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 27 of 27)
391. Sorry about the spastic page! It's dark, and I hit a weird key.
Robert at 12:40AM on May 16th 2008
392. Add a strange command, like- ??? And crazy shit happens. Ah, food for thought. And much less aggravating that pointless circular rhetoric.
Robert at 12:46AM on May 16th 2008
393. 'than' pointless circular rhetoric. Damn wine
'than' pointless circular rhetoric. My bad. Damn wine!
Robert at 12:48AM on May 16th 2008
394. Oops! I did it again! LOL
Robert at 12:49AM on May 16th 2008
395. Night all, thanks for everything!
Robert at 12:50AM on May 16th 2008
396. Brandon,
It's the ammonia in bat guano, I think... Or 'batshit' has such a nice ring to it.
Robert at 12:54AM on May 16th 2008
397. You know, right about now, if DD is watching, he might just be getting a little bit nervous, ya think? LMFAO! Serves him right. Be afraid, be very afraid- the next time you appear in public! Putz!
Robert at 12:57AM on May 16th 2008
398. I felt your attack on Hillary the other day to be just vicious. However I like how you point out that Obama doesn't really represent anything new. I've wondered how people feel his fire. I don't feel a thing.
walks at 1:12AM on May 16th 2008
399. I am posting here because I promised NOT to interfere with DD's blog on democracy vs. gay marriage. A promise is a promise after all...
I notice very little traction on his current blog- i.e. no "crazies" (yet) is it possible that Brandon was right about DD posting as various entities to keep "stirring the shit", so to speak? We'll see...
Robert at 11:31AM on May 16th 2008
400. 346. GHB, I know it's hard to ignore an alley cat gnawing at your toe, but please do so with Robert...it really is getting old fast...and he's just another one of those "trying to churn the feces" types.
Then again, like all of DD's blogs, D'Strawman's arguments were shot down in the first few posts, so I suppose we have to discuss SOMETHING here...
brandon at 9:45PM on May 15th 2008
----------------------------------
I knew that after a while, Brandon, but I was bored and amused... Sorry if it got boring for the rest of the people. Then again, I was HOPING for other posters to comment on this dweeb, but nobody was there, so I kept going. Then I got tired of it and went to bed. Ironically I see that the very next post after my last one was someone telling us to cut it out. Well, I did.
I see he's still around. Lovely. I'm done with him. Don't even want a CIVIL discourse with him. He's just a cavilling pantywaiste with a discordian agenda.
So how's by you?
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:03PM on May 16th 2008
401. @186: "My personal opinion is that Christianity gives people an excuse to "sin." Their bad actions can be blamed on the devil (instead of taking personal responsibility), and all they have to do is pray and, in their minds, all the wrongs are right again (instead of making peace with their decisions, learning from them, and trying to make it right with the wronged party); whereas I believe in no righteous higher power and so I hold myself accountable for my own actions and try to correct them. A Christian society will always have more crime, because they pass the buck on to a fictious "evil demon."
The teachings of Jesus Christ does not, never did and never will, give people an excuse to sin. The opinion is understandable though. It is based on the widespread view that a society is Christian just because the popular religion is one or more of those sects that arose out of varying interpretations of Christian teachings. But Christianity as a religion and institution should be distinguished from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christ's teachings never advocated an institutional religion. Christ himself is the most anti-intitutional, non-conformist and most radical human social philosopher and religionist there is. He is a severe critic of Jewish religious traditionalism and ritualism. He viewed as outmoded and impractical much of the traditions of the religious rulers of his day and much old testament rituals. He and his disciples ate in violation of required traditional and ritualistic washing of the hands, he vetoed the prohibition about eating certain foods, he violated the sabbath, he never made any animal offerings. There is nothing we know of Jesus hanging those tiny boxes (of the word of God) in his forehead and arms. And these are central traditions and rituals for the Jews.
Jesus Christ introduced God as the loving father of all mankind (not as the stern monarchical lawgiver of the old testament) and the idea of sisterhood and brotherhood of all humanity. He is on the side of the poor, oppressed and helpless and those who've messed up in their lives. He encouraged personal settlement of disputes instead of the rigmarol of institutions. He warned against sin and the consequences thereof. He is for personal responsibility. No passing the buck. The "blame the devil doctrine" never was and never is the teaching of Jesus Christ.
"...Christianity gives people an excuse to "sin."
