This is a sad election year.

[rdh007]

I think Spider-Bite is referring to Ted Kennedy. Considering he used the word "is" in his response, which refers to the current. In which case, he's completely off the mark, considering Ted Kennedy was never president and we're talking about a far-left president.

Also, John F. Kennedy was not far left, his political views were in the dead center, similar to those of FDR and Truman. LBJ was a far-left liberal who pretty much went unchecked, and he led us into the disaster which was Vietnam. So, I agree with Matt-- a far-left liberal left unchecked could be as disastrous as a far-right conservative left unchecked.

To hear some on the right speak today, FDR was a dirty commie. Old people who can barely walk? Get your lazy arse to work, Gramps. Oh, and Truman desegregated the armed services, so he'd probably be alright with everyone being treated equally, too.

 

[StorminNorman]

To hear some on the right speak today, FDR was a dirty commie. Old people who can barely walk? Get your lazy arse to work, Gramps. Oh, and Truman desegregated the armed services, so he'd probably be alright with everyone being treated equally, too.

Well, to be fair, FDR's was surrounded with people we now know to be communists and communist sympathizers, and he never considered the USSR to be the danger it was.

 

[DACrowe]

Lincoln was a republican.

Also, this thread isn't about whether republicans or democrats are better. If you want to talk about that BS, make another thread.

Lincoln was the first Republican president. But at the time Republicans were the progressive party with large pockets of support in the north. The south were conservative Democrats who hated Lincoln. Lincoln was SC's EXCUSE to secede, as they were worried he would abolish slavery or continue policies to limit Southern power in the Union by ratifying more territories as free-states. Lincoln would not have abolished slavery, but he did intend to contain it to the south.

Anyway, the shifts in policies began in the early 20th century when Republican Teddy Roosevelt took on some progressive policies after a national outcry from Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and fought for food regulation. He also was anti-big business/monopolies and destroyed anti-capitalist trusts in the railroad and mining industries. This caused some more conservative support to fall apart and then when Roosevelt hated what Taft did after he left office, Roosevelt ran as an independent Republican in 1908 (I believe, I can't remember if that was the right year) and split the party.

But the big changes really began in the Great Depression when Republican Herbert Hoover maintained the "trickle down" free market/business friendly policies that left many people in poverty and unemployment. Interestingly his ideologies and rhetoric are near identical to George W. Bush's. This allowed Franklin Roosevelt to run on a populist and progressive platform, that some would later call socialist, but he laid the groundwork for the modern Federal government and saved the capitalist system in ths country. He also made it a very powerful federal power (following in Lincoln's footsteps who made it clear state governments were beneath the federal government).

And of course the clencher for the modern political landscape came when Democrat Lyndon Johnson, following JFK's policies before his assassination, signed the Civil Rights legislation. This caused the South for the last 40 years to go from extremely proud Democratic (after the Civil War for hate of the Republican-ist Union) to extremely hostile Republican. Republicans became the conservative party of "protecting old traditions," aka racism at the time, and the Democrats were the progressive strong federalists.


Sorry if that turned into a history rant, I wasn't trying to drag on, but I just thought this was a very interesting shift of interests and major political parties in our country's history.

 

[DACrowe]

Also, can I just add that those thinking we are at the "end of days" for America are using a wee bit of hyperbole. I agree that the US's power is going to diminish in this century and that in 20 years China will probably have more power on the world stage. However, I have doubts that America will lose its superpower status even if the EU and China are equal or greater players. I see more of an awkward balance forming that hopefully will not lead to any wars (and given the economic shift to globalization, I doubt that will be the case).

As for the US becoming less powerful, I don't know. Maybe it will happen, but barring another huge depression, I just don't see it taking effect to the extent people say. Even if we are no longer the premiere superpower, we can still play a part in international politics. Look at the UK. But I think a better comparison will be to look at where the EU currently is.

But time will tell.

 

[The Senator]

Also, can I just add that those thinking we are at the "end of days" for America are using a wee bit of hyperbole. I agree that the US's power is going to diminish in this century and that in 20 years China will probably have more power on the world stage. However, I have doubts that America will lose its superpower status even if the EU and China are equal or greater players. I see more of an awkward balance forming that hopefully will not lead to any wars (and given the economic shift to globalization, I doubt that will be the case).

As for the US becoming less powerful, I don't know. Maybe it will happen, but barring another huge depression, I just don't see it taking effect to the extent people say. Even if we are no longer the premiere superpower, we can still play a part in international politics. Look at the UK. But I think a better comparison will be to look at where the EU currently is.

But time will tell.

