End of The Reagan Era

Menu
Home
The End of the Reagan Era Diaries
by DHinMI dKosopedia
Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:29:41 PM PDT Search
Create account
What makes a political era? In trying to understand any particular political era, it's necessary to
Login
understand the previous era, its duration, its characteristics, what brought it in to being, what
stresses led to its demise. In trying to figure out our politics since the late sixties, and definitely since Lose Your Password?
the early eighties, few books have been as helpful to me as a collection of essays published in 1989 by wide narrow

Steve Fraser and Gary Gerstle, Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order: 19301980 . In their
introductory essay, Fraser and Gerstle laid out the premise underlying their investigation of a political Advertising
order:
Our notion of "political order" draws its conceptual inspiration from the notion of Support Bloggers' Rights!
"electoral system" and "party system" developed by political scientists and the "new
political historians" in recent years. These scholar have depicted American political
history since 1800 in terms of relatively long periods of electoral stability punctuated by
brief but intense political upheavals and electoral realignments. In each of the five Candidates
periods of electoral stability (1800 1820's, 1820's 1850's, 1850's 1890's, 1890's 1930's, Blue Majority Candidates
1930's1970's), the major parties had a fixed relationship to an electoral coalition; the
size of the parties' respective coalitions, in turn, determined the relationship that
prevailed between the two parties —in particular, whether one dominated or whether
the two struggled on a relatively equal footing...
This approach diminishes the importance of particular political actors —presidents,
senators, and others —as well as of the normal two, four, and sixyear electoral cycles.
It elevates, by contrast, importance of economic events and social trends. Fundamental
changes in political life—those which produce a change in party systems—are seen as
issuing from crises in the nation's economy, social structure, and political structure...
[...]
In probing why such fundamental historical events are required to change party
systems, the new political historians have generally offered "ethnocultural"
explanations. American voters, at least from the midnineteenth to the midtwentieth
century, they have argued, viewed political parties as the protectors of their most
treasured beliefs and vital interests: their religions, their ethnic traditions, their families
and their neighborhoods. Voters thus developed profound emotional loyalties to
parties; these loyalties, in turn, influenced individual electoral behavior far more than
rational reflections on a party's platform or short term, instrumental calculations of the
likely return on casting a ballot for one party or another. Such loyalties were not easily
forsaken. Only major economic and social crises triggered broad shifts in loyalty from
one party to another.
The New Deal voting coalition was anchored by Southern white protestants and Northern Catholics
and Jews. Membership in labor unions, then as now, made one far more likely to vote Democratic.
Unlike now, however, where the percentage of workers represented by a union is barely over 10%,
by the mid1950's union members were almost 35% of the workforce. Within a short time Black voters,
previously loyal to the party of Lincoln, shifted allegiance to the Democrats (although they were
disenfranchised in the Jim Crow South).
After the economic and social devastation of the Great Depression—which lasted throughout the
thirties, and didn't fully lift until the country mobilized for war starting in about 1940—Roosevelt,
Truman and the New Dealers in Congress used tax policy to largely ameliorate the worst in wealth and
income disparities. Increased unionization led to wage pattern bargaining, where union contracts
raised wages for all workers in that particular sector. In his book The Conscience of a Liberal, Paul
Krugman calls the 20 year period of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, when the ultrawealthy
became the merely wealthy and the middle class expanded to include the majority of Americans—even
if it included few minorities—the Great Compression.
The US didn't follow the path of almost every industrialized nation and create a social democratic
welfare state. But after the Kennedy assassination and the huge 1964 Democratic landslide, the
Johnson administration pushed through the Great Society initiatives, including Medicare, to go with
New Deal and post WWII measures like Social Security, the G.I. Bill and FHA loans to further expand
and extend the partial welfare state.
Johnson also, of course, finally brought the government to grant full franchise and citizenship to Black
Americans by passing the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts. These ended the Jim Crow system in the
South. But providing paths for African Americans to join the mainstream of American society, according
to Fraser and Gerstle, contributed to the stresses that led to the end of the New Deal order:
The state's rhetorical commitment to distributing civil rights and economic abundance to
all its citizens inevitably pushed race to the very center of national politics; the nation's
growing military obligations diminished the economic resources necessary to solve or at
least mitigate the brewing racial crisis; and the importance attached (by purveyors of
mass culture and ideologues of a modernist domestiticity) to achieving a full and
expressive personal life predictably resulted in an insatiable hunger for "authenticity"
and autonomy in all social spheres...The New Deal order's unabashedly modernist
character intensified these tensions and was bound, sooner or later, to provoke the
moral outrage of traditionalists. A second source of tension resulted from the failure of
the Democratic party and organized labor, in the 1930's and 1940's, to transform,
through wage legislation and unionization, the South's social structure. Such
failures...meant than an extraordinary kind of judicial fiat—itself, though cloaked in
constitutional language, a kind of violence —would be necessary to integrate
southerners (and especially blacks) into the New Deal order.
As suggested in the previous paragraph, the era of the New Deal was a period of great change in
American family relationships. From the extended families of agrarian America that prevailed until
roughly the end of WWI, through the ascendancy of the nuclear family as the American norm, to the
burgeoning of feminism and the increased integration of women in to the workforce, and therefore the
end of the stay athome mom as the American norm, many mores and beliefs about family and gender
profoundly changed. As with any profound social change, it created political tensions and divides.
Much of the conflict in American politics from the late 1960's nearly up to the present has been over
social and cultural issues, most rooted in the changes wrought by feminism and racial integration.
Johnson predicted that signing the Civil Rights Act would mean that the Democrats would lose the
South for a generation. In presidential politics, he was correct, and below the Presidential level, what
had been the "solid south" became the geographic base of the Republican party. In the North, where
the frontiers of racial integration and accommodation were populated by AfricanAmericans and mostly
ethnic Catholics in the urban areas and innerring suburbs, issues like school busing and the riots of
the late sixties were used deftly by Republicans to pry apart the New Deal coalition and create
"Reagan Democrats." Crime and welfare, associated as they were with African Americans in the minds
of many of these voters, became proxies for race.
On cultural issues, probably nothing cut through the New Deal coalition more traumatically than
abortion. But it wasn't just abortion, or more fringe issues like prayer in schools. The Democratic Party
itself became tarred with the charge of elitism, which was, since Wallace, associated with pointed
headed intellectuals, judges and bureaucrats telling people—especially men—what they could and
couldn't do. Many of the cultural issues became proxy battles over feminism, and liberals and the
Democratic party became associated with traits generally thought to be effete, or to take the root
word further, feminine.
Reagan came along and put a sunny sheen over the anger of the right. The working class, since the
oil shocks of the 1970's and the destruction of core industries like mining, textiles, heavy
manufacturing and basic steel, had been pummeled economically. But the damage had been mitigated
by the relatively untouched New Deal social welfare system, just recently expanded by Johnson.
Reagan fought Carter through a close election, and by convincing enough voters that he wasn't crazy,
surged to a ten point win.
Once in office, Reagan commenced a counterrevolution against the New Deal, but the visible attacks
tended to be mostly in the context of welfare and the like, which for most voters elicited notions of
race rather than hostility toward regulation of the economy or government intervention to mitigate the
harshness of unfettered and unregulated markets. Attacks on regulation and the welfare state that
weren't seen as disproportionately benefiting African Americans largely went underground. Through
the Reagan era, even up through George W. Bush's campaign in 2004, the Republicans stuck mostly to
social and cultural issues, or to taxes. Taxes were another proxy for race, as many swing voters felt
their taxes were too high, and felt their tax dollars were being squandered on welfare payments to
people who refused to work or on supposedly exorbitant foreign aid to people overseas. But publicly
the Republicans largely avoided frontal assaults on the New Deal.
With the demise of the Soviet Union and the opening up of China, fears of war faded from the
consciousness of voters. This lessened red baiting, but it also removed the last inhibition preventing
what in the 90's became known as the politics of personal destruction. Led by Newt Gingrich, the
notion that politics stops at the ocean's shore ended, and everything, including previous offlimits
aspects of a politician's personal life, was grounds for attack.
By 2000, most Americans were deeply disillusioned with this petty and nasty politics, but times were
generally good. After the huge Republican win in 1994, Republican lost seats in Congress the next
three elections. Other than a two year period during the Eisenhower administration—an
administration at peace with the New Deal—Democrats had held the presidency or at least one
chamber of Congress for seventy years. The ineptness, hostility toward sound governance and
corruption of the GOP had not been fully exposed to the American public; only the Gingrich led
government shutdown of 1995 hinted to casual observers the true intentions of the new mainstream
of the radicalized Republican party. Much of Johnson's Great Society had been gutted, but the main
legislative pillars of the New Deal, such as social security, after the scares 19811983 and 1995, had
been left mostly intact. And as often happens when things are good, frivolities like how many times
one of the candidates sighed during the debate became a big issue.
Al Gore, his sighs and his supposed exaggerations were savaged in the media. Nevertheless, he won
the popular vote, almost certainly won the electoral vote, and was kept out of the White House only by
the intervention of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. And Democrats won several
upsets in the Senate, leading to a tie broken only by the vote of VP Dick Cheney.
As I've previously argued (here, here and here), I believe we are on the verge of a transforming
election. But just as one can argue whether the end of a political era ended in 1968 or was
interrupted until 1980 because of Watergate, one could argue that the end of the Reagan era began
in 2000 but was interrupted the next year by the terrorist attacks on 911. Ruy Texeira and John Judis
were already refining their argument for The Emerging Democratic Majority, showing that
demographic changes and long term voting patterns presaged an end to the Reagan era. But 9 11
and the environment of fear exploited by the Republicans prevented GOP losses in 2002. Even then,
however, the GOP Congressional gains in 2002 and 2004 (after Texas redistricting) were consistent
with the changes in apportionment, with more districts drawn to be proRepublican accounting for the
GOP gains.
Then in 2005 George Bush and the GOP were exposed. Bush tried to mount an overt assault on Social
Security, precipitating the decline in his standing that continues today. The disastrous response to
Katrina shamed most Americans. And the war in Iraq finally was seen as another disaster made by
Bush and the GOP. Democrats went on in 2006 to big wins, and all indications are that we could be on
the verge of more big wins this November.
Now many Americans, including many who grew up in families lifted in to the middle class by the New
Deal, feel intense economic pain. By historical standards unemployment is not particularly high. But
other than a few years in the late 1990's, earnings adjusted for inflation have fallen steadily since
1973. Some of that loss in earnings and wealth was made up for with low and easy credit and
skyrocketing home values, and home owners spent against their increased equity. But now, as
people's home values plummet, foreclosures mount, credit is unavailable, and wages continue to
decline, there's nothing to soften the economic blows to working families, even including many which in
the past would have been considered comfortably in the upper middle class.
As the wage and wealth hits accumulate, Americans' economic health is being attacked from other
directions. Secure pensions are no longer a given, and 401K accounts have been devastated by the
recent crash in the stock market. Health care costs continue to rise faster than inflation, and the
number of uninsured Americans continues to grow. And the costs of going to college or having children
are too great to bear for many younger Americans.
The long period of doing nothing to address Americans' addiction to gas guzzlers, combined with
instability (and most likely price manipulation) in the petroleum markets, has created yet another
economic stress on Americans. As in the 1930's, when everything in politics was dominated by the
effort to subdue the depression, in coming years, almost all the major policy problems faced by
America—our foreign policy, the price and availability of food in the US and the food demands in
developing countries, our declining manufacturing base, our balance of payments to foreign nations,
wage and income inequality, environmental and climate changes, construction, the "financialization"
of the American economy—will be connected to energy and climate change.
Finally, there's a sense with many Americans that there's something seriously wrong in America. All
the polls show it. The young have been voting Democratic for the last three elections, and young
voters appear ready to vote in much higher numbers this November than in any election since the vote
was extended to 18 year olds in 1972, maybe in higher numbers than ever seen. Black voters, driven
by the candidacy of Barack Obama, appear ready to vote in record numbers. Latinos continue to grow
as a percentage of the vote, and continue to become more solidly Democratic. But the greatest
movement may be among working class and middle class voters no longer motivated to vote on issues
of race, social change or cultural issues, but instead motivated by the inequities of wealth that have
reopened during the Reagan era.
According to NYT Reporter Steven Greenhouse, author of The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the
American Worker,
the top 1 percent of households, averaging $1.1 million in annual income, received
nearly 22 percent of all reported income in 2005, up from 9 percent in 1980. That income
shift helped create the greatest level of inequality since the Roaring Twenties.
Lawrence Summers, the former Harvard president and Treasury Secretary, found that
were it not for this increased inequality the bottom 80 percent of Americans would be
doing considerably better. If the distribution of income today were the same as in 1979,
Summers said, assuming the same level of economic growth since then, income of the
bottom 80 percent of Americans would be about $670 billion more a yearor about
$8,000 per family. For many households in the bottom half, this would mean a welcome
20 to 30 percent increase in income, perhaps the boost needed to avoid foreclosure.
[...]
One can see the economic divide widen in another way. The average income for the top
1 percent of households was ten times that for the middle fifth in 1979. By 2005, those
in the top 1 percent earned 21 times as much as those in the middle. Income for the top
1 percent of households averaged 70 times that of households in the bottom fifth, the
greatest gap on record, up from 23 times as much in 1979.
At the pinnacle of the inequality pyramid are the nation's CEOs. American corporations
may be tightfisted about raises for most workers, but they paid their chief executives
$10.5 million on average in 2005, including salary, bonuses and stock options. That was
quadruple their pay a dozen years earlier. This means the typical CEO earns 369 times
as much as the average worker, up from 131 times in 1993 and 36 times in 1976.
We have reached the point where we have unsustainable energy policy, and unsustainable foreign
and military policy, an unsustainable fiscal policy, and, as many Americans now feel personally,
economic inequities that aren't sustainable if we wish to maintain the broad middle class created by
the New Deal order. We've reached the end of the Reagan era, and are on the cusp of something
new, hopefully better, and characterized by a bold, vigorous, creative Democratic party with which
people bond as they did with the Democratic party of the New Deal era.
::
Tags: 2008 Election (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions
Permalink | 173 comments
It's about time (17+ / 0)
by Busted Flat in Baton Rouge on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:32:17 PM PDT
I hope it's time. I get sickened when I think... (16+ / 0)
...that 2008, like 2004, can be taken from us so cruelly again by the Republicans via
fear, xenophobia, racism, sexism, you name it.
In short, I won't fully relax and be happy about "the turning of the tide" until I see it on
January 20, 2009, when hopefully a PresidentElect Barack Obama is inaugurated into
office.
BE the movement. Obama for President.
by boofdah on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:39:39 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
That turning tide feels so strong (8+ / 0)
to me. I like to follow national opinion polls regarding specific issues. I don't know if
I've ever seen so many lob sided polls that point to a major political shift in the
country. I think the neocons have overplayed their hand, and even if they use every
last dirty trick in the book this upcoming election, I just can't comprehend that they
can forestall the inevitable any longer.
[ Parent ]
God, I really hope you're right. (4+ / 0)
I love Janis Joplin, too, btw. :)
by boofdah on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:13:54 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
amen (2+ / 0)
2008 will be a realignment. The stars are aligned.
The Republican Party is neither pro republic nor pro party. Discuss!
by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:56:40 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I agree, my personal observation is that (6+ / 0)
the realignment would have happened this year anyway, but the evidence of the Bush
betrayal of our country, and of his base has accelerated the swing of the pendulum
away from the right.
Each passing day brings more bad economic news, much of it falling on the heads of
the Bush political base, which is finally awakening from its 7 year denial of the facts
the Bush political base, which is finally awakening from its 7 year denial of the facts
surrounding the Bush presidency.
The Republican Party will be a radicalized organization incapable of winning elections
because its center right moderates who are pragmatic about governing from the center
are no longer welcome in the radicalized Republican Party and will be forced to leave
for the Independent or Democratic ranks.
The Bush/Cheney/Neocon administration has pulled the political process so far to the
right that former moderate Republicans will feel quite comfortable working with a
Democratic majority party which wants to balance budgets, avoid war, force the
government to live within its means, and to make responsible investments in
improving the American economy, infrastructure, and environment which we all must
live in. The abstract notion that there is a strong left in American politics is simply
wrong. The entire political process has been moved so far to the right that it will take
20 years or more before a fully liberal agenda will be possible to implement.
Stopgap public/private health insurance partnerships, implementation of a somewhat
regulated mortgage and financial market and the like will be all the Democratic
government likely to be elected in 2008 will be able to manage. The inertia of the
enacted legislation and the conservative or radical conservative judicial system will
make large movements to the left improbable and/or impossible in the next four
years. The Reagan/Bush/Bush Supreme Court is very similar to the court that FDR
was forced to deal with in the 1930's, and the litigation pipeline to continue the push to
the right from the courts is full and cases to effect a slowing of a push left will continue
to prevent a strong change of direction for the next few years. The right side of the
Roberts Court is fairly young and/or vigorous, and a significant change in the court will
not take place until Thomas or Scalito leave the court. This may take 10 years or
more.
I think the voters leaving the Republican Party will feel betrayed and will work very
hard to attack the source of their betrayal, and that is the Bush administration and its
congressional supporters. They may leave the Republicans in a rage, and be the
strongest proslytzers the Democratic Party has had for quite a while. I have been
predicting this for several years. I hope it happens in 2008.
It is time to renounce fear and go out and kick some Republican Ass
by Ohiodem1 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:47:39 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Important point. (6+ / 0)
The entire political process has been moved so far to the right that it
will take 20 years or more before a fully liberal agenda will be possible
to implement.
Anyone expecting sweeping liberal changes even in the event of a Dem WH and
Congress is in for a wake up call. It will take some time. A filibuster proof majority in
the Senate would help, but I believe that's too much to hope for. And your point re
SCOTUS is well taken. The best basic thing the Dems could do is be scrupulously open
and honest with the electorate and keep their damn skirts clean.
Kick apart the structures.
by ceebee7 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:42:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
It would also help.... (3+ / 0)
if they grew some damn backbones.
People respond to someone willing to fight and stand up for their convictions. People
scorn someone who talks big and then tucks tail and cowers when someone calls them
weak in a loud voice.
It's like going through a sewer in a glass bottom boat. We're in this shit but clearly
above it!
by Kalakzak on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:46:57 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
You've made a big assumption (2+ / 0)
You're assuming that incumbent Democrats share our agenda.
If, on the other hand, they're merely middle oftheroaders who APPEAR liberal merely
by constrast with the wingers, they're standing up for their watereddown convictions
now.
"Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove."
P.G. Wodehouse
by gsbadj on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:49:48 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I hope some Democrats share our agenda (2+ / 0)
I am hopeful that a solid working majority in both houses and a Democratic president
who will lead with a progressive agenda, and who will sign progressive legislation into
law will help some Democrats in Congress return to their liberal and progressive roots.
by Ohiodem1 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:43:27 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Oh many of them do (0+ / 0)
But some of them don't and it's not productive to work ourselves up into a lather
when they don't vote our way.
We just need to elect more candidates that will go along with us.
"Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing
glove." P.G. Wodehouse
by gsbadj on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:41:32 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Very salient (1+ / 0)
The idea that our form of Government can swiftly change is more than a myth.
The 24/7 news cycle requires new product constantly and there is a large and loud
contingent of these players.
Because of this need, the American mind is constantly being bombarded with
messages of urgency when in fact, no immediate solution exists.
