medical Care Price Inflation

"The new programs after all imposed no cost controls and did not alter the way hospitals and doctors ordinarily conducted their business. Hospital prices, which had risen 7 percent in the year before Medicare, jumped by 14 percent in the year after and continued to rise, on the average, 14 percent annually over the next decade. Physicians' fees rose 7 percent a year."- (page 229)

"Aside from middle class old persons protected from the financial ravages of long illness, the clearest beneficiaries of Medicare and Medicaid were doctors, who, according to one estimate, enjoyed an average income gain of $3,900 in 1968 as a result of these programs. Medicare-Medicaid, then, primarily transferred income from middle-class taxpayers to middle-class health-care professionals." (Socialists described that Medicare increased prices of medical care when socialists increased hospital and doctor fees.)

The high cost of medicine was due to medical price inflation created by the socialists. It is noted that doctors gained $3,900 in 1968 after Medicare went into effect. It is possible that there was an increase in prices because of the increase of hospital and doctor fees since there was no price control. This meant that the gained income happened due to the increased prices of medicine. This was probably done arbitrarily by socialists due to increased hospital fees after Medicare became law to diminish the benefits and effectiveness of Medicare and Medicaid and cause an increase of prices. Socialists then blamed Medicare. This is in comparison to primary care physician salaries that did not rise in the 2000s and were arbitrarily controlled. 

Primary care physician salaries remained the same and did not increase despite the need of primary care physicians and only 31% of physicians being in primary care. Despite there being a shortage and demand for primary care physicians in the 2000s which should have increased their salary substantially, their salary was the same. This describes two instances when salaries were arbitrarily manipulated by socialists and was not based on supply and demand principles of economics. Socialists have manipulated the prices of medical care arbitrarily in 1965 and also prevented primary care physicians from having a better salary in the 2000s to deter students from going to primary care and prevent chronic disease. This explains the decreased amount of primary care physicians in the 2000s.

Socialist Lies of Medicare and Medicaid

Socialists lied about Medicare not being helpful and beneficial. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid gave elderly and needy individuals access to services that they could not access in the past. Socialists must have lied about how hospital admission rates increased while the elderly and needy saw doctors for more vists than in the past. I am skeptical concerning how more doctors visits and having access to medical care in the 1960s could have led to more hospital admissions being blamed on Medicare. 

Supposedly the monetarily wealthy had less doctor visits and less hospital admission rates compared to Medicare and Medicaid recipients. Yet it appears that the statistics may have been used to blame Medicare for not being beneficial. The statistics were used to prove that Medicare did not help the elderly and needy. The actual truth may be that patients may have had chronic disease prior to Medicare and Medicaid and were actually helped by having access to medicine. I doubt that Medicare is to blame for increased hospital admissions after Medicare became law. I also doubt that there were increased admissions rates when in another statistic it was noted that admission rates remained the same and mortality rates actually decreased after 1965 and Medicare.

"In the last year before Medicaid the hospital admission rate for families with incomes below $3,000 was 107 per 1,000 families; for families with incomes $10,000 and above, it was only 89 per 1,000 families. Before Medicaid, the average low-income person visited a doctor 4.3 times a year- not dramatically less than the 5.1 visits made by high-income persons."

"By 1968 the hospital admission rate for poor families had climbed from 107 to 123 per 1,000, while the admission rate for the affluent fell slightly. And low-income persons now actually saw doctors more frequently than high-income persons (5.6 visits compared to 4.9 visits). The question is, were the benefits worth the cost?"- (page 230) Statistics that describe how Medicare supposedly did not help the elderly and needy.

"For one thing, Medicaid did not buy a better brand of service than charity medicine had dispensed."

"After Medicare, old people saw doctors more frequently and stayed in hospitals more days per admission (though their admission rate did not rise)."

"After 1965 death rates resulting from the major diseases dropped sharply, and so did infant mortality rates."

Overall Review of Book

The book is great in the sense of describing the reality of the 1960s. The 1960s were turbulent times because marxism was looking to prevent Democracy and capitalism from operating in the United States. The US had opposition not only in the Soviet Union but also internally through covert marxists. (Maybe McCarthy was not wrong?) This is undeniable through the attacks against McCarthy in 1950 by Edward R. Murrow, who most likely was CIA. Murrow made a tv program slandering and attacking McCarthy. The book by Matusow also attacks McCarthy heavily. Matusow never spoke positively in the book about McCarthy in congruence with the false narrative that McCarthy was a "looney". The book does address the truth that JFK and MLK were amazing by their speeches and actions, yet also criticizes them for idealism. Humphrey was also criticized intensely for idealism.

