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 3 of 27)
31. Although, I was in a Gay Bar once, and I think they were playing 'professional grabass rodeo'!
P.S. Just kidding, but it does generate an interesting image! LOL
Robert at 12:18PM on May 14th 2008
32. 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. DINESH
And it wasn't that long ago that Bush thought he had a mandate or that Rove believed that the GOP would control Congress and the Presidency for another generation. The GOP wrapped themselves in the flag and the Bible, telling one and all about their " family values". While scandal after scandal has shown the American people where these values really lie.
Face it Dinesh ... actions do speak louder than words ... and "transformational" is just more empty words from you neocons!
JimCO at 12:19PM on May 14th 2008
33. Dear JimCo,
Karma is an interesting thing, n'est pas!
Robert at 12:21PM on May 14th 2008
34. DD does have a few things right. It is immensely hard for a President to make transformative changes in a government and a society the size and complexity of those in the US. This is because the executive branch has limited powers in this area. Major changes in the way things are done domestically usually involve legislation which must originate in Congress.
On the other hand, the executive branch does have a freer hand (especially as its powers have been interpreted by the Bush Neocons) to effect policy internationally through various administration policies and through the administration’s ability and willingness to engage the world through diplomatic efforts. Unfortunately, Bush has used this power to create a giant mess through which the US has burned much of the goodwill engendered from the fall of the Berlin Wall and the calming of the Balkans. In many circles, the US is now a pariah instead of a leader.
In short, it is hard for a President to good domestically because of entrenched interests but easier for one to do well or screw up in foreign policy. Bush did the latter.
I am getting very tired of the retro-active lionization of Reagan. The man didn't do half of the things attributed to him and his evils (Iran-Contra) are too often swept under the rug. The man could really read a speech written for him (after all he was an actor) but had poor command of the facts and couldn’t substantially engage anyone extemporaneously on any subject.
Let's start with DD’s claim that Reagan was responsible for the fall of the Berlin Wall. In actuality the Soviet Block had been in trouble for decades. Its economic system was unsustainable. DD should read some of the books by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, a truly brilliant guy…believe he had a PhD on the history of the Soviet Bloc. He wrote and excellent book “Soviet Bloc: Unity and Conflict” that presaged many of the ills that ultimately befell the USSR. Way before Reagan he was an ardent supporter East German dissidents and against the Nixon/Kissinger policy of détente with Russia. He strongly supported outright anti-Soviet reform in Eastern Europe. When Russia invaded Afghanistan, he, under CARTER, started the support of the Mujaheddin to drive Russia out and force them to spend tons on money to continue fighting. THIS WAS NOT A REAGAN INITIATIVE AS IS OFTEN THOUGHT.
Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, Brzezinski predated the Soviet Bloc’s demise and wrote a great book called “The Grand Failure” that highlighted the weaknesses in Soviet economic theory that would eventually bring it down.
REAGAN DID NOT CASUE THE FALL OF THE BERLIN WALL, HE ONLY HAPPENED TO BE PRESIDENT WHEN IT DID.
So, DD when you call that a Republican victory, perhaps you should re-read your history.
John Galt
John Galt at 12:35PM on May 14th 2008
35. Weaknesses in economic policy? Like a bloated military/industrial complex flushing billions down the toilet daily? Wait a minute! That sounds just like- US! Oh, crap!
Robert at 12:38PM on May 14th 2008
36. Deliberate polarization does not help our country. We need to come together now more than ever.
(Note to GHB: not in the way you're thinking)
Linda at 12:06PM on May 14th 2008
-----------------
Yeah, but it's true both ways. :-)
I like the beatles "come together, right now, over me...."
Godless Heathen Brian at 12:55PM on May 14th 2008
37. Dear GHB,
I thought you were going to work on the EGO thing? Anything constructive to contribute?
Robert at 12:57PM on May 14th 2008
38. Robert,
Holy Boners, over 70"?! I'm half that (an I thought I was being greedy). I got the TV and the beer, all I need now is the couch, the floor space for the couch, the shelves to help clear the floor space for the couch, the friends to sit on the couch, the games for the friends to play, and the game systems to play the games.