We are talking about 40 years of this nation going in one direction with the
accompanying starts and stops, all the time, marching towards the political right.
Those 40 years will take more than one Presidential term to execute the change.
Elections in 2006 are a perfect reminder of the slowness of our form of Government.
So many Americans expected more than what could be delivered from what is
basically a Democratic Majority in the House, found their impatience increased and
their irritation growing with the help of the media and it's news cycle needs plus the
Republican operatives who relished pointing out the obvious (minus the reason) that
the Democrats were ineffective in their actions.
Our Nation's course change has just begun, and it will be demographics that that effect
the change.
That 24/7 news cycle now being the constant, has also developed in other ways,
decentralization of messaging, no longer can a few media players dictate the message,
even with the consolidation of ownership down into even fewer players simply because
their business models dictate subdivision of demographics and a concomitant appeal to
capture the demographic by appealing to their wants.
While controlling the spigots of information and commentary, the media giants open
the spectrum to diversity of thought and communication that is proving to be beyond
their editorial capabilities.
Historians will point back to the dawning of Cable news operations and then the
Internet and the time the lid came of the box, as time will have written the story of
personalized mass communication and publishing becoming uncontrollable.
Stories emerging about the intense efforts China is undertaking for the Olympics
underscore the isues that confront those who attempt to control the expanding
inventory of thought delivered in increasingly uncontrollable manners due to their size
and portability.
While American media will surely focus on the espionage angle of this event,
promoting the idea that the Chinese are set up to intercept and steal any information
possible from all who enter into their country, the likelihood that information they seek
to prevent entering China will infiltrate their defenses like water pouring through filter
paper is greater.
Back to the USA, this nation now has had over 100 million live births since the Civil
Rights Act passed during Johnson's Administration and over 130 millions have been
born.
The numbers of eligible voters having been born since then are now into the second
generation Johnson spoke about.
Concurrently the number of American voters who were succeptible to the pull of
Reaganism have diminshed through death and for others personal growth.
In the words of the late JOHNNY CASH "I CAN HEAR THE TRAIN A COMMIN".
In the words of the late JOHNNY CASH "I CAN HEAR THE TRAIN A COMMIN".
Political pardons are unacceptable Mr Bush,and so is hiding your daddy's secrets
behind exectutive orders,free the truth now.Econ 3.50&Soc. 5.79
by wmc418 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:02:14 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I would say you (4+ / 0)
are very optimistic:
...a significant change in the court will not take place until Thomas or
Scalito leave the court. This may take 10 years or more.
Maybe 20, even 25 years. We have a serious problem with the court, and we have a
case that the court is not what it should be. We should not settle for it as it is. Although
it can't be reversed, the basically illegal fashion in which the current court was
constituted must be addressed. Congress has the power to do that, and we shouldn't
stop until they do. Bush lost the 2000 election, and then the court appointed Bush, who
in turn beefed up the radical right wing of the court with Alito and Roberts. To anyone
capable of reasoning, there is a blatant conflict of interest here. I think we need two
more justices on the court, for a total of eleven, or perhaps even thirteen; and it would
be only fair to have them appointed by Barack Obama, with no conservative lip, fully
and unconditionally forced by a Democratic senate in the spirit of compensation for the
unfair way in which the current court was seated.
If McCain makes the next Supreme Court appointment, we will think the Bush days
were the good old days!
by phaktor on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:09:08 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Court packing! (2+ / 0)
I think we need two more justices on the court, for a total of eleven, or
perhaps even thirteen; and it would be only fair to have them
appointed by Barack Obama, with no conservative lip, fully and
unconditionally forced by a Democratic senate in the spirit of
compensation for the unfair way in which the current court was seated.
Will it really happen this time? Or will it serve as means to convince the current court
to give ground on key issues?
What do we see Obama attempting to do that will likely be blocked by the court? The
elements of the New Deal that Obama would like to recreate (ie Green Corps,
increased protection for unions, attempts at infrastructure improvement projects etc)
are now less controversial than in the 1930's. Will he have opposition here? Or perhaps
the opposition will be towards more innovative ideas that Obama might have, perhaps
ones that he hasn't proposed yet.
by scotths on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:31:09 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Let's hope the court reads the papers. nt (1+ / 0)
[ Parent ]
This is not (0+ / 0)
about Obama. This is something progressives should pursue through the Senate. This
court is going to hurt a lot of people. They are going to cause a lot of pain and
suffering. You can bet they are not going to go away. We have a few other problems
related to unchecked authority in this country, and this court was seated with the
express purpose of looking the other way. We have a right to examine the validity of
how the current court came about.
by phaktor on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:11:44 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
how it came about is an (1+ / 0)
interesting question... While I agree this is a problem, it seems as if it would be hard
to be prove that invalidity. Especially since the court decision effected a race that was
very nearly a tie. Part of the problem I think is that so much is decided in a binary
function in our country. If the election had gone the other way by just a small number
of votes in Florida and entirely different history would have resulted and today we
would have different justices. Such a small number of votes shouldn't make such a
large difference in the course of events. I'm not sure what the solution is exactly, but
when the country is very close to tied (as it was in 2000) the government should
reflect this reality and ideally the policies it creates should be somewhat near the
center. The system as it stands now allows the party which wins by the tinniest of
margins to push the party far in the direction it wants to. This leads to situations such
as this, when we have a supreme court that does not reflect the views of most
Americans. I think it also leads to stronger pendulum swings as the parties vie for
control then push as hard as they can when they obtain it.
I'm not sure what the solution to the supreme court problem. The supreme court
seems to me an ugly inelegant creation. We elect a new President every 4 years and a
new congress every 2. The court is a small body which waits for justices to retire on
their own or die. Thus the composition of the court depends greatly on when justices
end their terms and where this happens in relation to the pendulum as it swings back
and forth. Thus, lucky can land us with a court that strongly reflects one party or the
other and/or lags significantly behind the views of the country at large. I understand
that the point of this is to ensure judicial independence and probably also to ensure
caution on the part of the court. I wonder if there is another way to accomplish this.
Perhaps term limits which allow each President a set number of court appointments per
term. At least this would likely lead to court members whose ideals reflect equally the
individuals the public has chosen as President. (Rather then emphasizing a few lucky
Presidents who get more than their fair share of court appointments). It does seem a
difficult problem....
by scotths on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 03:22:15 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
The purpose of the (0+ / 0)
lifetime appointments was to insulate the court from political whim to make it
stable. Unfortunately, when the appointment process is tampered with, as it has
been lately, that stability can be fixed in an extreme state, so the court is now
extremist, yet stable. It is permanently broken, sort of like something that gets
superglued together in the wrong way!
As far as the large effects of small differences in votes, unless the party in charge
illegally oversteps its power (as Bush has), then close races tend to lead to frequent
shifts in power and random distribution of different parties in the three branches
(sometimes called gridlock which is a sort of builtin "braking" mechanism for
when the correct course isn't clear). The Republicans have carefully and
intentionally created this "perfect storm", and illegally manipulated the system to
create a false direction. Even though the intense and outlandish effort required to do
it destroyed their party reputation temporarily, they really have won in a big way.
That is why they are not so upset about the fact they may "lose" in November (with
emphasis on "may", because we Democrats still have our old knack for snatching
defeat from the jaws of victory).
The conservatives have freeze dried the government to their own liking, in their
own distorted fashion, for at least 30 years. They were able to do it through a
careful combination of arrogant illegal action combined with technological advances
in communications, the latter of which the founders could not have clearly foreseen.
It took them 30 years to do it, but now they can take a break and enjoy spending
the money while we try to regroup and figure out what happened, and try to get our
democracy back. The problem is political awareness and voter education (which
conservatives used technology to destroy). Although liberals have been
uncomfortable with what was going on for a long time, they erroneously thought
they could correct it quickly when they got the time, because they didn't pay
attention in government class. Unfortunately, they were wrong!
The point is, if everybody plays by the rules, then close votes have the intended
effect. The system works. Somebody had to break the law in order to break the
system. And that comes to my point: We have a case to make to Congress that
intervention is required, and that it is precisely cases such as this that they are
empowered to intervene in. The conservatives have cheated. Corrective action is
necessary, and it really is our only hope.
by phaktor on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:04:39 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
courts and randomness.... (1+ / 0)
As far as the large effects of small differences in votes, unless
the party in charge illegally oversteps its power (as Bush has),
then close races tend to lead to frequent shifts in power and
random distribution of different parties in the three branches
(sometimes called gridlock which is a sort of builtin "braking"
mechanism for when the correct course isn't clear). The
Republicans have carefully and intentionally created this
"perfect storm", and illegally manipulated the system to create
a false direction.
The problem is that the sample size is to small, only 2.5 elections per decade.
The means if the court consists of 4 decades of appointments, only 10 elections
were involved at most. Some of these elections weren't close in the past 4
decades, (the 80's for instance). Thus, the makeup of the court depends on a
few close elections. The republicans may have been able to swing those to their
favor, but even if they hadn't they could very well have won those elections by
small margins. If each election was a coin flip, the chances of 2 coins in a row
coming out head's is only 1 in 4. By pure chance alone the odds of the
republicans winning both times are not that horrible. This of course does not
consider the distribution of the judges deaths/retirements which make the
problem worse. It is like a poll that does not have a large enough sample size
to give an accurate reading, by pure chance alone the court could wind up too
strongly to one side or the other in such a way that it is not really reflective of
the opinion of the population.
The Republicans have carefully and intentionally created this
"perfect storm", and illegally manipulated the system to create
a false direction. Even though the intense and outlandish effort
required to do it destroyed their party reputation temporarily,
they really have won in a big way. That is why they are not so
upset about the fact they may "lose" in November (with
emphasis on "may", because we Democrats still have our old
knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory).
The times they are a changin.... We'll win in Novermber... It isn't like those
other times....
The conservatives have freeze dried the government to their
own liking, in their own distorted fashion, for at least 30 years.
They were able to do it through a careful combination of
arrogant illegal action combined with technological advances in
communications, the latter of which the founders could not have
clearly foreseen. It took them 30 years to do it, but now they
can take a break and enjoy spending the money while we try to
regroup and figure out what happened, and try to get our
democracy back.
I'm not sure what you mean here.... We are not going to be regrouping. We
have regrouped! We are taking power. They need to regroup. Their coalition of
social and fiscal conservatives is broken, while our party is stronger and
growing. The Millennial Generation (those 525, the largest generation in the
history of America) favor the democrats by at least a 2:1 margin. They were an
important part of the 2006 gains and are likely going to be an important part of
an Obama victory and more gains in congress. In 4 years there will be more
Millennials in the electorate, and 4 years after that even more. This isn't a short
term pendulum swing, this is an 80 year long pendulum swinging back through
the center to the left. It isn't merely that conservatism feels to much of the
country to be tired and dead, it isn't merely religious folks who want to focus on
poverty and environmental concerns rather than gays and abortion, it isn't
merely western libertarians who no longer trust the republicans to protect their
civil rights, and it isn't merely the short and long term damage the republicans
have done to their party. All those things would lead to at least a short term
push to the left, but this is much bigger than that. The republicans will be the
ones regrouping and figuring out where there party is going, the democrats are
going to be figuring out where to start cleaning up the mess!
Although liberals have been uncomfortable with what was going
on for a long time, they erroneously thought they could correct
it quickly when they got the time, because they didn't pay
attention in government class. Unfortunately, they were wrong!
Why can't liberals correct the problems? If you mean the court will be a
problem... Well.. it was in the 1930's as well, and we overcame it. We can do it
again.....
The point is, if everybody plays by the rules, then close votes
have the intended effect. The system works. Somebody had to
break the law in order to break the system. And that comes to
my point: We have a case to make to Congress that
intervention is required, and that it is precisely cases such as
this that they are empowered to intervene in. The conservatives
have cheated. Corrective action is necessary, and it really is
our only hope.
I think my point above is that close votes won't necessarily have the intended
effect (because of small sample size) and perhaps we would be better off with a
system in which that was more guaranteed. I think this would be a tough case
to make to congress. With Kennedy at the center, is the court going to be so
difficult to work with as to stop Obama's plans? I'd be curious as to where you
thought the stumbling blocks would be if you feel it will be. Perhaps the
legislative and executive branch will have to be more careful in drafting laws
and policies to ensure that our constitutional rights are protected if we can't
count on the courts to do this for the time being. I'm more concerned about
what the courts might do to block essential plans we need to move through the
coming crisis...to redevelop our physical infrastructure, regulate business and
finance, redistribute wealth, provide jobs and opportunities for disadvantaged
individuals, move us entirely off of oil, deal with the potential environmental
catastrophe etc etc.
by scotths on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Oh, talk (0+ / 0)
dirty to me! I desperately hope you are correct. Please make it come true!
I will come back on the sampling and the court, though. The whole point is
that the court is not intended to be representative. My argument is not that
the current court doesn't represent me. My argument is that they are
biased because they were appointed incorrectly, and they were appointed
for the specific purpose of representing someone (the right wing). They are
supposed to be the least representative of our officials. They are not
supposed to be appointed, theoretically, on political grounds. That is why
they are in no way elected. They are chosen by the most highly stable
representatives from two branches, and they are supposed to be neutral,
because it is supposed to be a compromise among all biases. You could get
some more representativeness into it if you count the senate elections,
because the senate is not supposed to be the rubber stamp that the Dems
let happen this time. They were not supposed to be harassed into
submission by the illegal thuggery of the Bush administration the threats
of rule changes, and all the extremism of those days when Bush still got his
way by simply threatening tantrums and yelling "national security".
The justices are supposed to be people who everyone feels safe with,
enough so that they are beyond the need to be held accountable through
elections. We don't want them issuing rulings for votes, the way state
judges sentence innocent people to death and life imprisonment, fully
knowing they are innocent, because they don't want to be accused of being
soft on crime come election time.
That isn't how it worked this time. Bush appointed highly partisan, highly
biased, highly political justices (Alito and Roberts), who would have
normally been screened out through the senate. But our senate Dems were
preoccupied, spineless, complicit, and defensive, so they ignored their
responsibility. They were being terrorized by an illegal executive with no
respect for law.
The Bush administration wasn't even supposed to be there to begin with,
and it is very relevant to my case that the court itself installed him! The
process hiccuped, and the court got compromised in a few short years of
some unprecedented hanky panky and inbreeding. All I want is for us to get
the balance back. I might even be persuaded if one of those new justices
made some faint sign of being impartial, but they seem to be shameless.
Obviously, the constitution simply doesn't mean to them what it means to
common people, and they don't see us as deserving of any protection
under the law.
Yes, the court can be slowly drug along with massive social change. But we
are in a dangerous situation now, and we haven't the time to wait on that
process. We could tip into military dictatorship at any minute, and the court
couldn't be relied on to stop it. I think Congress should act.
Kennedy is not a centrist. He is an honest conservative who tends to be
fair. He rules against the interests of the left more often than for us.
If McCain makes the next Supreme Court appointment, we will think the
Bush days were the good old days!
by phaktor on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:39:19 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I hope I am not overly optimistic (0+ / 0)
Roberts and Alito are fairly young (both in their 50's, I think), Scalia is 73 and I am not
sure of Thomas' age, but he must be over 75.
I just hope Justice Stevens will survive until we have President Obama in the White
House.
GWB will get no new SCOTUS appointments, but a series of 4 4 ties could still work to
advance the radical right agenda, by affirming lower court decisions.
You are absolutely right that Roberts may sit in the Chief Justice chair for 30 years or
more with Alito as his right hand man. What an ugly thought.
[ Parent ]
Clarence Thomas is 60 (1+ / 0)
Born 23 June 1948.
First summer in my family's new house just W of Bellaire TX. Just after Lyndon
Johnson had won a Democratic runoff by just a handful of votes, with what many
considered to be fraudulent votes in the counties controlled by political boss George
Parr.
by scott5js on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:09:02 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Oh dear (0+ / 0)
Glad am I that I missed sharing a birthday with him by a few hours.
8.38, 7.49
by papercut on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
The key is racism. (1+ / 0)
The voter will lie to pollsters about their votes. Remember the "Tom Bradley" effect.
Rush and Faux control the masses.
by mikeofelctown on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:41:08 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Really? (4+ / 0)
Well, the Bradley effect did not exactly materialize in the 2006 Tennessee Senate race
(Harold Ford actually outperformed his polling numbers there), nor did it materialize in
the vast majority of the 2008 primary contests, as Obama actually did better than the
polling showed in a large number of allwhite states.
And the only people Rush and Faux "control" are the right wing base, who would vote
Republican regardless of the race of the Democratic candidate.
by echatwa on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 02:44:57 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
The 12 most frightening words in the English... (12+ / 0)
...language:
Hi. I'm a Republican, and I'm here to save you from the government.
by daulton on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:35:37 PM PDT
I mean, 13. n/t (3+ / 0)
by daulton on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:36:41 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Never trust someone to run the government (12+ / 0)
if their stated goal is to drown it in a bathtub.
[ Parent ]
Grover Norquist's Bathtub (21+ / 0)
The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah .
by DHinMI on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:40:10 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I remember seeing this at the 9/05 WDC rally... (2+ / 0)
...it was a largerthanlife poster displayed in full view on or near Constitution St.,
when memories of Katrina were still fresh, and doubled the anger that most of us
already felt at the Bush Administration for their fucking up colossally in both Iraq and
in our own country.
[ Parent ]
What about just drowning the GOP (9+ / 0)
In the bathtub. We are helping them slim down their membership to the point where
whomever is left will fit into a full bathtub very nicely. All we have to do is to help
them with the first "dunk".
We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to
survive its own folly. Martin Luther King.
by Eyes Wide Open on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:53:43 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I wish Grover Norquist... (0+ / 0)
...would slip, fall, and drown in his own bathtub!
Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight. John McCain = Old Boat Anchor
by JeffW on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:09:53 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
This country cannot afford to EVER (5+ / 0)
and I mean EVER, allow another Republican near the Presidency. If we have to
physically restrain them from ruining our country, then so be it.
NEVER. EVER. EVER. AGAIN.
They have done so much damage, we will not be able to recover for another 30 years.
We need to ABOLISH the Republican Party, and declare the Republican Party Un
American.
[ Parent ]
Save you from the government? (0+ / 0)
A government occupying a country thousands of miles away. A government that would
crimnalize abortion. A government that does not give equal protection to same sex
marriages.
by scott5js on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:12:58 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
The recent statements from PIMCO's CFO (10+ / 0)
Concerning Bush's attempts to mimic the economic strategy of "another era" should
put a good nail in that coffin.
When William Gross is telling you that cutting taxes for the rich and deregulating
markets is killing the economy, things have changed.
by Devilstower on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:35:56 PM PDT
As I Wrote About How Energy... (6+ / 0)
...will dominate almost every policy area for years to come, I thought of your post
from last night, and how maybe I should write "resource" instead of energy.
[ Parent ]
The best energy policy will be independent of (5+ / 0)
resources, and be dependent on technologies. I mean, if something is limitless,