(Humphrey almost beat Nixon despite Nixon being encouraged and adored by marxists. The whole establishment helped Nixon in 1965-1968. Marxists secretely adored Nixon while they appeared to "hated him in public". Nixon was a covert marxist.) Humphrey was also criticized for being idealistic. Humphrey was called "irrelevant", yet Humphrey almost beat Nixon without establishment support. Nixon used the Vietnam war, race riots, FBI, marxists, Black Panthers, Weatherman, college marxists, and media to foment division, then appeared in 1968 as a "Protestant Conservative pacifist" and still used Wallace as a third party candidate to take votes from Humphrey. Wallace was a socialist racist and worked for Nixon. Humphrey would have beat Nixon, if Wallace had not taken votes from Humphrey in a real competitive election [Wallace's third party candidacy was supported not to allow for democracy but to oppose Humphrey]. Humphrey was also criticized negatively despite battling Nixon after JFK, RFK, and Johnson were no longer candidates. Nixon is also criticized but not as intensely as idealists. Watergate was not even mentioned except in one sentence (While describing that JFK wiretapped, it was actually Hoover who did the wiretapping based on lies. Hoover is noted to have popularized wiretapping with the FBI in other books.) The book did describe that there were covert socialists who were opposing Democracy and American ideals. The greatest discrepancy within the book is when it mixes marxism with Civil Rights on multiple occassions. (At first I thought it was accidental but it maybe with the intention to conflagrate marxism and Civil Rights.)  In trying to understand the overall themes of the 1960s describing classical liberals being tolerant, opposition to Democracy from marxism, and envy from marxism the book speaks truth. Yet in specific instances it criticizes amazing individuals including McCarthy, Agnew, and even Civil Rights Activists while complimenting marxists including Carmichael, Huey Newton, and Nixon.

"... October 21, 1967, across the country in Washington, D.C., there occured one of the most remarkable events in American history."

Matusow complemented the stroll of the marxists through the Pentagon in 1967 as a "remarkable event" when it was probably fake and planned by establishment and marxists. The passage of the Civil Rights Legislation in 1964 that JFK sent to Congress in 1963 was of greater importance. The Voter Registration Act of 1965 was of greater importance. The Equal Housing Legislation Bill that was ratified in 1968 was of greater importance than a stroll through the Pentagon by affluent "oppressed" marxists. The March on Washington and MLK's speech was of greater importance. 

The Book's Conclusion is Not Truthful

"Curiously, despite the 9.9 million votes he attracted, Wallace's candidacy did not much alter the election's result. According to the most authoritative estimate, if Wallace had not run, Nixon and Humphrey would have obtained roughly the same proportion of the two party vote that they actually received."- (page 438)

"Four years before, perceived as a liberal, Lyndon Johnson polled 43.1 million votes. In 1968 Hubert Humphrey, running as a liberal, got only 31.2 million votes- a loss of nearly 12 million. The war, of course, did incalculable damage to the liberal candidate, but it did not do the only damage. Conditions at home hurt too."- (page 438)

The book falsely concludes that while Wallace took close to 10 million votes from Humphrey, it did not alter the election of 1968. Wallace ran as a socialist democrat third party not to offer an alternative to the two parties but to take votes fron Humphrey to help Nixon win the election. Wallace was the governor of Alabama who attempted to run for the presidency while being governor although Alabama law states that a governor can not run for the presidency while being governor. Wallace made his wife governor while he ran for president opposing Humphrey (but Agnew was negated the presidency during Watergate in 1974). Wallace was allowed to help Nixon. Wallace was pro-union, anti-bureaucracy, and "protestant" while being a racist corrupt bureaucrat idolator. (Similar to Nixon.)

Democrats found out that in his actions as governor, Wallace was anti-union, anti-minimum wage, had weak child labor laws (monopoly "capitalism" stances), and was a racist. Based on the riots and looting caused by african american marxists and not African American Christians and Democrat moderates, Wallace took votes from Humphrey (Nixon helped cause the riots and looting while employing Wallace to take votes from Humphrey). Wallace took five states from Humphrey in the Electoral College that previously voted Democrat. If Wallace had not ran, Humphrey would have won by a large majority (even with Vietnam, marxist racists rioting and looting, the media, being discouraged by Johnson, and Democratic candidate Eugene McCarthy not endorsing Humphrey once Humphrey won the nomination).

"The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had appropriated the issues of full employment, poverty, and civil rights as their own. But full employment turned into inflation, the ungrateful poor were rioting in the streets, and civil rights had become black power."