Mokele Mbembe at 1:02PM on May 14th 2008
39. Moke,
I work in the entertainment industry. Mine is necessarily large, better yet, it's a business expense, hence a write-off! But remember, 72" is a diagonal measurement, but since the screen is proportioned for letter-box format, it's rather long and narrow. No jokes, please!
Robert at 1:09PM on May 14th 2008
40. Thanks Linda
I don’t often feel the need to respond but this time Dinesh’s characterization of Obama and Clinton as somewhat conservative was too juicy to pass up.
We do need to come together but unfortunately we have a news media in this country that thrives on conflict and what often passes for unbiased commentary on the news networks is to have two guest with radically opposing viewpoints ripping at each other's throats.
Both sides are too blame but personally the right is a little more rabid than the left and to those that disagree I would ask them point out the left versions of Lush Rimjob, Ann the Man Coulter, Sean Insanity, Savage, Boorts etc.. to be sure they are out there but not in as many numbers and not so prominently featured.
Too many Americans have no idea on how to recognize propaganda and the many ways that propaganda can be employed.
I will toss out the first three lessons and perhaps others can add to it.
1. Its easier to manipulate and motivate the general public by appealing to the worst aspects of their natures (fear, bigotry, greed etc…) than by inspiring them with the need to serve the greater good for the benefit of us all.
EX: Putting anti gay marriage legislation on the ballot to motivate some people to go out and vote and while they are there they might as well vote for the anti gay marriage politician regardless of how his other policies will affect them.
2. If the lie is really huge, people will not believe that such an obvious lie could be a lie and will even go so far as to supply their own justification and reasoning to believe in the lie.
EX: WMDs in Iraq. I am totally surprised that Kerry when asked why he voted for the war did not answer “Because I didn’t think my president would lie about something that could cost so many lives.”
3. If you repeat your lies often enough with a genuinely seeming earnestness about them, people will believe them.
EX: WMDs again, “we’re turning the corner in Iraq” (We circled around the block at least three times on that one), “the surge is working”, “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”. I could go on.
Please feel free to add to the list.
rabidmccain at 1:16PM on May 14th 2008
41. So this is where most of the decadents and deviants hang out? Hi Freaks for Obama. You hate God because you don't want to obey his word that a man should not have sex with another man. This is your way to feel good about yourselves. Obama is a freak too. Have you looked at the video of Larry Sinclair telling America that Obama licked his ass. Seen a copy of the "Globe" magazine with BHO on the cover? It figures. I am glad you guys are staying in the internet "shit house" where most of you belong, on this blog. Keep drooling over each other chi-chi men and women.
NO OBAMA at 1:24PM on May 14th 2008
42. RabidMcCain:
4) Education is DANGEROUS! An educated, free-thinking population will see through the subterfuge. Therefore, don't spend money on Education! Just force teachers to teach to the test- i.e. NCLB, and stuff too many kids into the classroom so the teacher is too overwhelmed to compensate. Works like a charm!
Robert at 1:27PM on May 14th 2008
43.
HiYa Robert,
I would tend to disagree a bit there, as the Projected Surpluss was always bigger than the actual one. But even Bush concceded the "surplus" when he decided to 'refund' it to everyone in 2000. What he basically did was begin establishing his No Billionaire Left Behind tax policies, while tossing away the nation's rainy day money to placate the public into thinking a surplus wasn't needed if the rich were getting richer. (Recall his 'it's your money, you should have it back' speeches when he announced these returns.)
Thing is, as the endless war and Katrina have shown, cleaning out the coffers as a feel good dog and pny show and then borrowing heavy to run the country is a real bad game plan when you NEED that rainy day money. Call it what you want, but W played roulette with the treasury and lost.
T.Brough at 1:29PM on May 14th 2008
44. Dear No Obama,
(Sigh) Inflammatory comments are reserved for DD! Didn't you read the rules on the door? This is a place for constructive work, and the occasional side-bar about personal issues. Take your angry garbage to Coulter's blog!
Robert at 1:30PM on May 14th 2008
45. DD's not getting much traction on his latest post. How about something more interesting.
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/05/13/more-than-three-quarters-of-women-want-more-sex/
John Galt
John Galt at 1:32PM on May 14th 2008