without borders, and can't be truly monopolized (solar, wind), then maybe it doesn't fit
the classic, historical definition of a resource. Here is the litmus test; can you fight a
war over it?
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!
by bigtimecynic on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:48:55 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Well, I suppose the Chinese could... (2+ / 0)
... threaten to build a big umbrella over North America to blot out the sun and we could
fight over that.
Kidding aside, the whole "wind and solar as an antidote for the resource wars" is a
provocative idea that I've never seen anyone mention before. Thanks for the
brainfood.
The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. Mahatma
Gandhi
by kingubu on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:12:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
The problem (3+ / 0)
is that investment follows the line of maximum profit potential, so it's entirely possible
that more will be invested in controllable (i.e., higher profit) technologies, and this
means those technologies will grow faster and have a greater likelihood of becoming
the standard.
A solar thermal dish containing nothing but a silicon mirror and a stirling engine might
be cheap as dirt and simple as tic tactoe, but that means anyone could build one with
a little money and minor alterations to dodge your patent. Plenty of companies will
pursue it, but their profit margins will be razor thin if they exist at all, and will not scale
as fast as the competition.
A CIGS panel, however, is not trivial technology despite promising cheap unit costs,
and it involves exotic elements like indium and gallium. If that became the global
standard, indium and gallium would simply replace oil as the precious commodity
people kill and die to control. The trivial technologies would not see substantial gains
against the higherprofit types until resource shortages yet again forced a change. It's
tortoiseandhare.
The upshot: Whatever is both scarce and immediately necessary, no matter how far
removed down the supply chain, will be a motivation for war. We'll chip away at the
list of those motivations, but even if energy was taken entirely off we'd just be fighting
over life extension drugs, or rocket fuel, or control of an orbit, etc. etc.
Freedom is in the fight.
by Troubadour on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:06:55 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Gonna hafta... (1+ / 0)
...start looking for asteroid rich in them fancyschmancy metals!
[ Parent ]
The Moon would be easier. (1+ / 0)
It's not exactly drowning in them, but it's close, it stays close, and it has decent gravity
to operate in. Of course, sea floor mining will take off long before lunar mines would
be costeffective.
[ Parent ]
A fellow named Ming... (1+ / 0)
once tried moving the moon closer to us for easier access but some maniac
quarterback got a burr in his jock strap and stopped him.
above it!
[ Parent ]
Godawful movie. But classic camp. (1+ / 0)
by Troubadour on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:49:12 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
The technology and the materials (0+ / 0)
will become the resource. Copper. Semiconductor materials. Rare metals, etc. The
reason we had oil is because of it's simplicity. The equipment for solar is very
expensive, and to some extent consumed. Many of the materials are themselves
becoming less abundant. Never hide the cost of the equipment when looking at solar.
[ Parent ]
Link? n/t (0+ / 0)
Bruce in Louisville
Visit me at brucemaples.com
by bmaples on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:38:20 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
The Reagan era couldn't end quickly enough to (9+ / 0)
suit me. It was an era of unbridled greed and absolute contempt for the concept of
diversity that had historically made America so inviting and strong.
"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are
rich." JFK January 20, 1961
by rontun on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:36:44 PM PDT
It did, however, spawn... (2+ / 0)
a great series on HBO. I have fond memories of Not Necessarily the News.
above it!
[ Parent ]
If the Reagan era truly ends (14+ / 0)
it will be primarily because the economy becomes more democratic. That requires a
resurgent labor movement above all else, I think.
I do want to note, while an otherwise great post, I'm concerned about the comment
that based on historical records, unemployement is not very high.
As Kevin Phillips notes in a recent article everyone should read, Presidents from
Nixon to Bush II (including Clinton) have manipulated figures and redefined the
Consumer Price Index to make the numbers reflect better on their respective
administrations. So the official numbers are actually bullshit:
The real numbers, to most economically minded Americans, would be
a face full of cold water. Based on the criteria in place a quarter
century ago, today's U.S. unemployment rate is somewhere between 9
percent and 12 percent; the inflation rate is as high as 7 or even 10
percent; economic growth since the recession of 2001 has been
mediocre, despite a huge surge in the wealth and incomes of the
superrich, and we are falling back into recession. If what we have
been sold in recent years has been delusional "Pollyanna Creep," what
we really need today is a picture of our economy exdistortion. For
what it would reveal is a nation in deep difficulty not just domestically
but globally.
Rise like lions after slumber in unvanquishable number. Shake your chains to earth like
dew, which in sleep had fallen on you. Ye are many they are few.
by cruz on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:37:52 PM PDT
But We're Not At Figures Like Those... (3+ / 0)
...seen in the Depression (where over 30% were unemployed) or even the Reagan
minidepression, where unemployment went up to something like 1617%. Even if you
add in those who are defined as not actively searching for jobs, I don't think we're
over 10%. 10% is bad, real bad, but not as bad as in some of those previous
economic crises.
[ Parent ]
My guess is the real unemployment rate right now (5+ / 0)
is somewhere around 12% (if you count the # of people defined as not actively
searching)...
But next year is going to really stink, and Obama's gonna get crushed for it. Hopefully
the economy takes an upturn by 4Q 2009 or 1Q 2010...
4.63, 4.41
by dpinzow on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:45:12 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Add in the under employed and you get a more (5+ / 0)
accurate picture.
"Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo
by lordcopper on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:46:46 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Underemployment is the key (2+ / 0)
The statistic concerning the gap between CEO pay and the average salary worker is
the telltale sign of underemployment and it is doing all the damage of unemployment
and perhaps more b/c of its insidiousness. The "haves" best argument is that there is
full employment, and a rise in real wages would threaten that figure, this is a crock of
shit that we have been spoon fed since Reagan's voodoo economics became the
driving force in America. LOOK around the world people, the US isn't even in the top
10 in average standard of living anymore, many countries that employ more
progressive wage structures have a much higher standard of living, Sweden, Iceland,
Germany, Canada, these countries have not succumbed to the "greed" is good
notion that America never lets go off. CEO's of failing companies (Home Depot) are
showered with millions as they leave, a sure a sign as any that our country is stuck in
poverty, the government sent "stimulus" checks of $600, to families, expecting a
"bump" in the economy, the very fact that $600 DID help a great many people at
$4.00 a gallon gas times, is all the testament that I need that the rich are content with
the growing gap, and merely want the proletariat to shut up and watch t.v.PAY US
WHAT WE ARE WORTH!!!!
"Is he ready to lead, my answer is no, Barack Obama is a gifted, eloquent young man
[who should know his place and stay there] Joe "Racist" Liebermann
by 4CasandChlo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:25:48 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Nobody will listen to the media (1+ / 0)
if they try to blame Obama for next year. Not just because it's preposterous, but
because his boldness and intelligence as a leader will mark such a stunning change
that people will think him blindingly glorious for simply failing to be a villain. And he
will do considerably more than just refrain from evil.
[ Parent ]
Agreed. Part of our current problem is (3+ / 0)
the difference between income and wealth at the upper end. Unemployment is not as
bad as the depression, but taxation effects make the disparity in income worse. The
middle class is no longer anywhere near the middle, and they get taxed at a higher
rate than the increasingly small upper class.
It isn't that we have unemployment so much as the fact that employment does not
guarantee a family sufficient income for a place to live or health care, for instance. The
Reagan revolution has been a massive shift of wealth to a very small part of the
population. The pollyanna creep in the article by Kevin Phillips has allowed this to
happen while claiming that everything is fine.
Thanks for this post.
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (no not that one, Groucho)
by marketgeek on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:00:39 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Nice place to stop for tonight (1+ / 0)
It goes back much further, suggesting that the left, when in power, is just as deceptive
as the right.
Question:
Has Obama changed his position on anything since Clinton conceeded?
by URMissTaken on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I would argue (4+ / 0)
that the only time the left has ever been "in power" was for about 15 minutes in the
1930s. Maybe.
But aside from that, I agree completely.
I don't expect anything from Obama, and I think anyone who does is a fool. Sorry, but
it's what I believe. What I do expect is for us to get organized and apply an
unbelievable amount of pressure, like we did in the 30s and 60s (but with tactics and
unbelievable amount of pressure, like we did in the 30s and 60s (but with tactics and
methods suitable to the present), to push Obama and a hopefully more progressive
Congress to act.
But he will throw bullshit/deception at us, make no mistake.
(And no, I'm not trashing the man. I'm a realist and a student of history.)
Rise like lions after slumber in unvanquishable number. Shake your chains to earth like
dew, which in sleep had fallen on you. Ye are many they are few.
by cruz on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:16:18 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Obama Republicans anyone? n/t (2+ / 0)
You've got to be cou rageous, to play the odds that love will win. Whatever city you're
in. Was / Not Was
by Noodles on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:39:01 PM PDT
How about "Constitutional Republicans" instead? (1+ / 0)
That gives them a little pat on the back in the process, and helps define their
counterparts for what they are not.
[ Parent ]
Right. Lead them first away from the GOP, (0+ / 0)
and let them make up their own minds about where they should go.
For instance, to Bob Barr. Anywhere, just away from McSame.
by Nimbus on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:56:29 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
As an antidote to Reagen Democrats this (0+ / 0)
is a meme, or frame, or movement or what have you which would more easily stick in

