Talk:George Shultz

Untitled

The last threee paragraphs of this article has no place on Wikipedia. It's a juvenile I've-just-discovered-Chomsly-and-I-hate-the-West-now rant. It's written as a polemic, not a encyclopedia entry. It's sad to see Wikipedia get an ideological slant. It makes it less useful and less trustworthy.

Controversies?

The entry lacks a section concerning the controversies and questionable stances taken by Schultz both in and out of office. The entry is too hagiographic.

Shultz...a dove?

I don't think that calling shultz a dove is very accurate given his support for several wars. He may be a dove restricted to certain very specific areas but he appears to be well known for advocating military force. I would vote to REMOVE it, but I'm curious what other people think. I haven't read anything super difinitive about it but it seems that his congressional testimony in 83 was to raise funding for the contras. I think dove should be replaced with 'moderate'

I think parts of the article are a little unclear because shultz was opposed to "arms for hostages" but was totally in favor of using the contras in south america.

There are some other shultz pieces from the 80s that I would like to find an online link to "Moral Principles and Strategic Interests," April 14, 1986 (State Department, Current Policy No. 820) "Terrorism: The Challenge to the Democracies," June 24, 1984 (State Dept. Current Policy No. 589) "Terrorism and the Modern World," Oct. 25, 1984 (State Department Current Policy No. 629) user:TitaniumDreads

Definitely not a "dove." This portion of the article is very very misleading to say the least. The article should also point out that affirmative action was first put in place by Shultz when Sec. of Labor during the early years of the Nixon administration.

Cold War people

What is the rationale for removing this article from Category:Cold War people? --HK 15:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Category:Cold War people was deleted, so the category is being "depopulated". It's not about Shultz. -Willmcw 19:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Bretton Woods System

Willmcw has reverted this formulation: "It was during this period that Schultz, along with Paul Volcker and Arthur Burns, was chiefly responsible for the decision of the Nixon administration to end the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system.[1]"

...substituting this one: "It was during this period that Schultz, along with Paul Volcker and Arthur Burns, supported the decision of the Nixon administration to end the gold standard and the Bretton Woods system.[2]"

The assertion that Schultz et al were chiefly responsible is not contingent upon the cited source. It comes with the job description, i.e., Secretary of the Treasury. The decision to end the Bretton Woods system fell within his bailwick. --HK 21:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Secretary of the Treasury works for the President, and serves at his pleasure. The source, an article by Andrew Young, says:

• Twenty years later, Paul Volker, in his book Changing Fortunes, admitted that all of these distinguished men had grave reservations about their recommendation at the time, but they were going along with the new administration's position.

That seems to indicate that Schultz supported the decision, but was not chiefly responsible for it. -Willmcw 21:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Article Needs Work

The article appears to be oddly structured for an encyclopedia entry. It starts with Mr. Schulz's "Background" then after a brief description of his activities as Secreatary of State jumps to his "Retirement"; as if the writer were suggesting that the most significant part of his career has somehow occured in retirement as opposed to his decades long service to three different administrations. Anyone reading this article would have certain expectations that are placed there by the writer; something needs to be inserted between "Background" and "Retirement". Otherwise I would have to say that the writer had not made an honest attempt to flesh out this prominent individual in our history.

_____________________________________________________

I agree with the above. The article needs a lot of work. Secretary Shultz served in the Marine Corps not Navy...this is a HUGE mistake if you ask any Marine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.212.108.154 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're completely right. I changed it to reflect this. You can do this sort of thing yourself, you know :) RayAYang (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

-bechtel is now working on improving nuclear warheads in los alamos..

or you believe he is too paranoid to fill any responsability correctly. or you feel there is too much between chinese military and neo-cons to be a real threat, only a fake war so people don't try to declare a new one.

Neoconservative? Shultz!?

