The Coming Democratic Dominance
August 1, 2002 11:23 AM Subscribe
The Coming Democratic Dominance "...ever since the collapse of the Reagan conservative majority, which enjoyed its final triumph in November 1994, American politics has been turning slowly, but inexorably, toward a new Democratic majority. It was evident in Al Gore's popular-vote victory in 2000 (made more significant by the overhang of the Bill Clinton scandals and Gore's ineptitude as a campaigner) and in Bush's and the Republicans' sinking fortunes in the first two-thirds of 2001. It was obscured by the patriotic rush of support for Bush after September 11, which to some extent carried over to the Republican Party as a whole. But it has resurfaced in recent months as Americans have turned their attention back to the economy and domestic policy and away from the war on terrorism. Far from being a temporary distraction from a long-term shift toward the GOP, popular anger at the business scandals and the plummeting Dow heralds the resumption of a long-term shift toward the Democrats. " (via george)
Don't worry, Republicans... Duh-bya will attack Iraq or find some other headliner to distract the idiot masses American people from his absolutely horrible presidential record. We'll be nuking some impoverished country for oil again quicker than you can say "murderous aristocracy."
posted by zekinskia at 11:30 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by zekinskia at 11:30 AM on August 1, 2002
*Squints*
It's getting fucking tough to tell the parties apart any more.
posted by Skot at 11:33 AM on August 1, 2002
It's getting fucking tough to tell the parties apart any more.
posted by Skot at 11:33 AM on August 1, 2002
I remember back in 1990 or thereabouts, every eminent political scientist in the UK stated with utter confidence that the Labour party had become unelectable. The gap between the parties had grown too large and could never be recovered.
Now they are saying the same thing about the tories. Electorates are very fickle, a monkey was recently elected in Hartlepool for gawds sake, and even he reneged on his promises the day after the election.
A good war, or a baby, and the tide will turn. We get the politicians we deserve.
posted by Fat Buddha at 11:34 AM on August 1, 2002
Now they are saying the same thing about the tories. Electorates are very fickle, a monkey was recently elected in Hartlepool for gawds sake, and even he reneged on his promises the day after the election.
A good war, or a baby, and the tide will turn. We get the politicians we deserve.
posted by Fat Buddha at 11:34 AM on August 1, 2002
Just as McKinley exploited America's shift from an agrarian to an industrial economy to build his majority, Bush would exploit America's "transformational" shift from an industrial to a postindustrial economy to build his. (emphasis added).
Oh shit. If Bush taps Stanley Fish as an adviser, I'm leaving.
I'm tempted to think that, less than a growing Democratic mood in this country, this is more a symptom of a rather impressively incompetent Republican party. While the Dems have been rather successful in shrugging off their extremists (to Ralphs delight, assuming he ever smiles), the GOP has been...less successful. Perhaps the GOP resurgence will come when the Constitution Party becomes a viable third party.
posted by apostasy at 11:37 AM on August 1, 2002
Oh shit. If Bush taps Stanley Fish as an adviser, I'm leaving.
I'm tempted to think that, less than a growing Democratic mood in this country, this is more a symptom of a rather impressively incompetent Republican party. While the Dems have been rather successful in shrugging off their extremists (to Ralphs delight, assuming he ever smiles), the GOP has been...less successful. Perhaps the GOP resurgence will come when the Constitution Party becomes a viable third party.
posted by apostasy at 11:37 AM on August 1, 2002
Don't worry, Republicans... Duh-bya will attack Iraq or find some other headliner to distract the idiot masses American people from his absolutely horrible presidential record.
Are these the same idiots that voted for Gore in 2000 (every obedient Democrat will tell you that, really, Gore won the election because of the popular vote)?
Wait a minute! Is this article simply a grab for votes? Good God!
On the one hand, Iraq, Enron, Halliburton, blah blah blah...
On the other hand, Condit, Traficant, 1984 references, Clinton's inability to stop Osama, blah blah blah...
Tough to decide, folks. I have a thought though...why not vote based upon policy instead of scandals and name-calling? Oh, that's right. This is politics.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:38 AM on August 1, 2002
Are these the same idiots that voted for Gore in 2000 (every obedient Democrat will tell you that, really, Gore won the election because of the popular vote)?
Wait a minute! Is this article simply a grab for votes? Good God!
On the one hand, Iraq, Enron, Halliburton, blah blah blah...