Despite speaking truth at different points of the book, Matusow concludes by saying that classical liberalism did not help the US in the 1960s. Matusow dishonestly concludes the book saying Kennedy's idealism and presidency were not helpful. The reality being that Kennedy was so impressive that there was envy from the establishment and covert marxist bureaucrats. Kennedy learned Keynesian economics in the first months of his presidency (or on the job) and managed to get the country out of a recession and even guarantee full employment. There was inflation in Johnson's presidency because the Fed was printing too much money according to Milton Friedman. (The establishment did not want full employment associated with Johnson and the liberals.) The "ungrateful poor" were "rioting" and makes it seem like the Democrats were responsible when marxist bureaucrats were hiring marxist "intellectuals" to teach how to loot and riot. Not all people of modest resources were idolatrous marxists. Those responsible for the rioting and looting were FBI bureaucrats who were ungrateful that the US was improving after the racist caste system was shattered by Civil Rights Activists (at their best stood down and at their worst persecuted Activists like MLK and Meredith James.) Carmichael and H. Rap Brown were probably FBI agents and not Civil Rights Activists. So the good was Kennedy and the really, really bad was from Nixon and the establishment. We can not conflagrate Kennedy's accomplishments with Nixon's fake protestant marxist sabotages of Democracy.

Criticism of the Civil Rights Movement

"The close identification of the Democratic party with the cause of racial justice did it special injury. While 97 percent of African American voters went for Humphrey, less than 35 percent of Caucasian voters did so. Indeed, three out of ten Caucasians who cast ballots for Johnson in 1964 cast them in 1968 for someone other than Humphrey. If not the sole cause of Caucasian defections, the backlash against [idolatrous marxist] African Americans was certainly high on the list."- (page 38)

The books conclusion describes that because Democrats had decided to support Civil Rights and desegregation, they lost the 1968 election. This is not true either. For supporting the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation the Democrats had won the 1960 and 1964 election. The Democrats had been benefitted for fighting racism and supporting equal opportunity for all in employment and education. Nixon was not going to win the 1968 election on his own merits and probably caused the riots and looting through Hoover and the FBI. Grants were given to instruct marxism and rioting to idolators while Civil Rights activists were negated grants to instruct literacy and voting rights. The riots and looting were done to make Democrats look like the cause of instability while it was the FBI who was causing disorder. Meanwhile, marxist Nixon attempted to appear to be a "pacifist" while actually supporting the marxists and FBI. The media attacked Johnson and Humphrey while making Democrats look like the cause of instability.

The real reason that Humphrey received less votes than Johnson was because the establishment was attempting to make Civil Rights appear to be the cause of the riots and looting (through lies and slander) while praising marxists as heroes of the Civil Rights Movement. Civil Rights and marxism are incompatible and mutually exclusive. The media gave air time on the news to H. Rap Brown to foment conflict, riots, and looting (H. Rap Brown was probably FBI.) Brown worked for Nixon and not for Humphrey nor Johnson. The intention was to cause a race war that would make the Democrats decrease in popularity, make Nixon look like a pacifist, and suggest that segregation was not that bad because at least there were no riots and looting during segregation and Jim Crowe laws (while racist FBI members were punching, envying, and assaulting Civil Rights activists). Humphrey still beat Nixon in the 1968 election, but Nixon still needed a third party candidate. It was Wallace that stole votes close to 10 million votes to prevent Humphrey from winning the 1968 election. Civil Rights did not hurt the Democrats. It was Nixon's sabotage of democracy, Wallace's help to Nixon being a third party candidate, and the establishment and FBI that prevented a true election to occur in 1968.

Criticism of Idealism

"Liberals suffered too because large portions of the public believed that their idealism, which had shaped public policy for eight years, was somehow flawed, that it had delivered far less than promised in the way of social progress and social harmony."

Matusow described how JFK had accomplished great legislation yet concludes by conflagrating Nixon's sabotages of democracy with liberalism. Matusow's conclusion is dishonest and nihilistic probably with the intention to discourage moderates from idealism. Liberalism and democracy was not flawed, and instead flawed marxism attempted to oppose progress and harmony. There were a lot of lies told in the 1960s in order to lead classical liberals and conservatives to idolatry and marxism. There was significant progress and harmony due to the Civil Rights Movement but marxist bureaucrats tried to oppose progress and harmony between different races.

It was actually Nixon, Hoover, Sullivan, Wallace, and the racist FBI that sabotaged and attempted to revert the US back to segregation and Jim Crowe laws from the 1860s. Idealism and democracy had nothing to do with that. To blame idealism and democracy for racism is a blatant lie. Instead the racist FBI merits the blame for riots and looting, instructing slothfulness and racism to marxists, and opposing great leaders. It may be that the conclusion of the book was to cause nihilism and disillusionment with democracy and liberalism. (Despite the dishonest conclusion, marxism and corruption declined in the 1970s with Watergate. Carter and Reagen's election described that liberalism and conservatism were preferred by Americans in the 1970s and 1980s. The Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s.)