The Neocons are a group of liberals who crossed the aisle following the cultural/political wars of the 1960s and 1970s, particularly associated with proteges of senator Scoop Jackson. (see our article on Neoconservatism). Shultz has been a conservative economist and a strong proponent of a robust foreign policy since before the neoconservative movement was more than a misgiving in its founders' eyes. If the term is to have any meaning other than an epithet for "people associated with George W Bush" (also not a neocon), then it doesn't belong here. I'm removing the category and making changes associated with the meaning of the term. RayAYang (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

PhD without a Master?

How can someone obtain a PhD without having a master degreee before?--85.179.110.128 (talk) 22:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's fairly common. RayAYang (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Turmoil and Triumph: The George Shultz Years"

In July 2010, PBS broadcast the three-part series, "Turmoil and Triumph: The George Shultz Years," which raised various issues as discussed at:

http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/2010/07/turmoil_over_turmoil.html

The "Afterward" at the end of the last hour made the glaring omission of the fact that Shultz played such a central role among the establishment Republicans who handpicked George W. Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate.

On 25 February 2011, I added the following in the Later Life section, but it was reduced to one sentence by Fat&Happy. In my opinion, this was unwarranted:

George P. Shultz played a central role among establishment Republicans in supporting Bush as their 2000 presidential candidate. On October 12, 2004, 9-11 PM EDT, the PBS Frontline program "The Choice 2004" examined the presidential candidates Bush and John F. Kerry. One of the fascinating revelations was made by Shultz. In April 1998, while Bush was visiting California, Shultz asked him: Why don't you come over to my house, and I'll gather the usual suspects to discuss policy issues. Schultz and the others were so impressed by Bush that they urged him to run for president because, as Shultz said: It seems to me that you have a good seat-of-the-pants for it. According to the program's narrator: By the end of 1998, the money was rolling in. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/

1998 April: Bush travels to Palo Alto, Calif., and the Hoover institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. While in California, he is invited by George Shultz to a meeting at Shultz's home to talk with various policy experts, including Michael Boskin, John Taylor and Condoleeza Rice. They are looking for a presidential candidate for 2000 with good political instincts -- someone they can work with. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/bush/cron.html

If I remember correctly, more than $70 million had been raised by the time W announced his candidacy. It is high time that Shultz and the establishment Republicans be held accountable for their disastrous selection. Italus (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Two remarks. First, every candidate goes forth to try to find support. While Bush was talking to Shultz, he was undoubtedly also talking to every other person who was willing to listen, particularly in Iowa or New Hampshire. You need to make a case that Shultz's support was somehow major and significant; otherwise, while it undoubtedly belongs in an exhaustive chronicle of the 2000 campaign, it doesn't belong here (see our policy regarding undue weight). I don't see such a case there yet, although I can be convinced. Second, your closing sentence betrays a bias which you would do well to keep from your Wikipedia work (see WP:NPOV). Ray^Talk 02:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

My last two sentences had not been included in the article. According to the Frontline program, in April 1998 Bush was not considering running for president. Shultz was one of the prime operatives to encourage Bush's candidacy and to start the fundraising campaign for him. I just found the full transcript of the Frontline program at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/choice2004/etc/script.html , where the Shultz quotations in my first ref can be found. Italus (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I am underwhelmed. Shultz, a guy at Hoover, wanted to expand Hoover's influence by getting Bush to meet with experts. He butters him up some, being impressed. No causal link is drawn between Shultz and Bush choosing to run; in fact, Shultz explicitly says something like "I know you're thinking of running already...." Certainly nothing like "prime operative"- Shultz is a senior statesman, not a daily operations person. Ray^Talk 19:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Family

Why is there a "common assumption" that Shultz is "a member of the Pratt family associated with John D. Rockefeller ". Pratt and Shultz are not the same name!203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Pratt" and "Pratt", on the other hand, are very similar if the entire paragraph is read from the beginning. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Jewish?

This Wikipedia bio does not state his religion. Is Shultz Jewish? If not, what is his religion? If he is an athiest, are his ancestors Jews? If he or his ancestors are Jews, it would explain a lot about his policies. Thanks in advance to anybody who knows.