PDA

View Full Version : Whither America?



Rojo
01-27-2005, 04:47 PM
Got this second hand from a blog. Its by Micheal Lind.

Discuss!

In a second inaugural address tinged with evangelical zeal, George W. Bush declared: "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world." The peoples of the world, however, do not seem to be listening. A new world order is indeed emerging - but its architecture is being drafted in Asia and Europe, at meetings to which Americans have not been invited.
Consider Asean Plus Three (APT), which unites the member countries of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations with China, Japan and South Korea. This group has the potential to be the world's largest trade bloc, dwarfing the European Union and North American Free Trade Association. The deepening ties of the APT member states represent a major diplomatic defeat for the US, which hoped to use the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum to limit the growth of Asian economic regionalism at American expense. In the same way, recent moves by South American countries to bolster an economic community represent a clear rejection of US aims to dominate a western-hemisphere free trade zone.

Consider, as well, the EU's rapid progress toward military independence. American protests failed to prevent the EU establishing its own military planning agency, independent of the Nato alliance (and thus of Washington). Europe is building up its own rapid reaction force. And despite US resistance, the EU is developing Galileo, its own satellite network, which will break the monopoly of the US global positioning satellite system.

The participation of China in Europe's Galileo project has alarmed the US military. But China shares an interest with other aspiring space powers in preventing American control of space for military and commercial uses. Even while collaborating with Europe on Galileo, China is partnering Brazil to launch satellites. And in an unprecedented move, China recently agreed to host Russian forces for joint Russo-Chinese military exercises.

The US is being sidelined even in the area that Mr Bush identified in last week's address as America's mission: the promotion of democracy and human rights. The EU has devoted far more resources to consolidating democracy in post-communist Europe than has the US. By contrast, under Mr Bush, the US hypocritically uses the promotion of democracy as the rationale for campaigns against states it opposes for strategic reasons. Washington denounces tyranny in Iran but tolerates it in Pakistan. In Iraq, the goal of democratisation was invoked only after the invasion, which was justified earlier by claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was collaborating with al-Qaeda.

Nor is American democracy a shining example to mankind. The present one-party rule in the US has been produced in part by the artificial redrawing of political districts to favour Republicans, reinforcing the domination of money in American politics. America's judges -- many of whom will be appointed by Mr Bush -- increasingly behave as partisan political activists in black robes. America's antiquated winner-take-all electoral system has been abandoned by most other democracies for more inclusive versions of proportional representation.

In other areas of global moral and institutional reform, the US today is a follower rather than a leader. Human rights? Europe has banned the death penalty and torture, while the US is a leading practitioner of execution. Under Mr Bush, the US has constructed an international military gulag in which the torture of suspects has frequently occurred. The international rule of law? For generations, promoting international law in collaboration with other nations was a US goal. But the neoconservatives who dominate Washington today mock the very idea of international law. The next US attorney general will be the White House counsel who scorned the Geneva Conventions as obsolete.

A decade ago, American triumphalists mocked those who argued that the world was becoming multipolar, rather than unipolar. Where was the evidence of balancing against the US, they asked. Today the evidence of foreign co-operation to reduce American primacy is everywhere -- from the increasing importance of regional trade blocs that exclude the US to international space projects and military exercises in which the US is conspicuous by its absence.

It is true that the US remains the only country capable of projecting military power throughout the world. But unipolarity in the military sphere, narrowly defined, is not preventing the rapid development of multipolarity in the geopolitical and economic arenas -- far from it. And the other great powers are content to let the US waste blood and treasure on its doomed attempt to recreate the post-first world war British imperium in the Middle East.

That the rest of the world is building institutions and alliances that shut out the US should come as no surprise. The view that American leaders can be trusted to use a monopoly of military and economic power for the good of humanity has never been widely shared outside of the US. The trend toward multipolarity has probably been accelerated by the truculent unilateralism of the Bush administration, whose motto seems to be that of the Hollywood mogul: "Include me out."

In recent memory, nothing could be done without the US. Today, however, practically all new international institution-building of any long-term importance in global diplomacy and trade occurs without American participation.

In 1998 Madeleine Albright, then US secretary of state, said of the U.S.: "We are the indispensable nation." By backfiring, the unilateralism of Mr Bush has proven her wrong. The US, it turns out, is a dispensable nation.

Europe, China, Russia, Latin America and other regions and nations are quietly taking measures whose effect if not sole purpose will be to cut America down to size.

Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it: hoping that raw military power will be sufficient to intimidate other great powers alienated by its belligerence. To compound the irony, these other great powers are drafting the blueprints for new international institutions and alliances. That is what the US did during and after the second world war.

But that was a different America, led by wise and constructive statesmen like Dean Acheson, the secretary of state who wrote of being "present at the creation." The bullying approach of the Bush administration has ensured that the US will not be invited to take part in designing the international architecture of Europe and Asia in the 21st century. This time, the US is absent at the creation.

REDREAD
01-27-2005, 05:19 PM
1. I'm thrilled that Europe is building up its own military. I hope they accelerate getting the US out, so we don't have to waste resources with Serbia, etc. Europe is more than capable of solving it's own problems, so I'm glad.

2. I could care less if Aisa forms some kind of Nafta/free trade thing. The coorporations are going to exploit the slave labor in Aisa regardless. It's not going to effect American labor at all. In fact, it could potentially HELP the US if they walled us out of their club AND our government responded in kind.

3. Also, don't really care if Europe and China are getting into satellites. Again, if it makes other countries less dependent on us, that is good.

4. I agree that eventually a USSR-like collapse event is going to happen to this country. Maybe not as severe, but eventually countries will stop lending us the money to try to manipulate the other countries of the world. The sooner the well dries up, the better (smaller deficit). I think it would be GREAT if Japaneese bond investors found something better to do with their money (instead of lending it to the US government).

GAC
01-27-2005, 06:33 PM
1. I'm thrilled that Europe is building up its own military. I hope they accelerate getting the US out, so we don't have to waste resources with Serbia, etc. Europe is more than capable of solving it's own problems, so I'm glad.

2. I could care less if Aisa forms some kind of Nafta/free trade thing. The coorporations are going to exploit the slave labor in Aisa regardless. It's not going to effect American labor at all. In fact, it could potentially HELP the US if they walled us out of their club AND our government responded in kind.

3. Also, don't really care if Europe and China are getting into satellites. Again, if it makes other countries less dependent on us, that is good.

4. I agree that eventually a USSR-like collapse event is going to happen to this country. Maybe not as severe, but eventually countries will stop lending us the money to try to manipulate the other countries of the world. The sooner the well dries up, the better (smaller deficit). I think it would be GREAT if Japaneese bond investors found something better to do with their money (instead of lending it to the US government).


AMEN brother! :thumbup:

Johnny Footstool
01-27-2005, 06:57 PM
It's not going to effect American labor at all. In fact, it could potentially HELP the US if they walled us out of their club AND our government responded in kind.

I don't understand how it could help the US to alienate the largest market (not to mention the cheapest source of labor) in the world.

MuEconRedLeg
01-27-2005, 07:20 PM
Got this second hand from a blog. Its by Micheal Lind.

Discuss!

In a second inaugural address tinged with evangelical zeal, George W. Bush declared: "Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world." The peoples of the world, however, do not seem to be listening. A new world order is indeed emerging - but its architecture is being drafted in Asia and Europe, at meetings to which Americans have not been invited.
Consider Asean Plus Three (APT), which unites the member countries of the Association of Southeast Asia Nations with China, Japan and South Korea. This group has the potential to be the world's largest trade bloc, dwarfing the European Union and North American Free Trade Association. The deepening ties of the APT member states represent a major diplomatic defeat for the US, which hoped to use the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum to limit the growth of Asian economic regionalism at American expense. In the same way, recent moves by South American countries to bolster an economic community represent a clear rejection of US aims to dominate a western-hemisphere free trade zone.

Consider, as well, the EU's rapid progress toward military independence. American protests failed to prevent the EU establishing its own military planning agency, independent of the Nato alliance (and thus of Washington). Europe is building up its own rapid reaction force. And despite US resistance, the EU is developing Galileo, its own satellite network, which will break the monopoly of the US global positioning satellite system.

The participation of China in Europe's Galileo project has alarmed the US military. But China shares an interest with other aspiring space powers in preventing American control of space for military and commercial uses. Even while collaborating with Europe on Galileo, China is partnering Brazil to launch satellites. And in an unprecedented move, China recently agreed to host Russian forces for joint Russo-Chinese military exercises.

The US is being sidelined even in the area that Mr Bush identified in last week's address as America's mission: the promotion of democracy and human rights. The EU has devoted far more resources to consolidating democracy in post-communist Europe than has the US. By contrast, under Mr Bush, the US hypocritically uses the promotion of democracy as the rationale for campaigns against states it opposes for strategic reasons. Washington denounces tyranny in Iran but tolerates it in Pakistan. In Iraq, the goal of democratisation was invoked only after the invasion, which was justified earlier by claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was collaborating with al-Qaeda.