people's minds as a well defined statement of what we are as a party. Nor do I see this
so much as a cult of personality about Obama a what he represents in terms of the
correct definition of liberalism, a word badly smeared over the last 30 years. An
antidote to what Reagan represented when the Neocon movement started.
You've got to be cou rageous, to play the odds that love will win. Whatever city you're
in. Was / Not Was
by Noodles on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 10:19:07 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
great article D (2+ / 0)
it's either your conclusion (hopefully) or it's going to be chaos and worse.
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a
man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. Mark Twain
by route66 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:39:14 PM PDT
Proxy battles re: feminism also fueled homophobia (4+ / 0)
Many of the cultural issues became proxy battles over feminism, and
liberals and the Democratic party became associated with traits
generally thought to be effete, or to take the root word further,
feminine.
Which is why it was so easy for the Republicans to grasp onto the same sex marriage
issue with such success, because they were able to frame Democratic men (and more
specifically, Democratic male political candidates) as "effete," "feminine," and
therefore teh gay.
The 49 or so percent of Americans who still think of our government in terms of this
womanhating, gaybaiting mindset (and keeping the women and their gay
"counterparts" down) truly frighten me.
Definitely (2+ / 0)
Gay issues are definitely linked to it. However, I don't think the Repubs really had as
much success with gay marriage as many think. Sure, they won the initiatives until
last year in AZ, but I don't think it was really because of hostility toward gays as much
as notions about marriage being tied to churches and such. If you ask people if
they're OK with same sex couples having a list of rights, and you list all the rights of
marriage, and you just don't call it marriage, majorities are fine with it. It's a hang up
over what you call it.
And I don't think gay marriage did anything in 2004 except maybe gin up the turnout
among conservative and fearful elderly voters. I don't think it changed voters' votes
for president.
[ Parent ]
Fortunately for us... (1+ / 0)
the predatory closet homosexuals who make up the GOP's most devoted cadres can't
seem to stay out of the news.
[ Parent ]
That's my biggest concern (2+ / 0)
It sure seems like the worm has turned on the economy in the sense that the
electorate is waking up to the fact that the GOP has no interest in providing true
economic benefit to any class other than the wealthiest 3% who patronize and fund
party operations.
However, the social divisions are still there. Those divisions have been used since
Nixon (and much further back) to divide the working class and convince it to vote
against its own economic interest.
I think divisions based on gender have largely abated. I think that divisions based on
sexual preference are starting to abate.
I question, however, whether divisions based on race are much better. I think that the
potential exists for Obama to break up the racial divisions, at least among the younger
generation of voters. I don't hold out much hope for white 50+ y/o's; they're going to
vote GOP regardless.
However, the potential for Obama to bust up these racial divisions is going to depend
largely on how successful a President he will be. If he presides over a protracted,
bloody pullout of Iraq and the economy continues to go south, the right is going to
paint him as living proof that black people can't get the job done.
Obama is going to need to be a successful president for this election to be the end to
an era.
"Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove."
P.G. Wodehouse
by gsbadj on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:06:15 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
The only problem with your thesis (4+ / 0)
on the cusp of something new, hopefully better, and characterized by a
bold, vigorous, creative Democratic party
is that this boldness, for the most part, is found in common citizens and not in
Democratic politicians. But then, contrary to what history books teach, "leaders" very
rarely lead. They often just follow the ground swell they sense in the country. But I do
sense a change in the general population. So here's to hoping that the sheep in
Washington will follow along dutifully.
Roosevelt... (5+ / 0)
...ran a very safe and risk averse campaign in 1932 .
As you say, part of leading is following, and assuming Obama wins, we won't know
where he'll go until he gets in to office. Also, the Congress he has will be crucial, and
on that score I'm fairly optimistic, because I think we're going win big majorities.
[ Parent ]
People forget (0+ / 0)
That the Democratic party (Southern part) that Roosevelt led were generally
conservative. Someone once commented to Sen. Walter F. George(D) of Georgia that
"Roosevelt was his own worst enemy." To which the Senator replied "Not so long as I
am alive."
by edbb on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:02:18 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
So if racism/xenophobia (3+ / 0)
is no longer effective enough to win elections for Republicans, what will be their next
scare tactic to try to regain power?
We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by TFinSF on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:45:55 PM PDT
I Don't Know, and Neither Do They (5+ / 0)
They're at an impasse. Many of them think their problems are because they haven't
been true to their ideals and to their base, which means that next time they'll just get
longer running starts before bashing their heads in to a wall.
[ Parent ]
The problem is conservatism (3+ / 0)
the last 8 years has been conservative ideology being exposed by empiricism.
Iran, Russia, Saudia Arabia, and Norway will no longer be oil exporters by 2030. Link
by aztecraingod on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:56:36 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
They will continue to appeal to the (2+ / 0)
rich and the evangelicals, I think. They will also try to hoodwink the Latino community
into voting for them.
They will continue to do what they always do: Lie, cheat, steal, rape, and pillage.
I really don't see the Republican Party continuing as a party very much longer.
[ Parent ]
Two potentials, not mutually exclusive: (2+ / 0)
1. Radicalization . Yes, I know they're already batshit wingnuts, but they're
spineless batshit wingnuts. Being forced into the wilderness so soon after
tasting absolute power will create an incredible level of bitterness on the
right, and of course it will be directed against us rather than themselves. For
now it's abstract, but when President Obama is piling sanity on sanity, one
rational decision after another, their rage will probably boil over. Expect the
reemergence of an unprecedented level of right wing domestic terrorist
activity, some of it possibly with unofficial GOP sanction.
2. Clintonization . Bill Clinton pretended to be a liberal while giving the GOP
90% of what it wanted, and Republicans can do exactly the same pretend to
be reasonable and still get 90% of what they want. Expect to see "Green
Republican" as the new "compassionate conservative." These jokers would
express their profound anger and deep sadness whenever their more militant
comrades murder or kidnap someone. They would "feel our pain."
[ Parent ]
Most Likely Radicalization (2+ / 0)
They're going to be wiped out in the House, and the only ones remaining will be from
solidly Republican districts where the election is mostly over after the primary. There
won't be many left who have to bother pretending that they're moderate. And in the
Senate, even in the face of what's coming at them, there are only a few, like Specter,
Snowe, Smith and Collins who even pretend to not be way to the right.
After feeding the base almost everything it asked for the last 15 years, they won't be
able to quickly shift gears and moderate themselves. Those who try to moderate will
get taken out in primaries.
Their only hope of moderating the party will be if they nominate a moderate governor
or some other DC outsider for President in 2012. I don't know who that would be off
the top of my head, but I don't think the party based in Congress will be able to shift to
a more moderate or centrist stance.
by DHinMI on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:03:27 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Good. (0+ / 0)
If they're radical, we pwn them.
[ Parent ]
Then why is Bush continuing to dismantle.. (2+ / 0)
programs like Medicare, SS, etc.? What are we missing here?
Why are Democrats in Congress continuing to go along with abandoning the Middle
Class, the Constitution, and standing by while Big Oil rakes in the cash at the expense
of American workers and families? With supporting FISA and immunity for telecoms?
No, I don't see the Reagan era vanishing, I see it being bolstered, and propagated
forward by both the GOP and the Democrats.
Good luck.
by quantumspin on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:46:39 PM PDT
He Failed (3+ / 0)
He's not still trying to dismantle Social Security. He tried it in 2005, and it failed
miserably. That's one of my main points.
[ Parent ]
One point of anger that I do have is that the (1+ / 0)
Democrats back then didn't run their own version of the infamous "Harry and Louise"
ads. I wish that they had run their own ads protesting Bush's plans.
by oceanstar17 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:06:49 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
I would have been great, but . . . (2+ / 0)
. . . the "Harry and Louise" ads (which were actually only one component of the
overall campaign to defeat health care reform ) weren't paid for by the
Republican party they were paid for by HIAA (the Health Insurance Association of
America). That is, by the corporations that stood to lose profits in our "for profit" health
(non)care system.
Who would have paid for the equivalent campaign against Social Security "reform"?
Lower income working folks who will really need Social Security when they retire?
They don't have that kind of money. The Democratic Party? They weren't exactly
awash in extra cash, and aren't likely to be when the costs of getting Democrats
elected remains so obscenely high.
Like you, I would have loved to have seen it and not just because it would have helped
beat back attempts to privatize Social Security which failed in any case but because
it would have done some longterm damage to the Republican "me first and to hell with
you" model of how our society should function.
But that's always the rub. The small group of the wealthy and the powerful have the
resources to shape the debate. The rest of us . . . not so far. We're hopeful, of course,
that the internet will provide tools to shape the debate in a new way, but the traditional
media is still very powerful and what reaches most Americans. We shall see.
I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion,
the destruction, of the Constitution. Barbara Jordan
by Janet Strange on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:03:41 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
There WERE Ads on Social Security (0+ / 0)
They weren't run nationally, or at least if they were they weren't run heavily, but they
were used to target members of Congress to keep them from signing on to Bush's
plan. They were used in a target manner, and they worked. And they were largely
paid for by organized labor.
[ Parent ]
That's good, but still . . . (0+ / 0)
. . . as you point out yourself, union membership has fallen drastically, so organized
labor has much less clout (and money) than it used to. (Sadly I'm a union member
myself.)
I'm glad that they did this, and that it worked in those local, targeted areas, but I don't
think it's in any way comparable to "Harry and Louise" and that whole campaign that
completely shifted the conversation about health care in this country.
As a result of it, that conversation shifted from "how can we improve access to health
care through gov't programs, as Medicare did," to abject fear that whatever we had
(and most voters did have at least decent health insurance coverage at the time) any
gov't initiative to expand health care would result in the loss of both access and quality
of care for the majority. Harry and Louise = gov't is coming to take away your health
care!!! Waiting for years for surgery! No MRI's! Can't choose my doctor gov't will
assign me one!
Thereby very effectively protecting insurance company profits for another 15 years.
And its effects are still strong and will make health care reform extremely difficult even
now when most Americans are disgusted with our current for profit system. They know
the current system sucks, but b/c of H&L, they're still scared that any gov't plan will
make things worse.
I just don't see the ads you mention having such a profound impact on the national
consciousness as H&L, etc. Good on 'em, and hope we see more, but the other side is
still much more powerful.
Can we fight back against such money and power with grassroots/netroots activism? I
hope so, but we can't underestimate the difficulty of it.
I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion,
the destruction, of the Constitution. Barbara Jordan
by Janet Strange on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:02:26 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
The Point Was That With Social Security... (0+ / 0)
...it really wasn't all that necessary to shift the conversation. There's never been
support for rolling back Social Security. The Harry and Louise campaign was to
prevent the addition of a major pillar to the welfare state. It built on fears of making
the status quo worse. With Social Security, people's only fear is that it won't be
around. But they don't want it privatized. Thus, the effort needed was much less than
what happened with health care.
The reasons conservatives are so terrified of national health care is that they know
once it passes that it will almost certainly never get repealed. Bush even conceded
that with the Medicare drug bill in 2004, which most movement conservatives hated
because it further expanded the program, one they want repealed. And their model of
the classic case of something that once implemented will probably never get rolled
back because the public grows accustomed to it is Social Security.
We didn't need Harry and Louise to keep Social Security. The conservatives were the
ones who needed to come up with a comparable effort to attack Social Security, and
they couldn't.
[ Parent ]
Social Security Privateers (0+ / 0)
The various bubbles dissolved any support for dismanatling social security. At the
height of a Wall street bubble, 401K Americans are eager to get their easy money.
Barak Hussein Obama God Bless America.
by odenthal on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:12:40 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Not so fast... (7+ / 0)
I'd say this is a wonderful diary. Thoughtful, worth reading, informative even for
historical and political junkies like ourselves. A rare acheivement.
That said, I am among the pessimists. My sense is that we are still firmly in the
Reagan era and will be for some time to come.
In essence, one of the hallmarks of the Reagan era is the degree to which
conservative concepts and moral codes have determined the discourse of the debate
and, by proxy, the location of the Overton window of politically acceptable policies. We
are still in an era where the centrists are the dominant powers among democrats and
the world is still very very safe for archconservatives. Arch liberals are still derided
viciously in a way conservatives are not in the main stream.
The core to some degree, I would argue is American thinking. Although economics
and social changes are obviously hugel important, cultural value systems underpin the
meaning the electorate makes of those changes. Is the vast rise in inequality the
hallmark of rampantly successful capitalism in its purest form, or of savagely
rapacious capitalism in its vilest? Americans, I believe, still believe the former
rhetoric, and that, is still what's wrong with Kansas. Until that changes, the kind of
social system that supports policies that values looking after all Americans (to
guarantee, say, universal health care, or higher taxes as a form of "doing our parts")
will not take hold fully enough to transform the political era in which we live.
Unfortunately, the notion that "we don't leave one of our own behind" applies in
military situations, but is not translated into a social ethic of society as a whole. We are
not a nation of people who feel themselves our brothers' keepers. Until we do,
Reagan, with his resounding denunciation of social responsibility, will be beaming down
upon the American social project.
Most respectfully yours,
G.
Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly
discredited or the entire world is under its yoke.
by Guinho on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:47:54 PM PDT
The Problem With Your Premise... (3+ / 0)
...is you're using that Overton Window stuff. Overton is a far right crank at a think
tank back in my home state of Michigan who tried to convince people if you keep
pushing more extreme positions, the more "moderately bad" positions will be adopted.
It's a fine theory if reality never intrudes. Look at Iraq. They pushed extreme
positions until it fell apart, and now the war is deeply unpopular. On the economy,
they most hid their intent, and when they actually tried to push things on Social
Security, there was a massive backlash.
Spin and deception works for a while. But realities like losing your job, your house or
your son in combat intrude and destroy the completely unempirical and proven false
theory of that Overton thing.
I don't mean to be harsh, especially since you were so complimentary of my post, but
I really wish people would stop pushing that Overton Window stuff.
[ Parent ]
A minor reference... (1+ / 0)
I appreciate your information about the Overton window idea. I really had no idea,
and you put it to bed well. To a certain extent, I'm not sure the concept isn't a useful
heuristic. Since 1980, I've seen the right push ever more extreme visions, until what
seemed radical is now common place. Maybe that's just an illusion created by a more
general rightward tilt. After all, that would make the ever more acceptable right
leaning stuff the driver of a rightward moving window, not the result of it. Thanks for
bringing that up. I hadn't thought of it. Certainly, that overton window stuff has
conversely failed miserably on the left. We certainly have our fair share of cranks too
who never seem to make moderate left proposals like single payer seem acceptable.
Now that I think about it, I wish the theory actually worked, since compared to the
Burning Man economics some espouse (a straw man, if you will forgive the absolutely
dreadful pun. I have real respect for burners.), then a return to balanced budgets and
the creation of a simple, progressive tax policy would be an easy sell if Overton were
right! Damn!
Overall, though, this is another case where I really hope you are right and I am