On the other hand, Condit, Traficant, 1984 references, Clinton's inability to stop Osama, blah blah blah...
Tough to decide, folks. I have a thought though...why not vote based upon policy instead of scandals and name-calling? Oh, that's right. This is politics.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:38 AM on August 1, 2002
don't blame me, i voted for kodos.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 11:40 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by zoopraxiscope at 11:40 AM on August 1, 2002
why not vote based upon policy
Only works if they stick to their policies, and they don't. You're right, it is politics.
posted by bittennails at 11:44 AM on August 1, 2002
Only works if they stick to their policies, and they don't. You're right, it is politics.
posted by bittennails at 11:44 AM on August 1, 2002
'We'll be nuking some impoverished country for oil again quicker than you can say "murderous aristocracy."'
Holy crap! When did we do that the first time?
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:20 PM on August 1, 2002
Holy crap! When did we do that the first time?
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:20 PM on August 1, 2002
The plummeting Dow... has plummeted up almost 1000 in the past week (though admittedly it is taking a beating thus far today).
So it heralds... what?
posted by John Smallberries at 12:33 PM on August 1, 2002
So it heralds... what?
posted by John Smallberries at 12:33 PM on August 1, 2002
Even if some of the New Republic anaylsis is hyperbole or wishful thinking, the GOP has a bunch of reasons to worry about its place in a more urban, more multiethnic country.
This article coincides with a lot of what people are saying about Florida, which has a growing majority of registered Democrats. The party is going to have to work hard to lose Florida in the future (though nominating Janet Reno for governor would be a pretty good step in that direction).
One of the most damning facts in the article is the number of Hispanic office-seekers who won Democratic primaries this year (35 out of 39) and the number who won Republican primaries (0 out of 4). If the Republican party can't find and elect Hispanics in a stronghold like Texas with Bush in the White House, what's it going to do in four or eight years?
posted by rcade at 12:35 PM on August 1, 2002
This article coincides with a lot of what people are saying about Florida, which has a growing majority of registered Democrats. The party is going to have to work hard to lose Florida in the future (though nominating Janet Reno for governor would be a pretty good step in that direction).
One of the most damning facts in the article is the number of Hispanic office-seekers who won Democratic primaries this year (35 out of 39) and the number who won Republican primaries (0 out of 4). If the Republican party can't find and elect Hispanics in a stronghold like Texas with Bush in the White House, what's it going to do in four or eight years?
posted by rcade at 12:35 PM on August 1, 2002
'We'll be nuking some impoverished country for oil again quicker than you can say "murderous aristocracy."'
Holy crap! When did we do that the first time?
1945. One of Japan's reasons for aggressive expansion of territory was to secure raw materiel for industry. Chief among their concerns was oil, exacerbated by the 1941 oil embargo imposed by the United States against "aggressor states". While the US was not nuking Japan to get oil, oil was a cause of WWII which culminated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was certainly an impoverished country by the time the war ended
posted by joaquim at 12:36 PM on August 1, 2002
Holy crap! When did we do that the first time?
1945. One of Japan's reasons for aggressive expansion of territory was to secure raw materiel for industry. Chief among their concerns was oil, exacerbated by the 1941 oil embargo imposed by the United States against "aggressor states". While the US was not nuking Japan to get oil, oil was a cause of WWII which culminated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was certainly an impoverished country by the time the war ended
posted by joaquim at 12:36 PM on August 1, 2002
Does anyone actually disagree with the articles long term thesis?
posted by pjgulliver at 12:38 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 12:38 PM on August 1, 2002
Hmmmm.....
So, is what I'm hearing correct? Sounds like people agree that the Publican party represents the interests of wealthy white men? Just asking, not trolling...
posted by nofundy at 12:38 PM on August 1, 2002
So, is what I'm hearing correct? Sounds like people agree that the Publican party represents the interests of wealthy white men? Just asking, not trolling...
posted by nofundy at 12:38 PM on August 1, 2002
Don't both parties represent the interests of wealthy white men?
I don't necessarily disagree with the article's long term thesis. I'm not wild about anyone's ability to predict such a thing, though.
Joaquim, that's an impressive bit of reaching and twisting.
posted by srw12 at 12:44 PM on August 1, 2002
I don't necessarily disagree with the article's long term thesis. I'm not wild about anyone's ability to predict such a thing, though.