I think many leaders in this country, prospective and current leaders alike, are too arrogant to imagine the United States taking the backseat to countries like China or India. While I believe talking about the end of days is a childish cop-out, I truly am concerned as to which path our country will take if we lose our status as the world's sole hegemonic power. Something tells me blood will be shed before we agree that we are on equal footing with China or India.

 

[Tag279]

Crow you posted some poingiant information. People don't seem to realize that to Republican and Dmeocratic parties swapped places on the political spectrum in the mid 20TH Century.

People also mistakenly think that LBJ expanded the welfare roles. He was out of office when that occured it was under Ford and Reagan where the welfare roles expanded most predominantly. High unemployment was the percieved culprit.

 

[The Senator]

Crow you posted some poingiant information. People don't seem to realize that to Republican and Dmeocratic parties swapped places on the political spectrum in the mid 20TH Century.

Ooh! Ooh! I knew all about that, can I get a reward?

People also mistakenly think that LBJ expanded the welfare roles. He was out of office when that occured it was under Ford and Reagan where the welfare roles expanded most predominantly. High unemployment was the percieved culprit.

Welfare predominantly expanded under Nixon, actually. Ford, Carter, and Reagan were ones to the finalize the goals of Nixon and LBJ's policies.

 

[DACrowe]

Ooh! Ooh! I knew all about that, can I get a reward?



Welfare predominantly expanded under Nixon, actually. Ford, Carter, and Reagan were ones to the finalize the goals of Nixon and LBJ's policies.

Yes, Nixon was actually quite progressive in his welfare policies and inparticular his expansion of social security and policies in regard to the gold standard. People also forget the good he did when he opened China and his diplomacy with the USSR. But causing an illegal war in Cambodia that led to 2 million people's deaths, Watergate, dragging on Vietnam, etc. cause him to be remembered as one of the worsts. I personally think he probably is, but what do you think about Nixon?

Also was the first sentence a dig at me for writing that long winded post?

 

[The Senator]

Yes, Nixon was actually quite progressive in his welfare policies and inparticular his expansion of social security and policies in regard to the gold standard. People also forget the good he did when he opened China and his diplomacy with the USSR. But causing an illegal war in Cambodia that led to 2 million people's deaths, Watergate, dragging on Vietnam, etc. cause him to be remembered as one of the worsts. I personally think he probably is, but what do you think about Nixon?

Also was the first sentence a dig at me for writing that long winded post?

I think that, ignoring Watergate, Nixon was one of the best presidents in this country's history. Had he not sabotaged his opponents and been forced to resign in disgrace, he would probably be remembered as such to this day.

 

[rdh007]

Didn't Nixon want a living wage and an even better work week?

I think many leaders in this country, prospective and current leaders alike, are too arrogant to imagine the United States taking the backseat to countries like China or India. While I believe talking about the end of days is a childish cop-out, I truly am concerned as to which path our country will take if we lose our status as the world's sole hegemonic power. Something tells me blood will be shed before we agree that we are on equal footing with China or India.

I'm curious what you mean by childish cop-out. I think we're all in agreement here that we'll be answering to China or India before my kids die, so what's the problem with saying (as I did) that this is the end of the American Empire?

 

[DorkyFresh]

i agree that this is a sad election year, but imo...it's no sadder than the last 2 elections. we're coming out of the 8 year tunnel that is Bush and no matter who is the next president, there is no way they can do as much damage to America or the world......i hope. *knocks on wood*

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

It is sad,Obama's the choice..but it could be so much more. It was like one said..I remember it,and it makes sense. There's no one that defines your beliefs,it's someone who is most like your beliefs. Second best,like getting a runner up.

 

[DACrowe]

I think that, ignoring Watergate, Nixon was one of the best presidents in this country's history. Had he not sabotaged his opponents and been forced to resign in disgrace, he would probably be remembered as such to this day.

I would disagree. Promising in 1968 to end Vietnam quickly and "peace with honor," but then secretly bombing the hell out of them while in negotiations and starting a civil war that led to massive death in Cambodia would have looked as bad now, if there was no Watergate. Especially since Kissinger had brokered a deal in 1969 which would have ended the war then on the near exact same damn terms we finally got in 1973. The only difference is the leaders of the southern Vietamese government would be escorted out of the country when they take over. Thousands upon thousands of Americans died because of this bit of politicing and it may not have even ended in 1973, if Kissinger (defying Nixon's orders) tried to bring it home for an October surprise in '72. I forgot who said it, but "The joke stopped being funny when Kissinger got the Nobel Peace Prize" or something to that extent.

Nixon would have been every bit as mixed and disliked a president as Lyndon Johnson is, Watergate just put him over the top.