wrong. Still, it seems to me that many people don't make the connection between the
tax policy of Bush and their difficulties in making ends meet, or the connection
between the deification of for profit corporations and their off the charts health care
costs (so to speak)
As in economics, politics seems to be all about the failures that come about from
boundedrational actors (or some deviation from perfect rationality) acting on
imperfect information.
Thanks again! now I owe you twice!
[ Parent ]
Like all theories, (0+ / 0)
it works within limits. It is surely a good explanation of how we got this far. We tend to
assume the continuum is infinite, but it isn't. There are limits at which, as you said,
reality intrudes.
[ Parent ]
There was a Diary the other day about Overton (0+ / 0)
Which did a good job of describing the theory of the Overton Window. Regardless of
Overton being a crank, which I'm in no position to argue either way, since I haven't
read his work, I do think there are some obvious truths behind the theory, if not in the
author's conclusions.
The problem is, the concept of the Overton Window doesn't fly except in extreme
macro trends, and certainly not in a specific incident such as the trumped up Iraq war.
Macrotrends are much too large to be manipulated by anybody, since the trend is too
amorphous and too subtle to be seen from inside it. Extreme radicals that could push a
trend forward would by the nature of being far outside conventional society would
never have the power to perform their historical task on purpose, but would only been
seen to have done it in retrospect.
For this theory to work on a substantive level, and by that I mean for radical
individuals or groups to drive change in the way the Overton Window suggests, they
would have to have been political geniuses with the morals of a Marvel Comics villain.
Such a group would have to have been able to identify a very large trend in society,
identify demographic and historical elements of it, and take action to push exactly the
right buttons, without regard for anyone else.
I agree this is unlikely in the extreme. Still, it's a useful way to look at how trends
begin, and how smart politicians manipulate people caught up in them.
Here's an example of what I mean.
In the early 1960s, there was already an identifiable movement to end segregation,
and to secure political and human rights for Black people in America. The movement
had been growing slowly over a long period of time. However, as the political
environment became more unstable in the 1960s and 70s, not just MLK and the
nonviolent movement made strides, but the Black Panthers and more aggressive
movements scared the shit out of the "silent majority." Antiwar protesters Yippies,
etc. made middle America very uncomfortable. The Weathermen, and other anarchist
or antigovernment groups scared just about everyone.
I am of that generation, and I believe that the radicals of the 1960s and early 1970s
played a very real role in moving our culture much further left than it would have gone
without that push.
I believe that radical feminists, for instance, can take pride in the Roe vs. Wade
decision, which would never have been made without the influence of them.
In this context the Overton Window, in retrospect, explains a lot.
Now, the Overtone Window loses coherency when one realizes that the Black Panthers,
for example, could not have predicted the results of their actions. As a political force
for Black Power, they were better symbols than politicians (despite the fact that some
of them later became extremely able politicians). Their affect on the overall movement
was to drive it forward by forcing politicians and society in general to become aware of
their issues. This wasn't their intent, though. The intent was to create a unified and
powerful Black community which they would lead by a fusion of force and politics. At
that they failed.
So Overton would see the Panthers as the provocateurs that pushed a leftward
movement toward racial equailty while ignoring the actual history of their successes
and failures.
The only current radicals I can think of at the moment that fit the Overton theory are
the Middle Eastern fanatics, such as Osama Bin Laden, who use terrorism to gain
notice of their grievances by the world at large. Their grand design is unlikely to
succeed, but their effects will be studied for ages.
Obviously we didn't identify the scale of terror they would prove able to inflict, but they
didn't realize the extent of the damage they would cause, and they certainly couldn't
have accurately predicted beforehand what the idiots in the Bush administration would
do next.
So, I find the Overton idea interesting, and a good way to look at how movements pick
up steam. The first proponents of substantial change are always out ahead of the world
they live in, and are almost always misunderstood and derided in their day, but turn
out to have been right later.
Beyond thatm its all a crapshoot.
FWIW
I support Barack Obama, not for his oratory, nor for his positions nor his life story, but
because of his genius for leadership.
by DHinIA on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:50:03 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Brother's Keeper. (0+ / 0)
Reagan mocked "brother's keeper", lifting instead the "moral majority" god's chosen,
who vote! Welfare queens, unions, the courts and government were the enemy.
Jesse Helms was going to stand in the door. "Working families" have been with us
since.
Reagan yanked out New Deal government, leaving "his" democrats on their own;
clinging to their guns and religion. God, and the market will provide. Get a gun, a
4wheel drive Hummer, pray; only the strong will survive.
More GOP crap: "With a level playing americans can compete with anyone". We
compete; while CEOs sell off everything to the new landlords.
The Reagan fantasy was that "rampantly successful capitalism" would bestow its
blessings upon all who fully embraced the "greed is good" ethic. Untethered from
welfare, unions, entitlements, the indolent and the weak, the faithful would float up in
their 401K bubbles alongside new neighbors on the Reagan ranch, or with Bushes in
Kennebunkport. The 1000 points of light are so beautiful from up there.
Bush2 kept his foot on Brother's Keeper with "compasionate conservatism" Double
Speak meaning cruel to be kind would continue.
911 did trigger compassion toward fellow Americans; but was quickly hijacked into war
lust.
Katrina did not restore a sence of community; it was packaged as a black problem.
Energy crisis III may restore some sense of community.
What does the "party of ideas" offer? GOP, humbly suggests oil drilling.
Hopefully Dems won't dissolve into recycling, compost heaps, and tilting at windwills.
Obama isn't tied to ideology. He will restore a sense of compromise, a sense of
community, a blend of market and government. Finally bury Reagan.
by odenthal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:20:16 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Let's hope (1+ / 0)
because I for one and tired of being trickled on.
I guess in the last few days that I've made up my mind that we've created a false
choice between standing for principle and winning. Obama will restore a sense of
compromise, sure, but compromise will not achieve anything. I'll reach for the
ridiculous Hitler analogy. If you are compromising with Hitler what does that entail?
Killing half as many jews, gypsies, gays and dissidents? Color me unimpressed by
that.
[ Parent ]
I never got (0+ / 0)
trickled on. I am still standing here looking upawards, palms and mouth wide open,
completely dry.
[ Parent ]
The end of the Reagan era began back in 1996 (2+ / 0)
with the socalled "Contract with America." Because at that time the GOP began its
decline into utter corruption and ideological thuggery. When the SCOTUS forced Bush
on us in 2000, the end was accomplished. The rape of any shred of decency, values
and integrity that Ronald Reagan had envisioned for the GOP was complete at that
point. So now we have this recent pronouncement by Medvedev, one little sign that
the Reagan era is more than over internationally:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
Reagan Republicanism died a long time ago.
by concernedamerican on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:48:12 PM PDT
Just to clarify I'm not saying I think Reagan (0+ / 0)
was decent or had integrity I'm just saying that's how he saw himself, and that's how
his immediate followers and acolytes worshipped him, and that's become the basis for
his idolization.
by concernedamerican on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:50:05 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Thanks for that. :) (0+ / 0)
"Better to light one candle than curse the darkness." The Christophers' motto
by Klick2con10ue on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:01:23 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Bush tours America. (2+ / 0)
http://www.youtube.com/...
by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:49:05 PM PDT
That was HILARIOUS ! (0+ / 0)
TRUE. SAD. But, Hilarious !
[ Parent ]
one could argue (0+ / 0)
one could argue that the end of the Reagan era began in 2000 but was
interrupted the next year by the terrorist attacks on 9 11.
That one would be Kevin Phillips. Somewhere between the hijacking of our democracy
on December 12, 2000 and the hijacking of our planes on September 11, 2001, he
wrote an oped piece that argued that what we were seeing in the Bush administration
was not the final triumph of conservatism, but its last gasp. It was a comforting
thought at the time.
"I'm not negative I'm ANGRY!" Howard the Duck
by Roddy McCorley on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:49:42 PM PDT
He Wasn't Paying Close Enough Attention (0+ / 0)
Cheney, Rumsfeld, the rest of the crew, they were primed for a literal takeover and
launch of global war. They barely have any other skills.
We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for
those it calls enemy.... ML King "Beyond Vietnam"
by Gooserock on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:52:40 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Phillips is/was right (0+ / 0)
He authored the Emerging Republican Majority. But the end of the 1968 GOP coalition
started with Clinton's win in 1992, when he broke into what had been 60% Republican
suburbs just four years earlier. Clinton served to have been the Eisenhower of that
era. Just like Eisenhower, who broke into the south and other solid Democratic eras
and started softening up the New Deal Coalition due to growth in the Sunbelt, Clinton
broke into the GOP domination of suburban America.
[ Parent ]
I was shocked to see the victor of GulfWarI lose (0+ / 0)
Why did Bush1 lose? The war was a huge success. In and out with ~50 casualties.
Schwartzkoft and Powell, Patriot .v. scud. Nintendo warfare. Oil kept flowing.
Perot's giant sucking sound, in the voting booths? Wimp factor/vision thing?
Why did GOP hate Clinton so much? Because he broke up the Reagan party?
[ Parent ]
It was bound to happen (0+ / 0)
The issues that fused the coalition of 1968 had started to fray by the 1990s. With the
end of the Cold War and with the memory of 1968 further back, and combined with the
fact that the Democrats didn't nominate someone from New England, it was the
election cycle for the Democrats to win back.
by oceanstar17 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:52:33 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
pendulum (0+ / 0)
now the cycle says ... democrat.
So we oscilate on an 8 year period, around a trendline? Progressive, conservative? Is
there an arch, the rise and fall of the American Century?
The 68 coalition. Response to 60's excesses, cultural vertigo, an endless war. Civil
rights and women's rights were too much change too fast?
Gore wasn't from NewEngland. Though he seemed to reject Tennesee. A victim of
timing or Clinton excesses?
America adrift. 200 years of western expansion. 100 of immigrant assimilation. 75
years of technological pioneering. What's next? Conservation? Yawn.
Maybe carbon trading? We already have a house built on bank cards, flimsy financial
gimmicks disconnected from risk and reward. Carbon trading seems doubly dubious
selling indulgences like baseball cards or tulips. If you pollute you pay.
Anyway keep swinging for the fences.
[ Parent ]
An Awful Lot of Energy Is Squandered Discussing (2+ / 0)
the Reagan and later eras of global crime syndicate takeover in historic terms of
politics.
It's really a lot simpler to describe it in terms of the heist of wealth, opportunity and
governing power that it's been.
We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for
those it calls enemy.... ML King "Beyond Vietnam"
by Gooserock on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:50:55 PM PDT
Hopefully Obama comes up (1+ / 0)
Hopefully Obama comes up with something like the 'New Deal', as we've discussed
here before.
I really believe you're right, that this election will be like FDR's.
A catchy name for his agenda would help in November.
:P
McCain: US economic woes 'psychological'
by DAVE DIAL on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 07:56:34 PM PDT
I've been having that thought myself. (2+ / 0)
Of course, it's too early for pithiness it would just grow stale before the election. But
whatever it is, it should be evocative without being torrid; hard hitting without
bombast; and leave Republicans no easy avenue of ridicule for the name. Definitely
needs to be two words in two syllables, that much is clear.
[ Parent ]
The Progressive Movement, (0+ / 0)
the New Deal,
the Great Society,
and then the _____ _____.
[ Parent ]
He should call his program "America Alive." (0+ / 0)