Joaquim, that's an impressive bit of reaching and twisting.
posted by srw12 at 12:44 PM on August 1, 2002
apostasy: Postindustrialism is associated with a sociologist, Daniel Bell, not Stanley Fish.
posted by raysmj at 12:46 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by raysmj at 12:46 PM on August 1, 2002
Joaquim,
interesting. Not exactly what the first poster had in mind, I'll wager, but I don't wanna hijack the thread, so:
touche!
pjgulliver,
while I'd *like* to believe the long term thesis, I'm not yet convinced. Maybe it's because the parties have seemed so close, maybe it's because I know people who sort of gravitate from one party to the other (or into a third), maybe it's because there are too many variables involved (like, say, re-nominating Gore or some other laughable strategy might keep the Demos from capitalizing for years to come, though at least they could still blame the Greens).
I do think, though, that for the Republicans to succeed long term, they need to move to the center (actually move there instead of pay it Bush-like lip-service). Whether that counts as success to true believers or not doesn't seem to matter to the parties.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:47 PM on August 1, 2002
interesting. Not exactly what the first poster had in mind, I'll wager, but I don't wanna hijack the thread, so:
touche!
pjgulliver,
while I'd *like* to believe the long term thesis, I'm not yet convinced. Maybe it's because the parties have seemed so close, maybe it's because I know people who sort of gravitate from one party to the other (or into a third), maybe it's because there are too many variables involved (like, say, re-nominating Gore or some other laughable strategy might keep the Demos from capitalizing for years to come, though at least they could still blame the Greens).
I do think, though, that for the Republicans to succeed long term, they need to move to the center (actually move there instead of pay it Bush-like lip-service). Whether that counts as success to true believers or not doesn't seem to matter to the parties.
posted by hackly_fracture at 12:47 PM on August 1, 2002
If the Republican party can't find and elect Hispanics in a stronghold like Texas with Bush in the White House, what's it going to do in four or eight years?
I agree that the Republicans must address the racial implications that are spun by liberal pundits.
Truth is that Republicans aren't against minorities so much as they are against practices equivalent to social welfare. The Hispanic community, if left unchecked, will become the new Black population, whose numbers are, as I've said before, close to 95% Democrat.
The bigger issue is what apostasy alluded to:
While the Dems have been rather successful in shrugging off their extremists (to Ralphs delight, assuming he ever smiles), the GOP has been...less successful.
The Republicans aren't solely representing the interests of rich, white men, but as Democrats have spun it so well, it certainly looks that way. For instance, look at the latest tariffs initiated by Bush on steel.
Every election has come down to wooing the extremists for the primaries and wooing the centrists for the election itself. Where the Republicans have failed is when they woo the extremists, they're hurting their image. If McCain had won the primary, I'm sure that he would have easily beaten Gore. This 2004 election ought to be interesting. The Democrats have a strong chance of winning only if they can unite as a party. Unity, IMHO, has never been a problem with Republicans because of the rank-and-file attitude they purvey.
Here's a toast to Daschle. May he bitch and moan about Gore so Bush can be easily re-elected.
That last sentence is a joke.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:56 PM on August 1, 2002
I agree that the Republicans must address the racial implications that are spun by liberal pundits.
Truth is that Republicans aren't against minorities so much as they are against practices equivalent to social welfare. The Hispanic community, if left unchecked, will become the new Black population, whose numbers are, as I've said before, close to 95% Democrat.
The bigger issue is what apostasy alluded to:
While the Dems have been rather successful in shrugging off their extremists (to Ralphs delight, assuming he ever smiles), the GOP has been...less successful.
The Republicans aren't solely representing the interests of rich, white men, but as Democrats have spun it so well, it certainly looks that way. For instance, look at the latest tariffs initiated by Bush on steel.
Every election has come down to wooing the extremists for the primaries and wooing the centrists for the election itself. Where the Republicans have failed is when they woo the extremists, they're hurting their image. If McCain had won the primary, I'm sure that he would have easily beaten Gore. This 2004 election ought to be interesting. The Democrats have a strong chance of winning only if they can unite as a party. Unity, IMHO, has never been a problem with Republicans because of the rank-and-file attitude they purvey.
Here's a toast to Daschle. May he bitch and moan about Gore so Bush can be easily re-elected.
