Just about every four years, we hear about how this election is going to be a transformational election and how the direction of the country is going to be permanently changed and how our children and grand-children will be affected by what we decide now. In reality, transformational elections are rare and this election doesn't look like it's going to change much no matter who is elected.
History shows that America is a one-party state. What I mean by this is that one party tends to dominate and the other party tends to be a "me too" party. In the early nineteenth century, the Democratic Party established itself as the majority party in the era of Andrew Jackson. That lasted about forty years until the Civil War, when the Republican Party under Abraham Lincoln seized majority status. The GOP dominated American politics from 1865 until 1932, when Franklin Roosevelt inaugurated an era of Democratic hegemony. For most of the twentieth century, from the thirties until 1980, the Democrats controlled the government. Reagan's election in 1980 began our current epoch of Republican and conservative domination.
How do we know that this has been a conservative era? Not just by the number of Republicans who have occupied the White house. We also know by looking at the behavior of Democrats who have managed to get elected. Today Bill Clinton goes around boasting, "We won the Cold War." "We fixed welfare." "We signed the free trade agreements." "We put the lid on spending." Remarkably all Clinton's accomplishments are conservative accomplishments. At least one of them, welfare reform, was signed reluctantly because of GOP pressure. None would have been possible without conservative support. Clinton's liberal ideas, such as gays in the military and national health care, went down in flames. In sum, Clinton was dragged by the conservative tide and basically governed as a moderate Republican.
Is the conservative era now finished? Many of the pundits say it is, but I see no sign of it from the actions of the three presidential candidates. McCain of course has largely pleged to "stay the course." His independence is genuine but it does not constitute a departure from Reagan principles. Mostly McCain is a temperamental departure from Bush. Interestingly Hillary seems to have tempered her erstwhile radicalism. As a senator she has generally occupied the right flank of the Democratic party, voting for example to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Even in the campaign Hillary has sounded cautious notes, warning of the danger of negotiating with Iran, promising a staged rather than precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, an so on.
That leaves Obama, who sounds transformational in his rhetoric. But where is the actual change that Obama is proposing? Basically Obama's argument is that he is different because he grew up in many different places, has a black father and a white mother, and because his grandmother lives in an African village. Obama claims to be different because of his name and his background. So is Obama going to radically overhaul the tax system? No. Is he going to change America's longtime alliance with Israel or our special friendship with Great Britain? No. Does he have any new ideas for reshaping race relations in this country? If so he has kept them entirely to himself. Even Obama's tiresome repetition of the need to change the way Washington does business is unaccompanied by any concrete strategies for changing the modus operandi in the nation's capital.
One of these days we will have a transformational election, as we did in 1932 or 1980. But so far this doesn't look like one at all. The long shadow of Reagan still hangs over American politics, shaping the way the presidential candidates see themselves and the world.
Reader Comments ( Page 26 of 27)
376. robert,
i just thought what a cool cross section of people and ideas. even though the atheist are lost as a ball in high weeds they are still a humorous lot. i have not been keeping up with the last few post of DD's but he is a baiter and a good one. hopefully i could have a part in the play. what could i do???
brian at 11:19PM on May 15th 2008
377. wonder why this is addictive? even the disagreeables love to disagree. i have to admit i get tired of being right most of the time!! which i am. more should get on board my train!!
brian at 11:21PM on May 15th 2008
378. got to go nighty night
brian at 11:25PM on May 15th 2008
379. Brian,
Okay, here's the basics. You have the polarizing aspects- Christians vs. Atheists. But what is the point? How does it begin, and how does it end? These are the two crucial factors. What happens in the second act (the middle of the story) takes off from the Opening, and resolves in the Endgame, just like Chess. So far, a fascinating character study (as I'm sure you would agree) but hardly lucrative (bottom line when trying to produce a movie, or stage play) If you have an idea for the logline (the central idea) I would love to hear it.
Robert at 11:30PM on May 15th 2008
380. "If you have an idea for the logline (the central idea) I would love to hear it.
Robert at 11:30PM on May 15th 2008"
Depends on how dark you want the movie to be.
If it's dark like "Se7en", then the central point is DD writing 80% of the posts here and being totally schizo/split personality/etc. and then getting the remaining 20% to fight so much that one nearly kills another or some such. Hell, nearly happened when brian almost got his ass kicked by Botts.
Hmmm...or the central point could be DD creating a movement of closed-minded hatemongers that start something bigger, like a skinheads type movement...
Or...I don't know. Not enough liquor in my brain to be creative...back later.
brandon at 11:38PM on May 15th 2008
381. Amen Brandon,
It's tough, huh? Finding that one thing, could be a schizo/psycho thing, but what creates the tension?
Robert at 11:44PM on May 15th 2008
382. And unfortunately, the relative anonymity of blogging creates its' own batch of difficulties. So far, I have a group of individuals, in a variety of settings, none seen except for their screen or from the neck down. But, I agree, another glass of wine is needed. What would scare the **** out of people, and make them really think about this whole blogging thing?
Robert at 11:48PM on May 15th 2008
383. Go fifties retro. Good Christian always beats good athiest. Or hubris ties hubris. Merman could sing, there's no hubris like true hubris.
x-ray at 11:53PM on May 15th 2008
384. What if a DD-type character were murdered by a blogger who went 'postal'? A whodunit, of sorts, and a casual blogger who stumbles on this, and how they solve the case before others die? Hmmmm...
Robert at 11:58PM on May 15th 2008
385. Oh, shit! I just scared the shit out of myself!
Robert at 11:59PM on May 15th 2008
386. "stumbles on this, and how they solve the case before others die? Hmmmm...
Robert at 11:58PM on May 15th 2008"
Not bad. Add the Fed angle, FBI/CIA tracking down who is who in real life so we get to meet the people behind the posts. Not far from modern day USA, so topical...
brandon at 12:02AM on May 16th 2008
387. Or better still,
The DD character dies like the polonium guy (whose name escapes me, sorry) and professes the ability of doing the same, or worse, with other rogue radioactives...Oooooo!
Robert at 12:14AM on May 16th 2008
388. It is addictive mostly because of the instant gratification. You can type something colorful or inflammatory in this little text box and get it posted almost instantaneously...and then you're almost as important as D'Stupid. Even better, the community of posters might even react to you.
Which can be interesting, or descend rapidly into juvenilia as the Robert V GHB exchanges did today. Or in my case, flaming on the likes of janesophie or observant, who I have little sympathy for when they post things that are blatantly stupid or bigoted. (It's not my best quality.)
Robert, this actually might make a decent stage play. Very Edward Albee.
T,Brough at 12:15AM on May 16th 2008
389. Dear T. Brough,
I still don't see how to make it a stage play. Like 'The Dumbwaiter'? Maybe. Too many characters, too much shifting scenes, though. My apologies, about the whole us vs. ghb thing. But it was, ultimately, an experiment, a classroom study, if you will, and served its' purpose.
Robert at 12:27AM on May 16th 2008
390.
Actually, the plot that makes more sence is that the DD charachter is the one more likely to go batshit psycho. Some atheists confront him with proof that he's the world's most dishonest blogger, and he'd kill to make prevent that exposure. Then Botts and his merry band of Christain do-gooders solve the crime, and expose DD for the hypocrit murdered we all knew he was. Excpet the final twist reveals that it was really the Anne Coulter clone, and DD was duped into almost taking the fall for the conniving slut.
Wait, that sounds like an episode of Law and Order. I watch way too many Cop Shows.
T.Brough at 12:31AM on May 16th 2008