1. Alliterative (always good).

2. Contains the country name.

3. Letter A looks nice and assertive.

4. Just the right balance of promise and warning.
[ Parent ]
I hope its true (0+ / 0)
We've reached the end of the Reagan era, and are on the cusp of
something new, hopefully better, and characterized by a bold,
vigorous, creative Democratic party with which people bond as they
did with the Democratic party of the New Deal era
Yes... but is this going to be the election that sets the new agenda, or are we going to
see a transitive, placeholder election that kicks the can down the road with the politics
of triangulation and Republicanlite?
The more the Democrats vote with the Republicans and embrace their positions, the
harder it is going to be to distance themselves from the Republicans when it really hits
the fan and the peasants show up at the gate with their pitchforks & torches. It might
even be too late.
What happens if there is no gas? no food? no jobs? Do we get better Democrats... or
does the country embrace fascism?
I put my faith in the people, But the people let me down. So I turned the other way
And I carry on, anyhow Rare Earth, I Just Want To Celebrate
by Spiny on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:00:57 PM PDT
Probably the latter. n/t (1+ / 0)
by srkp23 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:11:13 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
We throw the Bums out! (3+ / 0)
And then we install people who can govern without criminality. And NO, Fascism isn't
an option.
[ Parent ]
With prejudice!!!!!! (0+ / 0)
CLEAN OUT THE BARN!!!!!!!!!
[ Parent ]
The Republicans are where the New Deal Coalition (0+ / 0)
was in 1968. After 1992 they started losing the "Reagan Democrats" and white ethnics
in the suburbs. What kept the GOP coalition together for several more election cycles
were Clinton's missteps with Monica Lewinsky and 9/11. I could write more about this
and have, but the issues facing the country in 1968 are not the same as now. And what
brought that coalition together anger over the welfare state, crime, the Vietnam war,
the Civil Rights area, rioting in our cities, taxes, inefficient government and so forth
are no longer in contention.
The GOP basically is probably going to be left with the 170 or so electoral votes that
Bob Dole received in 1996. The Emerging Democratic Majority was correct in its
arguments; its authors were just two or three electoral cycles ahead of themselves.
Really interesting, DH. Thanks much. (0+ / 0)
by LithiumCola on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:04:11 PM PDT
At least with Bush the turning point for him (1+ / 0)
was probably the "political capital" comment that he made right after the 2004 election.
He failed to realize that his re election was more of a vote AGAINST KERRY than it was
for his own policies. His attempt to privatize social security probably will one day be
remembered in the same vein as Clinton's healthcare plan. Although it didn't get as far
as Clinton's plan did, the public responded in the same way. Beyond that I'd have to
say that the ultimate turning point was probably Katrina. To see the government
mishandle the first major natural disaster on the scale of 9/11 since 9/11 in that
manner really hurt Bush.
Progressive cap gains tax (4+ / 0)
I'm an Enrolled Agent (tax person), so I tend to see political problems through a tax
prism.
I humbly suggest making the capital gains tax rate and the tax on dividends
progressive. If you are a Walmart heir living on 10 million dollars a year of dividends,
you should not be paying at a 15% tax rate! Capital gains and dividends for very low
income individuals (who rarely have such goodies) should be zero, and for Bill Gates
and the very high net worth folks, they should be paying at least 50%. This won't
affect very many people but it could raise a great deal of revenue, and it might start to
correct the income disparity by making such obscenely high income less attractive..
by DoubleBonus on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:08:41 PM PDT
Along similar lines, when did the "Death Tax" (7+ / 0)
become such an issue to blue collar workers earning under ~40K/yr?
The people "hurt" by the estate tax are...the children of wealthy people, who are
"disadvantaged" in that there is a reduction in the piles of money the receive which
they may have done little or nothing to "earn". Where I come from, most folks aren't
big fans of "trust fund kids", but now the meme is "you worked hard all your life, and
now when you die the big bad government is taking your money from you".
Er, no, you're dead. It's taking it from your kids who may not be able to party quite as
hard on their parent's money.
And re: dividends, it used to be that the first $X where not taxed, and only amount
above that were subject to taxation (at ordinary income rates). This effectively gave a
tax break to many people who had only a little dividend income, while folks who
received large amounts of dividend income and were in high tax brackets still paid
their share of tax.
If you look at the big picture, almost everything the Bush Administration has done
regarding tax policy benefits holders of capital relative to folks who earn income
through labor. I know that sounds Marxist (and I'm a fiscal moderate, fer crissakes)
but it's true.
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds
by synchronicityii on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:30:45 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Death tax (0+ / 0)
Fed off same Reagan fantasy that we would all be rich. The 401K fairies would bring
you a pot of gold.
Brilliant word play. What are the 2 unavoidables? Death and Taxes. Well the GOP was
letting you thumb your nose at one of them.
[ Parent ]
Uh, my 401k (0+ / 0)
is doing well for me, as is my Roth IRA, thank you very much. Although I am not a
fan of the idea of shifting all responsibility for investing on to every individual
(discussed in other comments on other diaries), I'm kind of getting tired of reading
posts which imply that 401k's are all some Great Big Scam. Really people, that's the
sort of stuff that gets other voters to dismiss Progressive arguments.
Having said that, the estate tax doesn't currently kick in unless you have net worth
over 2 million (effectively 4 million if you're married and have sense enough to pay
any barely competent estate attorney ~$2,500 to draw up your wills). My 401k and
Roth IRA's ain't doing THAT good!
by synchronicityii on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:24:42 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
you got yours, (0+ / 0)
Original question: Why was repeal of death tax or estate tax appealing to joe voter? I
remember it was sold so the family farm or business could be passed on. I think the
real impetus came from the Walmart family.
As for 401K, defined benefit pensions are being dropped, or defaulted to government
as in case of steel. WestVA teachers opting to return to defined pensions. They were
too good to be true.
401K is the biggest scam of the last 30 years. I instead of moderating benefits, we
were all cut loose to fend for ourselves. The new paradigm, all aboard the bubble.
Reaganesque.
What progressive argument is undermined by questioning 401Ks?
[ Parent ]
"Death tax" repeal impetus (0+ / 0)
came from the Mars and Gallo families, and gained traction from welltodo people and
their advisors in California before spreading elsewhere. The Walton's probably got
involved but they didn't spearhead it. FWIW, they used "zeroed out GRAT's*" (now
known as "Walton GRAT's", you can look up the cases on this) to pass much of their
wealth with limited transfer tax liability.
As for 401K, defined benefit pensions are being dropped,
Yes, I know. And I don't like this because it pushes the "costs" (in time and skills
needed to invest properly) from companies on to individuals. That's a general
argument against the "privatization" (really caveat emptor ) of almost everything
pushed by the Republicans, but it's not a blanket indictment of individual savings and
investment.
By the way, my wife is a United Airline employee, so I know all about the loss of a
defined benefit pension, PBGC, and how that works, up close and personal.
They were too good to be true.
401K is the biggest scam of the last 30 years. I instead of moderating benefits, we
were all cut loose to fend for ourselves. The new paradigm, all aboard the bubble.
Reaganesque.
And what the heck does this mean? I agree that it's bad for everyone to "fend for
themselves" as many people don't have the skills to do so, can't afford the time to
acquire them (even if they do) or spend the money to have others do it for them (not
to mention the difficulty in selecting a good advisor).
But there is nothing wrong with providing for taxadvantaged long term savings and
investment, nor is such a bad thing in and of itself. Anybody who can save a part of
their money and put it in something as simple as a Vanguard balanced fund, and do
that year in and year out over time, will wind up with a comfortable nest egg when
they're done, although there will be volatility along the way.
The problem is that many people can't handle any volatility and make poor investment
decisions. Plus, there is an underlying materialistic push in this country that works
against saving. I’ll add that, IMHO, much of this comes from Republicans ("if you want
to defeat the terrorists, go shopping!"). As I commented elsewhere , I think that, as
Progressives we CAN WIN on the framing of saving vs. spending. We're not the ones
praising gratuitious consumption and the GodGiven Right Of Every American to drive
a ginormous SUV and buy a 52" flat screen TV on credit to put in their McMansions.
Saving is good. Investing is good. They are not a "scam", and the stock market is not
the evil domain of solely Rich Folks What Want To Rip You Off. 401Ks and Roth IRA's
are not tools to steal all your wealth.
However, when they become a tool to allow companies to shirk their responsibilities
and pile them all on their employees, then THAT is a problem. And the problem today
is a Republican governmental philosophy that, at its heart, despises government's
traditional responsibilities and believes government simply gets in the way of "the Free
Market's" ability to efficiently police itself, notwithstanding little things like history
("Tainted Meat Corp! Our meat may be unsafe, but it's CHEEP!") and current reality
("Come to Paraguay! Our libertarian economy will make us stinking rich, never mind
that for the last 15+ years we've remained poor, hobbled by corruption and income
inequelity which leaves us with an unhappy and volatile underclass")
Sorry for the long answer. Short version investing in stock and bond markets is not
bad, not a "scam", and it makes most folks roll their eyes to hear it discussed that
way. However, pushing all responsibility for such decisions onto individuals is not good
for society as a whole (any more than it would be good for me to fix my own car).
Does that make sense?
*BTW, if you care I can go into GRATs in more detail.
by synchronicityii on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:10:53 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
GOP = Deadbeat dads. (1+ / 0)
I never would have connected progressives with savings. Maybe a hole in their brand,
or my worldview.
Bush and Reagan ramped up the deficits while Clinton balanced the budget. Go figure.
Physcal irresponsibilty has knocked wind out of many a GOP gut.
I think saving is wonderful. Leads to investment elsewhere. Instead, as George Carlin
quipped, americans are "spending money they don't have, on stuff they don't need".
W's 911 "call to the mall" was so so dissapointing.
You state my points better than I. Managing 401Ks is beyond most; and institutions
have walked away from their responsibilities. Funny how father figure GOP has turned
into deadbeat dads.