That last sentence is a joke.
posted by BlueTrain at 12:56 PM on August 1, 2002
"If McCain had won the primary, I'm sure that he would have easily beaten Gore." Excellent point BlueTrain, though I am not positive that you are correct. But, I hasten to point out, that McCain is basically a Democrat in disguise. He favors and interventionist government, regulation over business, campaign finance etc.
posted by pjgulliver at 1:04 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 1:04 PM on August 1, 2002
Imo, the Republicans need to recpature their historical platform (solid macroeconimics, low taxation, small government, etc.) and shed the freakshow religious wing. Every time a Republican starts to act like a nut, it's usually because their invisible magical overlord has told them to do something goofy. Lately they've been listening to the to the Little Voice a lot, too.
The theocratical investment of the Republican party has, I think, caused the recent revival of 3rd Party candidates.
posted by UncleFes at 1:12 PM on August 1, 2002
The theocratical investment of the Republican party has, I think, caused the recent revival of 3rd Party candidates.
posted by UncleFes at 1:12 PM on August 1, 2002
the 2004 elections might be interesting if mccain ran as a democrat. but i can't see that happening, and the rest of the democratic candidates are most uninspiring....it still looks like bush in a walk to me.
posted by zoopraxiscope at 1:18 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by zoopraxiscope at 1:18 PM on August 1, 2002
I disagree with the article.
It is entirely based upon the assumption that the left-wing of the Democratic party will obediently turn out for and vote candidates who serve only the interests of urban and suburban moderate professionals. The authors confirm this, by attaching as a principal caveat to their conclusions that Democratic dominance will be derailed if Democrats start serving "special interests" again.
I just cannot believe that environmentalists, labor, anti-globalists, hard-core feminists, and the substantial part of the minority communities who variously are far-left-leaning (more set-asides and welfare, less cops and prison terms) and rather-right-leaning (the Catholics and evangelicals among Hispanics, the pro-business and traditional-family-values Asians, etc.) will indefinitely consent to support a part which is by, for, and about agnostic (or at least unchurched) SUV-driving white lawyers in the suburbs.
If I'm wrong, however, and the centrists Democrats can have their cake and eat it too, whilst Republicans are required to continually balance their appeal and shore up their vote among all elements of the Republican constituency, ranging from the slightly-less-liberal neighbor of the white suburban lawyers through the big time corporate people thorugh the Christian Coalition, then, of course, the Democrats will dominate.
Ultimately, it will be a decision of the leaders of the left wing of the Democratic party -- to content themselves with 15%-20% of the seats in the Congress and lip service at the Democratic Convention, and otherwise take it on the chin, or else to demand recognition for their own positions in a real way.
posted by MattD at 1:27 PM on August 1, 2002
It is entirely based upon the assumption that the left-wing of the Democratic party will obediently turn out for and vote candidates who serve only the interests of urban and suburban moderate professionals. The authors confirm this, by attaching as a principal caveat to their conclusions that Democratic dominance will be derailed if Democrats start serving "special interests" again.
I just cannot believe that environmentalists, labor, anti-globalists, hard-core feminists, and the substantial part of the minority communities who variously are far-left-leaning (more set-asides and welfare, less cops and prison terms) and rather-right-leaning (the Catholics and evangelicals among Hispanics, the pro-business and traditional-family-values Asians, etc.) will indefinitely consent to support a part which is by, for, and about agnostic (or at least unchurched) SUV-driving white lawyers in the suburbs.
If I'm wrong, however, and the centrists Democrats can have their cake and eat it too, whilst Republicans are required to continually balance their appeal and shore up their vote among all elements of the Republican constituency, ranging from the slightly-less-liberal neighbor of the white suburban lawyers through the big time corporate people thorugh the Christian Coalition, then, of course, the Democrats will dominate.
Ultimately, it will be a decision of the leaders of the left wing of the Democratic party -- to content themselves with 15%-20% of the seats in the Congress and lip service at the Democratic Convention, and otherwise take it on the chin, or else to demand recognition for their own positions in a real way.
posted by MattD at 1:27 PM on August 1, 2002
BlueTrain: You know, while I find little to like in the indymedia crowd, their commitment to ideals seems to have done the Democrats a world of good. The willingness of so many of those on the very left-wing to sacrifice power for principles keeps them out of the Dem Party and encourages its move to the center, whereas the Religious Right is much more willing to sacrifice principles for power, keeping them firmly in the GOP and preventing such a move. So, kids, encourage your local theocrat to stand true to his ideals. So true, in fact, that he leaves the godless GOP entirely.
zoopraxiscope: Yes, but what the lack in quality they make up for in quantity.
posted by apostasy at 1:28 PM on August 1, 2002
zoopraxiscope: Yes, but what the lack in quality they make up for in quantity.
posted by apostasy at 1:28 PM on August 1, 2002
BlueTrain:The Hispanic community, if left unchecked, will become the new Black population
So you propose spraying or what?
posted by signal at 1:31 PM on August 1, 2002
So you propose spraying or what?
posted by signal at 1:31 PM on August 1, 2002
As an addendum to my first comment regarding Bush wanting to use "nuke-ular" weapons, does anyone remember the accusations by Afganistan officials that the US was using nuclear bunker-buster missiles?