Nor is American democracy a shining example to mankind. The present one-party rule in the US has been produced in part by the artificial redrawing of political districts to favour Republicans, reinforcing the domination of money in American politics. America's judges -- many of whom will be appointed by Mr Bush -- increasingly behave as partisan political activists in black robes. America's antiquated winner-take-all electoral system has been abandoned by most other democracies for more inclusive versions of proportional representation.

In other areas of global moral and institutional reform, the US today is a follower rather than a leader. Human rights? Europe has banned the death penalty and torture, while the US is a leading practitioner of execution. Under Mr Bush, the US has constructed an international military gulag in which the torture of suspects has frequently occurred. The international rule of law? For generations, promoting international law in collaboration with other nations was a US goal. But the neoconservatives who dominate Washington today mock the very idea of international law. The next US attorney general will be the White House counsel who scorned the Geneva Conventions as obsolete.

A decade ago, American triumphalists mocked those who argued that the world was becoming multipolar, rather than unipolar. Where was the evidence of balancing against the US, they asked. Today the evidence of foreign co-operation to reduce American primacy is everywhere -- from the increasing importance of regional trade blocs that exclude the US to international space projects and military exercises in which the US is conspicuous by its absence.

It is true that the US remains the only country capable of projecting military power throughout the world. But unipolarity in the military sphere, narrowly defined, is not preventing the rapid development of multipolarity in the geopolitical and economic arenas -- far from it. And the other great powers are content to let the US waste blood and treasure on its doomed attempt to recreate the post-first world war British imperium in the Middle East.

That the rest of the world is building institutions and alliances that shut out the US should come as no surprise. The view that American leaders can be trusted to use a monopoly of military and economic power for the good of humanity has never been widely shared outside of the US. The trend toward multipolarity has probably been accelerated by the truculent unilateralism of the Bush administration, whose motto seems to be that of the Hollywood mogul: "Include me out."

In recent memory, nothing could be done without the US. Today, however, practically all new international institution-building of any long-term importance in global diplomacy and trade occurs without American participation.

In 1998 Madeleine Albright, then US secretary of state, said of the U.S.: "We are the indispensable nation." By backfiring, the unilateralism of Mr Bush has proven her wrong. The US, it turns out, is a dispensable nation.

Europe, China, Russia, Latin America and other regions and nations are quietly taking measures whose effect if not sole purpose will be to cut America down to size.

Ironically, the US, having won the cold war, is adopting the strategy that led the Soviet Union to lose it: hoping that raw military power will be sufficient to intimidate other great powers alienated by its belligerence. To compound the irony, these other great powers are drafting the blueprints for new international institutions and alliances. That is what the US did during and after the second world war.

But that was a different America, led by wise and constructive statesmen like Dean Acheson, the secretary of state who wrote of being "present at the creation." The bullying approach of the Bush administration has ensured that the US will not be invited to take part in designing the international architecture of Europe and Asia in the 21st century. This time, the US is absent at the creation.

Where do we go from here?

Rojo
01-27-2005, 07:33 PM
It would be nice to think that we could retreat from the world and still thrive. Has that worked in your life? Because it hasn't worked in mine.

MuEconRedLeg
01-27-2005, 07:49 PM
It would be nice to think that we could retreat from the world and still thrive. Has that worked your life? Because it hasn't worked in mine.

I support open borders and free and voluntary cooperation with all. But, does the author of this piece have a course of action in mind?

Rojo
01-27-2005, 07:50 PM
Where do we go from here?

Depends. We were at our most powerful when were using the government to build up the middle class, clean up the environment and educate our workforce. There's a good chance that as the country slides downhill, the upper class will get richer and preach more privatization, lower taxes, etc... We're basically on an Argentina Arc - suspect democracy, low-valued currency, militarism.

On the other hand, the right-wing moment might be passing. Lots of folks "get it" and are starting to ask the right questions.

Me, I'd fix the voting process in the country, to quote JFK, "Its not enough that a woman is virtuous. She must appear virtuous."

Second, I'd get a handle on the healthcare mess. We expect GM and Boeing to compete with foreign companies that don't have to pick up their worker's healthcare costs. No wonder we're a "service economy".

Third, figure out the energy thing - sooner rather than later. And make the solution not involve roadside bombs.