This is probably based on a misunderstanding of the doctrine of forgiveness. "Forgiveness" in christian view is the profound act of the offended (God) that leads the offender (sinner)to repentance (i.e. turning away from sin). It is a recognition and acceptance of a remorseful (heart of the) offender. And even then, if a crime is committed, the doctrine of forgiveness, accepts the right and power of the state to impose punishment. Forgiveness is not an excuse to sin.
"A Christian society will always have more crime, because they pass the buck on to a fictious "evil demon."
Any society will have more crime if the population lacks moral grounding or there is widespread and gross poverty and laws are not effectively implemented and obeyed. The "evil demon" is a convenient excuse of those without morality and those who have immoral view of religion.
Jesus taught the fatherhood of God and the sisterhood and brotherhood of humanity. He advocated devotion to God and love of God. He admonished people to love one another. A society founded on these teachings will probably have less crime and may even evolve into a society that has no crime at all.
JMP at 3:36AM on May 17th 2008
402. @264: ..."There is no "heaven" There is no "afterlife".
How did you know?
JMP at 3:38AM on May 17th 2008
403. OBAMA'S TRUE ISLAMIC NATURE HAS COME OUT..
ISN'T IT FUNNY THAT OBAMA WOULD MAKE A STATEMENT WHERE HE SAID THERE ARE 57 STATES.... WHEN INFACT THAT IS THE EXACT NUMBER OF ISLAMIC (STATES OR COUNTRIES) 57 OF THEM..
Organisation of the Islamic Conference
The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is an international organization with a permanent delegation to the United Nations. It groups 57 nations, most of which are Islamic, from the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, Caucasus, Balkan, Southeast Asia, South Asia and South America. The official languages of the organization are Arabic, English and French.
MAKES YOU WONDER WHY OBAMA SAID THEIR ARE 57 STATES HUMMM...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Islamic_Conference
jim at 1:18PM on May 18th 2008
404. Your analysis of the American political history is interesting. But you're negative so for as the future is concerned. Is it really fair to make judgments based on election promises? Have you come across any promises that the great past presidents made during their campaign? Yet they changed the course of American history. Yes, it was their share persona that represented change.
With no bias, Barrack Obama is of the same mettle. He may not have spelt out an agenda, but he certainly has one. Time is going to prove that.
Therefore, young people like you are out to support him. Cynicism is not only futile but anti-change!
saadhu108 at 3:45AM on May 19th 2008
405. You are right about one party and it is the lobbyist (spelling) who really control our government,the international banking carte and the media. Most specifically, the lobbyists and the media. Since the beginning of the election process in Jan., the media has been cannonizing Obama and put his face on every availabe medium. McClure said, "The medium is the message." and nothing could be truer.
Further, one can hardly blame the current $3 Billion War issue on the liberals. The oil crisis goes right back to the Bushs who have been in bed with house of Said since the 1960s. Additionally, none of the big 3 Auto manufactures did a damn thing to change transportation or oil usage in this country during the first oil embargo/crisis in the 1970s. Why? Because the oil lobbyist, the banking cartels, ect. wanted profit, profit, profit, regardless of the cost....i.e. Shell Oil just posted it's largest quarter profit in history of over $5 BILLION.
We are no longer a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", we are a government of lobbys, huge corporations and cronism. The rich are most obviously getting richer and the the rest of us are paying for. Another example, United comes out of bankruptcy and instead of giving all the employees a raise, the CEO and friends all got HUGE RAISES/BONUSES.
Anyone dumb enough to place their hope in Obama to facilate change is going to be just as disappointed as all of the assholes who voted for "W". One of the biggest financial rapes during the past 20 years has been Haliburton and yet, Congress does nothing! It is all bullshit and nothing changes until someone has the balls to say enough is enough and actually fosters change by taxing big business, by fixing the loop holes in the tax schedules so that the rich actually have to pay their fair share, and by making lobbying illegal. Then we would get back to the basics of one person, one vote...government for the people, by the people and of the people. But that is not going to happen. What is coming is the North American alliance and the "Amero" and the continued erroding of our rights as citizens of this once great country..i.e. "The Patroit Act" what a oxymoran. But we, the people allow it because we are afarid, ill informed, naive,hugely irresponsible,disillusioned and lead like lambs to slaughter by the media! Remember, nothing changes if nothing changes.
Elizabeth at 7:47PM on May 20th 2008