If MAD was the answer to large-scale nukes, how do you think the only remaining superpower will handle this one?
FYI I really hope Bush isn't forced to voice his (advisors') opinion on these matters again... the fact that the man making the calls that will cause indeterminable years of radiation sickness and cancer cannot pronounce the fucking word NUCLEAR is incredibly ironic, horrific, and hilarious. I don't know whether to laugh or cr
posted by zekinskia at 1:43 PM on August 1, 2002
If MAD was the answer to large-scale nukes, how do you think the only remaining superpower will handle this one?
FYI I really hope Bush isn't forced to voice his (advisors') opinion on these matters again... the fact that the man making the calls that will cause indeterminable years of radiation sickness and cancer cannot pronounce the fucking word NUCLEAR is incredibly ironic, horrific, and hilarious. I don't know whether to laugh or cr
posted by zekinskia at 1:43 PM on August 1, 2002
Pretty much what I've been saying for years. The GOP talks up its lock on suburban voters, while ignoring the changes in who makes up that bloc. Minorities are moving to the burbs in greater numbers, and even the white voters are less concerned with social conservatism than they are about practical issues like education and budgets. A fiscally responsible Democratic party can have a lot of appeal there.
A tangentially related article is Matt Welch's Red & Blue State Feud Resumes, with some different assumptions and conclusions.
posted by dhartung at 1:49 PM on August 1, 2002
A tangentially related article is Matt Welch's Red & Blue State Feud Resumes, with some different assumptions and conclusions.
posted by dhartung at 1:49 PM on August 1, 2002
Mispronounciation aside (I know several people I consider highly educated who pronounce the word wrong...get over it, its a dialect things) there are some (and I stress some, not many) merits to reworking US nuclear capabilities. If a unfriendly regime possess WMD, the only way to ensure that they are destroyed in a military strike from the air is with atomic weapons. This is a terrifying prospect, and one I hope the US will never have to face. Than again, an aggressive, WMD-equiped dictatorship or theocracy threatening world stability is also a terrifying possibility, and it probably makes sense that the US devise a credible means to deter that threat, or remove it if the situation warrants. Right now, the US does not possess a credible means for destroying (before they could be used) a foreign powers WMD. OUr current nuclear detterent structure is based around strategic, not tactical weapons. And no American administration would ever be crazy enough to employ a strategic atomic device to counter a limited rogue state WMD threat. The development of scalable nuclear weapons will provide room for tactical and strategic maneuver.
posted by pjgulliver at 1:53 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 1:53 PM on August 1, 2002
No one's used one on a target since '45 (that 57 years ago) and, tortured oil company conspiracy theories aside (the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs were used to avoid an American ground invasion of Japan that would have cost a couple orders of magnitude more lives and caused the same orders of magnitude more damage - ugly, but militarily justifiable), it's unlikely that anyone's going to use them on Iraq or anyone else in the near future, since there use simply isn't necessary. pjgulliver's scenario sounds plausible, but hasn't yet happened. In the meantime, our Stealth bombers and laser-targeted munitions are more than adequate to current forseeable tasks.
Don't cry, dude. No nukes over Frisco today, and the forecast is refreshingly free of nuckular winter.
posted by UncleFes at 2:04 PM on August 1, 2002
Don't cry, dude. No nukes over Frisco today, and the forecast is refreshingly free of nuckular winter.
posted by UncleFes at 2:04 PM on August 1, 2002
As much as I would welcome this, it seems that as soon as a prediction like this is made, the opposite starts coming true.
posted by mathis23 at 4:09 PM on August 1, 2002
posted by mathis23 at 4:09 PM on August 1, 2002
It's getting fucking tough to tell the parties apart any more.