MuEconRedLeg
01-27-2005, 08:52 PM
Depends. We were at our most powerful when were using the government to build up the middle class, clean up the environment and educate our workforce. There's a good chance that as the country slides downhill, the upper class will get richer and preach more privatization, lower taxes, etc... We're basically on an Argentina Arc - suspect democracy, low-valued currency, militarism.

First, let me say privatization has been very successful in many areas and in many countries, and that taxes on individuals are too high and taxes on corporations are too low.

But, as far as your second argument I agree with you. The rest of the country is seeing what WV has known for years, about elections. And we have become too obsessed with military power. Donít get me started on currency.

However, I do find it interesting that progressives fought tooth and nail against Libertarians/Friedman on stable money and militarism, and now support it. :)


Second, I'd get a handle on the healthcare mess. We expect GM and Boeing to compete with foreign companies that don't have to pick up their worker's healthcare costs. No wonder we're a "service economy".

Which is exactly why I do not support it. It will benefit corporate America but Middle America will pay about the same and more.


Third, figure out the energy thing - sooner rather than later. And make the solution not involve roadside bombs.

Agreed

But, these are domestic issues. The essay concerned foreign policy. Our country was at is strongest and had its greatest identity when it opened its borders and stayed away from foreign affairs.

Puffy
01-27-2005, 09:11 PM
Depends. We were at our most powerful when were using the government to build up the middle class, clean up the environment and educate our workforce. There's a good chance that as the country slides downhill, the upper class will get richer and preach more privatization, lower taxes, etc... We're basically on an Argentina Arc - suspect democracy, low-valued currency, militarism.

On the other hand, the right-wing moment might be passing. Lots of folks "get it" and are starting to ask the right questions.

Me, I'd fix the voting process in the country, to quote JFK, "Its not enough that a woman is virtuous. She must appear virtuous."

Second, I'd get a handle on the healthcare mess. We expect GM and Boeing to compete with foreign companies that don't have to pick up their worker's healthcare costs. No wonder we're a "service economy".

Third, figure out the energy thing - sooner rather than later. And make the solution not involve roadside bombs.

Thats just an absolutely fantastic post. :thumbup:

Rojo
01-27-2005, 09:29 PM
First, let me say privatization has been very successful in many areas and in many countries

What's been successful is zigging when one needs to zig and zagging when one needs to zag. An absolutist ideology is cumbersome. It was the downfall for one superpower and is starting weigh heavy on the other one.

The cold war didn't end that long ago. I hope we weren't too quick to pronounce a winner.

MuEconRedLeg
01-28-2005, 08:58 AM
What's been successful is zigging when one needs to zig and zagging when one needs to zag. An absolutist ideology is cumbersome. It was the downfall for one superpower and is starting weigh heavy on the other one.

Are you advocating nationalization of private industries throughout the U.S.?

And, even I donít agree with privatization of everything or shock changes, but in most areas it has been successful and far more efficient than government.

RedFanAlways1966
01-28-2005, 09:07 AM
In other areas of global moral and institutional reform, the US today is a follower rather than a leader. Human rights? Europe has banned the death penalty and torture, while the US is a leading practitioner of execution. Under Mr Bush, the US has constructed an international military gulag in which the torture of suspects has frequently occurred. The international rule of law? For generations, promoting international law in collaboration with other nations was a US goal. But the neoconservatives who dominate Washington today mock the very idea of international law. The next US attorney general will be the White House counsel who scorned the Geneva Conventions as obsolete.

I must admit that I stopped after reading this paragraph. This article (up to this point) is ANOTHER ATTACK on Republicans and probably written by ANOTHER PERSON who cannot get over the fact that his party does not have the White House or Congress. Oh yes, that evil W won again... it's the end of the world as we know it!

Neoconservatives who dominate Washington? Why doesn't Mr. Lind just go ahead and say "those Nazis"? And the token attack on Mr. Gonzales... Mr. Lind only wishes he has done 1/2 of what Mr. Gonzales has done for this country.

If you don't like what you have here... get the heck out. Or get the majority of voters in this country to agree with you. Give college students free gifts, whatever. If I read on, I would guess that Lind would make references to the great Pres. Clinton (impeached?) and probably some of his cabinet.

Nope, I don't buy Mr. Lind's propaganda. Start buidling that shelter under your house. W is here for 4 more! It's the end of the world as we know it...

