Nixon and the Jews

ABSTRACT

In public the 37th President of the United States did not express hostility or disparagement, or show any signs of religious prejudice towards Jews. But inside the White House, Richard M. Nixon's remarks were often scurrilous. His antisemitism was not casual; it was close to compulsive. And it could be coupled with other seething grievances, for example, towards liberals, radicals, the media, Blacks and Italian-Americans. Yet Nixon controlled his antisemitism. It had no adverse effect on Jewish life, either at home or abroad. The malice that he nurtured remained unmobilized. Apart from a few limited personnel instances (mostly but not completely ignored by Nixon's underlings), it is impossible to connect private resentment to public policy, probably because the barriers to the expression of antisemitism in the United States have been so high. The ugliness of his utterances in the Oval Office revealed his character, but did not extend outward to shape the processes of governance. A disconnect can therefore be discerned between what he felt and how he acted. Most American Jews voted for Nixon's Democratic opponents in 1968 and 1972. But even Jews who voted against him, even those who loathed him, have often acknowledged that Nixon's policies fortified the security of Israel; and he was proud of his support for the Jewish state during the Yom Kippur War. What betrayed Nixon, and what forced him to resign the presidency, was his decision to instal a secret taping system in the Oval Office. When the tapes were played in 1974, he showed himself to be conspiring to obstruct justice. In subsequent years, further exposure of the tapes revealed the extent and intensity of Nixon's antipathy to Jews. The expletives that had to be deleted did much to besmirch the dignity of the office. But such was the stigma the political culture attached to antisemitism that, had his bigotry become public before 1968, Nixon's career would have been over.     

基层工会在创建和谐企业中的作用

基层工会在创建和谐企业中,应注意发挥教育引导作用、维护权益作用、救助帮扶作用和企务参与作用。     

论国有企业创先争优与提升企业竞争力的同构性

创先争优是国有企业党组织保持先进性和纯洁性的根本要求,是巩固党的基层组织建设的重要目标,也是提升企业核心竞争力、创建一流企业的有效载体。基于国有企业党的建设和经营发展两个系统中创先争优与提升竞争力的同构性,以及打造世界一流企业的主题,把创先争优内化为企业文化和人的品质,必将形成创建一流企业、推动企业科学发展的持久的强大的动力。     

促进企业劳动争议调解工作规范化和制度化的调查与思考

近期肥矿集团公司工会对全公司劳动争议调解工作情况进行了调研,对劳动争议组织建设、工作机制、工作情况、存在问题进行了全面掌握和分析。为进一步推进矿区劳动争议预防和调处工作的制度化、规范化,促进矿区的发展和和谐稳定,就必须进一步提高对劳动争议调解组织地位和作用的认识,不断加强劳动劳动争议调解组织建设和制度建设,切实履行劳动争议调解组织的职能,充分发挥劳动争议调解组织的作用,全面推进矿区劳动争议预防和调处工作向纵深发展。     

美国企业并购中涉税影响的评介

合理的企业并购战略既重新配置经济中存量资源,促进经济发展,还是企业经营迈向成功的契机。随着我国海内外并购活动的日趋活跃,税收已经成为影响企业并购形式、交易成本等方面的重要因素,但并未引起国内学者的重视。本文主要依据美国《国内税收法典》、《1986年税收改革法案》,简要综述国外学者对美国企业并购中涉税问题的研究成果,阐明税收因素对美国企业并购的重要影响,为我国企业并购提供借鉴,也为国内并购交易的税收法规研究提供新的思路。     

试论社会管理创新中的企业社会责任

企业是社会管理的主体,在社会管理创新实践中能否有效发挥企业的基层基础作用直接关系到社会管理创新的成效,而企业履行社会责任是其充分发挥作用的关键。本文阐释了企业社会责任的内涵和国内外对企业社会责任认识的现状,分析了我国企业社会责任缺失的主要方面及成因,以此为基础,对我国企业在社会管理创新实践中如何履行社会责任提出相应的建议。     

企业的权力分析:理论反思与问题意识

本文对不同理论流派的企业权力观点进行批判性回顾,进而阐述被传统理论及其现代发展所忽略的关于企业权力分析的某些重要方面,并出于“问题意识”,提出了建立企业的权力分析范式的思路。     

论我国企业重组税收法律制度的改革与完善——韩国的法律实践及其借鉴

低税率和少管制是吸引国际投资者的重要因素。经过两次金融危机,韩国政府对企业重组税制进行了重大修改,降低了税率,减少了管制,从而提升了韩国企业的国际竞争力。我国企业重组税制存在缺陷,为应对金融危机、提高企业竞争力、引进外资等,我国应放宽跨国性企业重组、完善企业重组中的反避税政策、整合相关法律规定,简化和优化税制等。     

论身份混同背景下我国外资并购中国家安全审查程序的完善

我国现有的外资并购中的国家安全审查程序主要是站在资本输入大国的立场设计的,没有考虑到我国既是"引进来战略"下的资本输入大国,又是"走出去战略"下的资本输出大国的混同身份。已有的审查程序在启动审查、申报前磋商、重新启动审查等方面不完善,减缓协议、申报撤回、监督机制、权利救济机制等制度缺失。借鉴国外成熟的经验,考虑身份混同对审查程序的新要求,我国应完善关于启动审查、申报前磋商、重新启动审查的规定,增加减缓协议制度、申报撤回制度、监督机制、权利救济机制。     

Adopt or Not and Innovation Variation: A Dynamic Comparison Study of Policy Innovation and Diffusion Mechanisms

Abstract

Policy innovation and diffusion literature mainly focuses on the decision to adopt a new policy, while ignoring the differences among new policies. This study divides the decision-making process of policy innovation diffusion into two phases: in the “innovate or not” phase, governments make the decision to adopt or reject the new policy, while “how to innovate” is the process by which governments formulate specific content for the new policy. A dynamic comparative analysis finds that effects of internal determinants and diffusion mechanisms vary during these two phases and that internal determinants moderate the effects of diffusion mechanisms.