This is the point that needs hammering, I think. Dems versus Pubs is a sideshow distraction which takes one's eye off the real problem, which is the rot at the core of the American version of democracy. Saying 'Bush has (litany of misdeeds, scandals, outright evil), but Clinton had (another litany of misdeeds, scandals, outright evil)' obscures the basic fact that the American people have been hornswoggled into electing Bad Bad Men (or not electing, in the case of W) for far too long now, and that there is very little real difference in the degree to which these men and their posses are corrupt, merely the detail.
Scoolyard tribalism doesn't help matters much.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:57 PM on August 1, 2002
This is the point that needs hammering, I think. Dems versus Pubs is a sideshow distraction which takes one's eye off the real problem, which is the rot at the core of the American version of democracy. Saying 'Bush has (litany of misdeeds, scandals, outright evil), but Clinton had (another litany of misdeeds, scandals, outright evil)' obscures the basic fact that the American people have been hornswoggled into electing Bad Bad Men (or not electing, in the case of W) for far too long now, and that there is very little real difference in the degree to which these men and their posses are corrupt, merely the detail.
Scoolyard tribalism doesn't help matters much.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:57 PM on August 1, 2002
obscures the basic fact that the American people have been hornswoggled into electing Bad Bad Men (or not electing, in the case of W) for far too long now, and that there is very little real difference in the degree to which these men and their posses are corrupt, merely the detail.
I wish you believed that...but the truth is, by even the mention of the "not electing", you basically buy into the fact that the "system" somehow screwed you, which suggests that you believe in the system.
If you were being honest, you'd admit that you feel cheated. Instead, however, you try to convince us that both parties are corrupt simply in detail (even though one party was "not elected"). Seems rather disingenuous to me. In fact, seems like an agenda.
(completely unrelated to my thoughts above)
I really, truly hate politics. You fight for what's "right" the whole of your life to realize that it's all a big fucking game. Yes, the government is providing very valid services to us all. Yes, the govt. is running semi-efficiently and we are, by a large margin, the best damn country in the world. But we're still being screwed, big time. While we sit here and try to live our lives, corruption siphons off our money. While we deal with families and loved ones, cronyism grabs jobs and cash that would be better spent elsewhere.
People wonder why the citizenry is cynical. Why only 47% of the population even votes. Here's why: the ruling class still exists, and after God knows how many fucking years, people are tired of their "unofficially" meaningless existence. I would LOVE, LOVE to see a damn revolution. A modern revolution that understood the failure of imperialism (including the US, the EU, and the Asian Tigers).
Human nature is absolutely pathetic. Most of us sit here and argue equality, when deep down we really want the best for ourselves and screw everybody else. Anyone read Calvin and Hobbes? The bottom line, simply put, is to "look out for #1", as Calvin once said, as opposed to Hobbes' "look down the road".
Yes, I'm drunk again. But it was a microbrewery damnit, and it was some good beer.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:39 PM on August 1, 2002
I wish you believed that...but the truth is, by even the mention of the "not electing", you basically buy into the fact that the "system" somehow screwed you, which suggests that you believe in the system.
If you were being honest, you'd admit that you feel cheated. Instead, however, you try to convince us that both parties are corrupt simply in detail (even though one party was "not elected"). Seems rather disingenuous to me. In fact, seems like an agenda.
(completely unrelated to my thoughts above)
I really, truly hate politics. You fight for what's "right" the whole of your life to realize that it's all a big fucking game. Yes, the government is providing very valid services to us all. Yes, the govt. is running semi-efficiently and we are, by a large margin, the best damn country in the world. But we're still being screwed, big time. While we sit here and try to live our lives, corruption siphons off our money. While we deal with families and loved ones, cronyism grabs jobs and cash that would be better spent elsewhere.
People wonder why the citizenry is cynical. Why only 47% of the population even votes. Here's why: the ruling class still exists, and after God knows how many fucking years, people are tired of their "unofficially" meaningless existence. I would LOVE, LOVE to see a damn revolution. A modern revolution that understood the failure of imperialism (including the US, the EU, and the Asian Tigers).
Human nature is absolutely pathetic. Most of us sit here and argue equality, when deep down we really want the best for ourselves and screw everybody else. Anyone read Calvin and Hobbes? The bottom line, simply put, is to "look out for #1", as Calvin once said, as opposed to Hobbes' "look down the road".
Yes, I'm drunk again. But it was a microbrewery damnit, and it was some good beer.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:39 PM on August 1, 2002
Or you could say that America has looked at more radical forms of government and decided that conservative moderation (DLC, compassionate conservatism) is the way we want to go. A dash of socialism here, a dash of market-driven economics here, stir and serve piping hot.