by odenthal on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 06:07:37 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
They justify it by decrying "nanny statism" (0+ / 0)
or "people have the right to do stupid stuff and hurt themselves". As long as it lines
Republican pockets, apparently.
In rural areas this can get more support, as one person ’s actions generally have
limited impact on others. "How dare the government say I can ’t drink alcohol and
use fireworks! Hey, watch this!" In urban areas, my stupidity might burn down
your house and the rest of my neighbors (or an entire apartment building, or
whatever).
By the way, I left out "assumption of risk" in the whole "why all individuals investing
on their own is not good for society as a whole". IMHO, the most important aspect
of successful investing is risk management. In a defined BENEFIT plan (aka
"traditional pension"), the company has a pool of assets and the burden falls on the
company of managing them properly to allow for the required distributions to
recipients without running out of assets. In a 401K or similar plan, that burden has
been shifted entirely to the individual.
I humbly submit that shifting this risk management task entirely from trained
professionals to 100 million plus random people is not in the best interests of
society, and will lead to further inequalities between the "haves" (who can manage
their assets very well and/or pay to have someone effectively do it for them) and
the havenots (who can’t).
by synchronicityii on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:52:40 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Also income tax (2+ / 0)
should be progressively raised to 50% for those making over $10,000,000 a year.
by UpstateDem on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:50:23 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
This is a good sign (6+ / 0)
that the end of the era is in sight. This was taken in red red Newport Beach, CA,
accross from the Fashion Island Mall. This has been up for about three weeks, now.
The fact that it is not only a church, but one in the middle of disposable income land is
a great sign of things to come!!??
"We freeze in the ice of our own conservatism, and the world congeals around us"
by grettadog on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:09:27 PM PDT
That is close to where I live! (0+ / 0)
I will have to drive by there this week to see it! This is fantastic!
[ Parent ]
Corner of MacArthur and San Juaquin (1+ / 0)
I am glad it is still there!!
"We freeze in the ice of our own conservatism, and the world congeals around us"
by grettadog on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:23:30 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Thank you so much! (0+ / 0)
I cannot wait to see it!!!!!!!
[ Parent ]
Tear down this wall (0+ / 0)
Abu Graib needs to be flattened. It's a symbol of American failure that muslims will
have tours through for 100 years. Flatten it! Or move it to Crawford Texas.
I wasn't suggesting any church/state walls torn down.
Does this church also have a moat? What goes on in there? Flashback to Attica. The
inmates took over the church and posting their demands. Gotta take my meds.....
[ Parent ]
Supply side ecconomics (1+ / 0)
Hopefully we have been "trickled on" for the last time.
Well Said (4+ / 0)
The rising middle class, with increased wealth from the results of the New Deal Order
didn't need to worry about sending their kids to college or paying for their house or
finding a decent job, or getting health care. They were ripe for the arguement of fewer
taxes, lower capital gains on their investments, cutting off the welfare freeloaders,
dumping union dues. The progressives told them to be careful, that Reagan would
destroy it all. The chickens have come home to roost.
"To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived." Emerson
by dbrog on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:14:09 PM PDT
Bingo. (0+ / 0)
Fat dumb and happy. It was easy to tear it down. Moral Majority figured they land on
top with a Republican ReDeal.
[ Parent ]
Great Piece of Work DHinMI (1+ / 0)
These are very important issues. You laid them out perfectly.
by Trial Lawyer Richard on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:15:36 PM PDT
The Democratic Party is in the ascendancy... (2+ / 0)
Next year, we should have the white house, a 10 seat senate majority and a 50 seat
house majority. Maybe more.
In 20022005...had I known that the republicans would selfdestruct so soon...I would
have been in hog heaven.
So why does this news leave me cold? Why am I still gripped by cynicism and dread?
I think the Democratic Party, despite our efforts here, is too corrupt and compromised
by corporate and military interests to make the adjustments needed to avert a US
economic and political collapse.
I hope I am wrong.
by acquittal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:16:01 PM PDT
You're right: (2+ / 0)
Abramoff
Plamegate
Renditions
Leeden feeding false info about Niger
Bridge to Nowhere
Torture
Guantanamo
Katrina
Duke Cunningham
Minnesota bridge collapse
Oh, wait these are all REPUBLICAN scandals.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:20:15 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
The list continues... (0+ / 0)
*Trade agreements that facilitate outsourcing
*A trillion dollars in annual military spending (if you include hidden and deferred costs)
*Renditions (conducted under Clinton, though much more limited in scale)
*Authorizing and funding the Iraq war
*The destruction of habeas corpus as a realistic means of obtaining relief
*The re authorization of the Patriot Act (i.e. carte blanche for the federal govt. to defy
the Fourth Amendment)
These are BIPARTISAN scandals
I agree that the bush republicans are rare scoundrels, but do you really forsee the
Democrats dismantling the militarycorporate establishment?
by acquittal on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:31:42 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Obama is not Clinton. (1+ / 0)
He may be centrist politically, but he totally dismantled the DLC way of doing things.
He's getting more people involved, he's doing it from the ground up, and you are
talking about situations that are simply not going to happen. What he's doing is
creating a longterm infrastructure that will allow us to win in all 50 states and will
allow us to hold the Democrats accountable. And so to claim that Obama is simply
another DLC hack is ludicrous.
Conservatism is Dead!
by Eternal Hope on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:17:31 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Holy crap, we're over loading this guy. (0+ / 0)
So much is expected of Obama.
[ Parent ]
Fight has just started (3+ / 0)
It will be disaster if dems think we have won with the election of Obama. Those dems
holding the majority must have their feet held to the fire or they must go the way of
their repub counterparts.
[ Parent ]
You are so right! (2+ / 0)
Obama, IF we make it, is the first baby step.
[ Parent ]
The stock market has not "crashed" (0+ / 0)
The Dow is about 21% off its intraday high of (IIRC) 10/9/07, and the S&P (which is
what most equity index funds are based on) is ~19% off it's high from the same time.
These are significant drops to be sure, but they are hardly "crashes". For examples of
that, look at the market from 2000 02 or 197374, where the indices dropped ~ 50%!
Having said that, there's no reason why the markets can't keep on dropping, and if
they do over the next few months, I doubt that'll help John McCain or the Republicans
much.
by synchronicityii on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:18:09 PM PDT
Realignmenet was really 1968 "Southern strategy" (2+ / 0)
Nixon and the Republicans taking in the segregationist Democrats in the South was the
real political realignment in the US. Reagan was simply the beneficiary of it. Nixon's
"silent majority" were the "Reagan Democrats".
Reagan's twist was his plan to "kill big government" by running massive deficits and
debt which is what has really damaged US economy as Debt/GDP ratio (which declined
under all post WWII presidents, Democrat and Republican before and after Reagan
and Bushes) exploded from a post WWII low of 33% to pushing 70% by end of 2008.
A Debt/GDP ratio not seen since the 1950's.
Clinton was able to reverse this disaster for a short time so there is hope Obama will
have similar results.
Other than massive deficits and debt, financial and banking debacles due to lack of
regulatory enforcement, there's really not much to the Reagan era.
by Tuscany on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:21:06 PM PDT
Transformative Reagan (0+ / 0)
Carter malaise and "America held captive" was an easy act to follow. Then the
hostages were miraculously released.
Welfare queens was a loud slap in the face of black women that the GOP applauded.
Was Jesse Helms and Willy Horton born of this?
Sandanistas .v. Contras. Death squads and Mariel Boat lifted to jail. Culminated in
Grenada. Central America was a splendid little war for Ronnie/OllieNorth to dabble in.
Air traffic controllers corpses were dragged through the streets.
Rosalind Carter said Reagan made us comfortable with our prejudices.
"Morning in America" my ass. Smiling grand dad Ronnie went senile, while the GOP
robbed the Saving and Loans.
[ Parent ]
Nothing really new here, (0+ / 0)
but very concisely stated and easily read and digested. This message needs to get out
to everyone everyone with a pulse; of course, we've been saying that for years, too.
Only thing missing, IMO, is the role of the media and how significant its severe
rightward slant of the last 12 years will be in shaping opinions and thus voting
decisions in November.
I just hope you're right.
Kick apart the structures.
by ceebee7 on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:45:53 PM PDT
FoxNews = RogerAiles= Reagan CampLeader (0+ / 0)
Like William Randolph Hearst during Spanish American War, yellow jouralism pays.
If Woodward and Bernstien were journalists, what is Katie Couric? Wasn't Woodward
in the War Room with Bush2? Instead of trying to stop the stampede, Bob was
documenting dopey W's determined decisiveness. DipShit!
[ Parent ]
Utter wish fulfillment (0+ / 0)
We've reached the end of the Reagan era, and are on the cusp of
something new, hopefully better, and characterized by a bold,
vigorous, creative Democratic party with which people bond as they
did with the Democratic party of the New Deal era.
Is there any evidence yet that this occurring now or will in the near future? If there is I
haven't seen it.
Here we are now Entertain us I feel stupid and contagious
by Scarce on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 08:47:16 PM PDT
Where wings take Dream... (0+ / 0)
[ Parent ]
Good riddance to the Reagan era! (3+ / 0)
The greed isgood years were nothing but a terrible foretaste of B*sh & Cheney. I
hope "St. Ronnie" is burning in a very warm portion of Hell for what he caused to
happen to our country.
The Reagan Era Is Over For One Reason Only (2+ / 0)
It isn't race, women voting, the return of the white working class, rising union
membership or the
dawning of the Age of Aquariusit's the end of "Boomers Peak Earning Years"
Bear with me.
When did the country really begin to swing to the right? 1968. What happened that
year?
The first wave of boomers, born 1946, graduated from college and went into the
workforce.
From that point until 2008, they became taxpayers and as such, easy picking for the
ressentimentladen salvos of the future AEI/Heritage Foundation types.
When their parents were paying the bills, they could "afford" to be progressive.
As they bred and became more in number, they got even more protective and more
conservative. And as real wages stagnated in the 70's. scapegoats had to be found and
were welfare queens and the like.
This worked right up until 2008, today, Who starts retiring this year, en masse?
Boomers. What do retirees want and need? Economic security. Will this come from
private enterprise? Nothey're seen what's happened to their pensions and 401K's and
bills.
They don't care what the reason is or whomever the Reich wishes to blame, they want
and need those SS/Medicare checks. And when McCain or whomever threatens to
privatize, it now hits them where they live, it's not an abstraction anymore.
That's why it's over. The bulge in the boomer demographic needs the Federal
Government now. No other explanation makes sense.
Barack the House!
by Johnny Wendell on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:13:03 PM PDT
Except for one thing... (1+ / 0)
we will will not get to retire!
[ Parent ]
Johnny you hardly knew us (0+ / 0)
Eat your heart out. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has compared to the 60s.
Like your parents, you can't choose when you were born.
The greatest generation begat the most spoiled. We produced Clinton and W; but we
begat Obama. Run with it dude!
[ Parent ]
Regan Hangover (0+ / 0)
The tide is turning and yet it feels like America has a horrific hangover from the Regan
era. Americans are so bleary eyed they still can ’t see falsity of all of the Regan era
myths and memes. In fact the rhetorical framework left over from the Regan period is
still there preventing a more rapid political correction from taking placeas we
observe even in Obama ’s rhetoric.
a capitalist in need is a socialist indeed!
by anothergreenbus on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:22:14 PM PDT
Reagan, Reagan, Reagan (0+ / 0)
Geez. I could wright it a thousand times and still get it wrong.
a capitalist in need is a socialist indeed!
by anothergreenbus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:22:37 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
What a great article!!! (1+ / 0)
Absolutely fantastic! This needs to be put in print... on paper.. in a book or journal or
newspaper! This is a first class article that I sincerely hope will come true!
The United States of America the only country in the world where being educated and
cultured actually *lowers* your social and political standing.
by LordMike on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 09:35:53 PM PDT
Good riddance to the Reagan Era. (0+ / 0)
The Republican Party, every trace of it, needs to rot and die. Reagan was no fucking
"revolution" and neither were the Republican Congressional victories in 1994.
I'm so sick of conservatism in general and the Republican Party in particular that I
hope like hell that an Obama/Democratic victory will truly erase this part of our
nation's history.
I'm going to trust the Dems again... for now... until they do something to give me
buyer's remorse. Here's hoping that that doesn't happen!
by The Movac on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:11:25 PM PDT
Is It Really Over? (1+ / 0)
The end of the Repugnant era cannot come soon enough. I am still amazed at the
brain dead sheep who have gleefully followed their corporate masters every
command. What is it with these people? Why would you support policies which are
against your best interests? I still don't know. When President Obama is sworn in, I
will finally feel a sense of relief. But BEWARE!! Repugnants do not give up power
easily, I would not put anything past their twisted and feeble minds. There is nothing
more dangerous than a wild beast cornered. We must not let them steal another
election! This is our country and our future.
by BatJack on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 10:15:18 PM PDT
End of an Era (2+ / 0)
I agree with so much of what is written here. One thing, I think, is being overlooked.
We are experiencing a generational change. The boomers(myself included) are being
eclipsed. At least at the presidential level. No one from McCain's generation(the silent
generation) has ever been elected president. It's time for the more pragmatic Gen X
generation to lead.
by NickyVegas on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:22:52 PM PDT
They may lead, (0+ / 0)
but like the Greatest Generation has controlled the vote for the last thirty years, we
will control it for the next thirty. We may not be as "great", but we are not as easily
fooled on some basic things.
[ Parent ]
There never was a Reagan Era (0+ / 0)
It's just a media creation largely (or completely) created by conservatives calling it a
liberal bias and the media subsequently caving in.
Reagan has no achievements to his credit, even though the media, again largely
influenced by the right that he is responsible for dismantling soviet union.
by saguaro on Sun Jul 06, 2008 at 11:45:31 PM PDT
I Suggest You Reread (2+ / 0)
Reagan and his follower Dubya may not have any positive accomplishments to his
name, but one can not deny the extensive damage done to the New Deal and the
Great Society under the Republicans since 1981.
It need not be an era of positive accomplishments to be the "Reagan era."
[ Parent ]
An "Era" is not necessarily positive (0+ / 0)
The Regan Era is more akin to the Hitler Era in Germany, although slightly less evil.
Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance
by Joe B on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:18:26 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Statistics conceal how bad things are. (0+ / 0)
Economic statistics have been repeatedly altered and re jiggered going back at least to
1960 in a constant effort to make things look rosier than they really are. The GNP was
an alteration of previous global measures intended to make JFK and LBJ's economic
policies look more robust. The switch to GDP was an effort to obscure the calamitous
decline in domestic manufacturing by pouring in lots of dubious calculated "service
sector productivity". The unemployment numbers have been repeatedly altered and
'spun' to obscure true unemployment, which is far higher than the official rate.
by Ralphdog on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:49:27 AM PDT
I have to admit... (0+ / 0)
That a lot of time DailyKos sometimes makes me made with just all the negative talk
and such. However, I always read this blog because their are posts such as these
which are well constructed and extremely informative!
by Sauron21 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:43:43 AM PDT
Crime and drugs (1+ / 0)
Nice diary.
I just want to add that one of the ways that Nixon took advantage of white resentment
following the successes of the civil rights movement was to instigate an aggressive,
punitive, and fundamentally racist approach to illegal drugs. The drug war is, and
always has been, an excuse for keeping down blacks (and hippies).