The vast middle will continue to grow and the far-right/far-left will become increasingly irrelevant. Democrats have to still listen to the Kennedy/Nader left and the Republicans the Falwell/Ralph Reed right - but it won't last too long.
I certainly believe Bush the president is a right-winger, but Candidate Bush is quite in the middle (except when he's at those GOP fundraisers). Clinton/Gore are much closer to their moderate positions in their governance, which suits me just fine.
posted by owillis at 10:45 PM on August 1, 2002
The vast middle will continue to grow and the far-right/far-left will become increasingly irrelevant. Democrats have to still listen to the Kennedy/Nader left and the Republicans the Falwell/Ralph Reed right - but it won't last too long.
I certainly believe Bush the president is a right-winger, but Candidate Bush is quite in the middle (except when he's at those GOP fundraisers). Clinton/Gore are much closer to their moderate positions in their governance, which suits me just fine.
posted by owillis at 10:45 PM on August 1, 2002
Clinton/Gore are much closer to their moderate positions in their governance, which suits me just fine.
Which, come on Oliver, is horseshit.
You think Clinton/Gore is any different than Bush/Cheney? Please, apparently you're smoking the same pot that most MeFi's are enjoying in the thread 5-6 down...
They're professional politicians, plain and simple. All of them may have, at one point, had scruples and ideals to follow, and hell, they may still have some class, but publicly, they're trying to get re-elected, one, and two, they're trying to get their Party in office.
I have more, but only if you ask will I respond. I hate blabbing without permission.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:54 PM on August 1, 2002
Which, come on Oliver, is horseshit.
You think Clinton/Gore is any different than Bush/Cheney? Please, apparently you're smoking the same pot that most MeFi's are enjoying in the thread 5-6 down...
They're professional politicians, plain and simple. All of them may have, at one point, had scruples and ideals to follow, and hell, they may still have some class, but publicly, they're trying to get re-elected, one, and two, they're trying to get their Party in office.
I have more, but only if you ask will I respond. I hate blabbing without permission.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:54 PM on August 1, 2002
You think Clinton/Gore is any different than Bush/Cheney
Yes, I do. If you can't see the difference, you're not looking. Of course they're politicians, but they're all trying to make their mark on history (good or bad). I don't look at this with blind idealism, there's mudslinging and hardball from all sides.
posted by owillis at 10:58 PM on August 1, 2002
Yes, I do. If you can't see the difference, you're not looking. Of course they're politicians, but they're all trying to make their mark on history (good or bad). I don't look at this with blind idealism, there's mudslinging and hardball from all sides.
posted by owillis at 10:58 PM on August 1, 2002
If you can't see the difference, you're not looking.
"Realistically speaking"...
I understand, throw the bullshit aside. Fuck Iraq, forget Enron, put Lewinsky and Rich on the backburner...what has Clinton/Gore done that Bush/Cheney hasn't?
How has Clinton given the power back to the people, as opposed to Bush?
(Remember, my premise is that, aside from bullshit politics, both Parties are still a part of the ruling class)
posted by BlueTrain at 11:09 PM on August 1, 2002
"Realistically speaking"...
I understand, throw the bullshit aside. Fuck Iraq, forget Enron, put Lewinsky and Rich on the backburner...what has Clinton/Gore done that Bush/Cheney hasn't?
How has Clinton given the power back to the people, as opposed to Bush?
(Remember, my premise is that, aside from bullshit politics, both Parties are still a part of the ruling class)
posted by BlueTrain at 11:09 PM on August 1, 2002
Don't.Quote.Any.Song.Lyrics.!.
Instead, allow me:
Eschew self-pity when wearing beerglasses.
posted by y2karl at 11:24 PM on August 1, 2002
Instead, allow me:
For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something
They invest in.
While some on principles baptized
To strict party platform ties
Social clubs in drag disguise
Outsiders they can freely criticize
Tell nothing except who to idolize
And then say God bless him.
While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in.
Eschew self-pity when wearing beerglasses.
posted by y2karl at 11:24 PM on August 1, 2002
Comnig democratic dominance? Personally, both parties suck, because they cater to a country of under-educated folk. Let's hope for the collapse of both big parties asap.