Time to end the drug war.
by Sam from Ithaca on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:02:02 AM PDT
Marijuana laws aimed at Mexicans (0+ / 0)
1930s Congress/FBI dreamed up marijuana laws explicitly to persecute Mexicans.
Just heard an NPR on SanQuentin. 2 to a 4x10 foot cell. Feces flung on the walls. We
Just heard an NPR on SanQuentin. 2 to a 4x10 foot cell. Feces flung on the walls. We
treat our livestock better than our sub humans.
Drug Arrests are used as a scarlet letter. The timid and uptight are the might and right.
George Carlin frog marched in sandles to wrap up his career. Bastards.
Lenny Bruce, JimMorrison, JimiHendrix, JanisJoplin, HeathLedger, even Elvis get their
just rewards. Wages of sin. Kiss my ass.
You may not "turn on, tune in, and drop out". This glorious endeavor must be taken
seriously.
[ Parent ]
So, to sum it up... (0+ / 0)
The GOP has been advocating "Robber Land Baron" as a family value, using blacks,
women and latinos as scapegoats to propel themselves into a new era of plantation
ownership.
But, to their dismay, we peasants are none too pleased with living in either indentured
servitude, poverty or outright slavery. We're just too 'uppity'.
Personally, I am looking forward to the end of the era of obese, white men with
southern accents telling me that on one hand, "American interests" means that we can
napalm children and dump toxins; while on the other hand Jesus Christ is our personal
savior. All the while, looking either pious or irate like different sides of the slave
holding plantation owners of the Old South. (Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry
Falwell, Pat Robertson).
by monkey brains on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:13 AM PDT
Oh, Brother! (0+ / 0)
Do you get paid by the word? The Reagan Era isn't over because it never began.
Reagan made some small advances in tax policy and some advances on regulation,
but he never seriously scaled back the role of government. The Dept. of Education is
as big as ever. Of course Bush I and Bush II (mostly II) expanded it even more.
Every time I think of the boondoggle Prescription Drug coverage, I just shake my
head. Everyone is looking for government to bail them out of everything, and to do it,
they take money from those folks that work. I get little to no benefit from taxes, other
than a lousy school system. As soon as Obama is elected (I concede he will be), he
will lift the cap on social security earnings and let the Bush tax cuts expire, both of
which will impact me negatively in a BIG way.
This country is going to look more and more like Europe as the years go by. There is
no hope for real change, which would be limited government and letting folks who
work hard keep more of their money and not have it plucked out for some government
sponsored, ill conceived do gooder program.
by jgnoonan on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:05:39 AM PDT
OMG that would be awfull! (1+ / 0)
This country is going to look more and more like Europe as the years
go by.
One can only hope. By every metric Europe is kicking our ass. More wealth, more
stable economy, better on the environment, dollar worth nearly twice as much, less
torture, more civil rights, more representative democracies.
I get little to no benefit from taxes
Please stop using my roads, electricity and internet. Go get you some of that from the
free market.
about your post...
by smckenzie23 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:56:18 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Your response (0+ / 0)
I guess you haven't been monitoring the unemployment rate in Europe lately. As far
as the roads, electricity, etc, I don't know where you live but here in CT we've been
pouring money into roads left and right since the Mianus River bridge collapsed and
they still suck. The electric grid is fragile, and we pay really high rates. So we keep
pouring money into this stuff year after year, but they don't seem to improve all that
much. My son's high school (a staterun technical high school) just went through a
major renovation at taxpayer's expense. Now I figure I pay my taxes and I didn't
have too much of a problem with this but the union workforce was a joke. They saw
stuff that was CLEARLY wrong on blueprints, yet they did it just the way it was
described without questioning it because they knew it would mean coming back and
fixing it and getting more hours. I worked in Manhattan for a while and you couldn't
move stuff up and down elevators without a union elevator operator. A person that
sits in the elevator and pushes the button all day. Give me a freakin' break. The
union even wrote up a trader for pushing a cable in his printer that fell out. I've
traveled in Europe. Go live there for awhile if you think it is so great. They pay $8 a
gallon for gas.
by jgnoonan on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 01:24:09 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
The euro kicks ass too. (0+ / 0)
We tried the GOP way. They had it all.
By taxing gas, Europeans are more immune to oil shocks/gouging.
Ronnie was wrong, Government works. But it aint free. It takes money, and effort.
Sometimes it gets it wrong. But you don't throw out the baby with the bath water, or
drown it in the bathtub, or let cities sink into the mud.
GOP is happy to pull out the rug, let the chips fall. They have a separate stash.
Disruptive capitalism can be destructive for the paycheck to paycheck. This is social
engineering by rolling the dice. Cut people off and let's see what happens.
Laborers, union or not, will take pride in their work. The disconnect, where they let it
flop or milk it, happens in non union shops too. However in union shops, weak
managers can't just blame workers.
[ Parent ]
I've been to Europe. (0+ / 0)
I work for a European company that is experiencing more than 20% year over year
growth.
I live in Canada.
The healthcare here is great (especially when I think about how my mom couldn't
afford health insurance, or insulin, and died owing hospitals more than $60,000 in the
good ole' U S of A).
We just instituted North America's first carbon tax. We have great transit. We have
strong unions. We have low unemployment. Our housing market is not collapsing. Our
universities are cheap and good.
You too will pay $8/gallon for gas (here in BC we only pay about $5.50, but then we
export oil instead of importing it). When you do pay 8 bucks, You'll likely buy a
Japanese or a European car, and GM will be out of business.
about your post...
by smckenzie23 on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:34:34 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Sigh, sob, sniff..... (0+ / 0)
I can't sit here and read long diaries, no matter how good they look.
I'd love quickie summaries, outlines.
Gotta dash.
Best Diary of the Year? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/03912/3990
by LNK on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:06:47 AM PDT
Two Problems With This Piece (0+ / 0)
This is excellent. I've copied and pasted it into a file and expect to return to it and also
use it as a guide for further research.
Two points.
First, the piece (and so many others in the media) refers to the relatively low
unemployment rate. These figures have been manipulated for so long that they have
little meaning and should not be referenced.
My company deals with other companies around the U.S. and everyone, without
exception, points to serious unemployment in their area. People lose jobs and can not
get another. I hardly know of a business that hasn't downsized and cut expenses, and
these businesses range from 2 employees to 100.
The real figures for unemployment, whatever they are, are much worse than the public
figures.
Second, the piece hardly mentions the media, and I regard them as the major element
in politics since before Reagan. They have either caused, made possible or heavily
influenced almost all the factors that the article cites.
As much as Progressives are finally catching on to The Village we are still magnitudes
away from balancing the influence of the Right with an equal influence of our own. I
believe this should be our top priority and was disappointed that the article grossly
undervalued it in discussing trends over the last three decades.
A Southerner in Yankeeland
by A Southerner in Yankeeland on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 03:08:56 PM PDT
Is this 1932, 1968, or 1980? (0+ / 0)
In terms of political eras and presidential cycles, I think this election has more in
common with 1968 than it does with 1980, but I hope I'm wrong. GWB is to this era
what LBJ was to the last; that is, being the guy who overplayed the party's hand and
stirred the backlash. However, I don't yet see that we as Democrats have really
figured out what we want yet (collectively), in the same way that the Republicans
hadn't really gotten behind Goldwater's view in 1968 and were polarized between
Goldwater and Rockefeller Republicans . In some ways, I think Howard Dean is our
Barry Goldwater, which if the timetable holds, we're not due for our Reagan until 2020
(bleh).
That said, Obama is clearly not Nixon, and should he get elected, isn't likely to blow it
as spectacularly as Nixon did. He stands a good chance of being to the party what
Reagan was for the Republicans in this now (hopefully) ending era or what Roosevelt
was in the New Deal era. He's got more charisma in his pinky than Nixon had in the
entire White House, so he'll be better able to persuade rather than polarize. In that
sense, he has more in common with Roosevelt and Reagan.
So, I'll buy an argument that this election has more in common with 1932 than 1968.
While I fear that Obama is going to play it too cautiously, I'm willing to hope that he'll
sweep in a comfortable enough margin in the House and Senate to actually get a lot of
good stuff done.
by robla on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 11:45:20 PM PDT
Permalink | 173 comments
Daily Kos homepage
© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Privacy Policy
Powered by Scoop .

End of The Reagan Era

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

End of The Reagan Era

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

the early eighties, few books have been as helpful to me as a collection of essays published in 1989 by wide narrow

The Republican Party is neither pro republic nor pro party. Discuss!

Let's hope the court reads the papers. nt (1+ / 0)

resources, and be dependent on technologies. I mean, if something is limitless,

Godawful movie. But classic camp. (1+ / 0)

Add in the under employed and you get a more (5+ / 0)

is a meme, or frame, or movement or what have you which would more easily stick in

...ran a very safe and risk averse campaign in 1932 .

Overall, though, this is another case where I really hope you are right and I am

Just to clarify I'm not saying I think Reagan (0+ / 0)

Really interesting, DH. Thanks much. (0+ / 0)

Holy crap, we're over loading this guy. (0+ / 0)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai

End of The Reagan Era

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

End of The Reagan Era

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

the early eighties, few books have been as helpful to me as a collection of essays published in 1989 by wide narrow

The Republican Party is neither pro ­republic nor pro ­party. Discuss!

Let's hope the court reads the papers. nt (1+ / 0­)

resources, and be dependent on technologies. I mean, if something is limitless,

Godawful movie. But classic camp. (1+ / 0­)

Add in the under ­employed and you get a more (5+ / 0­)

is a meme, or frame, or movement or what ­have ­you which would more easily stick in

...ran a very safe and risk ­averse campaign in 1932 .

Overall, though, this is another case where I really hope you are right and I am

Just to clarify ­­ I'm not saying I think Reagan (0+ / 0­)

Really interesting, DH. Thanks much. (0+ / 0­)

Holy crap, we're over ­loading this guy. (0+ / 0­)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai

The Republican Party is neither pro republic nor pro party. Discuss!

Let's hope the court reads the papers. nt (1+ / 0)

Godawful movie. But classic camp. (1+ / 0)

Add in the under employed and you get a more (5+ / 0)

is a meme, or frame, or movement or what have you which would more easily stick in

...ran a very safe and risk averse campaign in 1932 .

Just to clarify I'm not saying I think Reagan (0+ / 0)

Really interesting, DH. Thanks much. (0+ / 0)

Holy crap, we're over loading this guy. (0+ / 0)