(it would be a lot harder to elect stupid people without the fundraising networks of the parties).
posted by ParisParamus at 4:27 AM on August 2, 2002
(it would be a lot harder to elect stupid people without the fundraising networks of the parties).
posted by ParisParamus at 4:27 AM on August 2, 2002
Owillis, please explain how Clinton/Gore is any different than Bush/Cheney. I've heard a lot of that from people who tar and feather Nader for Gore's incompetent blundering in the 2000 election (most of whom I find out didn't even vote, when I ask who they voted for).
Hey, you picked up the gauntlet, so you might as well explain your position!
posted by mark13 at 10:20 AM on August 2, 2002
Hey, you picked up the gauntlet, so you might as well explain your position!
posted by mark13 at 10:20 AM on August 2, 2002
Here is an issue by issue breakdown of how the candidates differed.
I only tar-n-feather Nader & co. because their whole stance is "vote for this guy because the Democrats are too conservative, never mind that we end up electing a guy that's completely opposed to our positions and won't give us the time of day - whereas Gore would have at least paid some attention". (add to that the whole "let's build a third party" movement failed miserably, especially in comparison to Perot)
Of course, these folks will still have fits because the next election will feature even more moderate campaign positions.
posted by owillis at 11:12 AM on August 2, 2002
I only tar-n-feather Nader & co. because their whole stance is "vote for this guy because the Democrats are too conservative, never mind that we end up electing a guy that's completely opposed to our positions and won't give us the time of day - whereas Gore would have at least paid some attention". (add to that the whole "let's build a third party" movement failed miserably, especially in comparison to Perot)
Of course, these folks will still have fits because the next election will feature even more moderate campaign positions.
posted by owillis at 11:12 AM on August 2, 2002
You really think it will be more moderate owillis? I don't know...it seems like a bunch of people may finally start caring about a lot of traditionally progressive issues...like healthcare and the environment.
posted by pjgulliver at 12:14 PM on August 2, 2002
posted by pjgulliver at 12:14 PM on August 2, 2002
Wow, you read an article like this and you suddenly feel proud to be an American. That is until you remember Dubya is the President.
posted by juicyraoul at 12:22 PM on August 2, 2002
posted by juicyraoul at 12:22 PM on August 2, 2002
BlueTrain: "what has Clinton/Gore done that Bush/Cheney hasn't?"
Not much. I think the more important question is "what has Bush/Cheney done that Clinton/Gore hasn't?" There, the answer is a hell of a lot. Cut funding for agencies helping the world's desperately poor if they even mention the existence of abortion; placed major new constraints on civil liberties; dramatically cut taxes on the very richest Americans and thus ending the Clinton-era surplus; pushed for oil drilling in protected wildlife reserves; need I go on? And just wait until they get to appoint a Supreme Court justice. I don't think you can tell me with a straight face that Gore would have pulled any of this crap, except possibly the constraints on civil liberties.
I really wish Nader had had the good sense to run a real campaign in 1996, when the "there's no difference" claim was more or less true. When Clinton ran against Dole and against Bush the Elder, there was very little to distinguish them. Both were at the centre-right, at least when compared to the politics of previous decades and of the surrounding world. In 2000, the centre-right ran against the far right -- and, in part because the left was (justifiably) pissed off at the centre-right, the far right won and we will reap the consequences for a long time.
posted by ramakrishna at 12:56 PM on August 3, 2002
Not much. I think the more important question is "what has Bush/Cheney done that Clinton/Gore hasn't?" There, the answer is a hell of a lot. Cut funding for agencies helping the world's desperately poor if they even mention the existence of abortion; placed major new constraints on civil liberties; dramatically cut taxes on the very richest Americans and thus ending the Clinton-era surplus; pushed for oil drilling in protected wildlife reserves; need I go on? And just wait until they get to appoint a Supreme Court justice. I don't think you can tell me with a straight face that Gore would have pulled any of this crap, except possibly the constraints on civil liberties.
I really wish Nader had had the good sense to run a real campaign in 1996, when the "there's no difference" claim was more or less true. When Clinton ran against Dole and against Bush the Elder, there was very little to distinguish them. Both were at the centre-right, at least when compared to the politics of previous decades and of the surrounding world. In 2000, the centre-right ran against the far right -- and, in part because the left was (justifiably) pissed off at the centre-right, the far right won and we will reap the consequences for a long time.
posted by ramakrishna at 12:56 PM on August 3, 2002
« Older "How Much Starbucks is Too Much?" | The Thylacine Museum Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by delmoi at 11:25 AM on August 1, 2002