:RedinDC:

Rojo
01-28-2005, 01:26 PM
Or, crazy idea, you could address his actual argument.

Server space is such a terrible thing to waste.

westofyou
01-28-2005, 01:36 PM
Neoconservatives who dominate Washington?

Just like the one's that Christine Whitman talks about in her new book.

Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor who was President Bush's first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is violating the omerta of Bush alumni with a memoir that touts the importance of moderates to the future of the Republican Party and flays Bush and his team for ignoring the country's middle.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41511-2005Jan1.html

RedFanAlways1966
01-28-2005, 01:53 PM
Or, crazy idea, you could address his actual argument.

Server space is such a terrible thing to waste.

Server space being wasted? I felt the same way about the article itself. But I would not say that to someone. B/c we all live in glasshouses when comments like that are made here. I am sure a quick search would prove that. Ya think? :)

Speaking of crazy ideas... that is how I felt about what I read. Perhaps I should say he is a neo-liberal and his type would have us all riding bikes, hugging trees and living next-door to al quaeda terrorists? But then I might come off as a sore loser who cannot get on with my life. And I would hate to sound that way.

I would venture to guess that Mr. Lind is left-handed, left-footed, left-brained, leftofyou-type and was left-crying when the election results came through. His article, what I read, is another liberal slamming everything to do with the party that opposses his ideas. A party who had the majority of voters on their side (despite what "real Americans" like Boxer, Conyers, Jackson and the lady from Cleveland say). But freedom of speech allows him to do so... just like it allows me to slam his ideas (regardless of server space). If the shoe fits, wear it.

My advice to Mr. Lind... (from the Eagles) is to "get over it". :thumbup:

Redsfaithful
01-28-2005, 03:44 PM
You're an angry elf.

pedro
01-28-2005, 03:44 PM
If you don't like what you have here... get the heck out. Or get the majority of voters in this country to agree with you. Give college students free gifts, whatever. If I read on, I would guess that Lind would make references to the great Pres. Clinton (impeached?) and probably some of his cabinet.

:RedinDC:


So what you're saying is that 55 million people should shut up or leave the country if they don't agree with the President? Now that's compassionate conservatism at it's best. Something tells me you wouldn't just roll over so easily if the shoe was one the other foot. Unless of course you were under the influence of that devil weed that you're always mentioning. ;)

RedFanAlways1966
01-28-2005, 03:45 PM
You're an angry elf.

Not sure, RF, that I understand! :)

pedro
01-28-2005, 03:47 PM
Depends. We were at our most powerful when were using the government to build up the middle class, clean up the environment and educate our workforce. There's a good chance that as the country slides downhill, the upper class will get richer and preach more privatization, lower taxes, etc... We're basically on an Argentina Arc - suspect democracy, low-valued currency, militarism.

On the other hand, the right-wing moment might be passing. Lots of folks "get it" and are starting to ask the right questions.

Me, I'd fix the voting process in the country, to quote JFK, "Its not enough that a woman is virtuous. She must appear virtuous."

Second, I'd get a handle on the healthcare mess. We expect GM and Boeing to compete with foreign companies that don't have to pick up their worker's healthcare costs. No wonder we're a "service economy".

Third, figure out the energy thing - sooner rather than later. And make the solution not involve roadside bombs.

Good post Rojo. I sure hope we don't head further down the path of Argentina.

Rojo
01-28-2005, 03:52 PM
Actually Michael Lind is a former Republican and Neocon who fell out with the GOP over cultural/religious issues. He's still a hawk who wants the Democrats to chart of more centrist coarse.

You see, some people are complex. But put a black hat on him if that helps you make sense of what he wrote.

RedFanAlways1966
01-28-2005, 05:42 PM
Actually Michael Lind is a former Republican and Neocon who fell out with the GOP over cultural/religious issues. He's still a hawk who wants the Democrats to chart of more centrist coarse.

You see, some people are complex. But put a black hat on him if that helps you make sense of what he wrote.

As complex as me perhaps? Or is that different? Hmmmm....

He wrote what he wrote. And frankly I don't care where he came from or what you think his "politics" are now. I read lots of crap about his former party... that he wrote. I do not agree with it. But my disagreement gets me putdowns, flack and names. Very Michael Moore like of you guys. Remember... that strategy already failed you. We must learn from our mistakes. Some do, others don't. Keep it up!

Rojo
01-28-2005, 05:54 PM
And frankly I don't care where he came from or what you think his "politics" are now.

Of course you do. Its you modus operandis -- attack the author as a leftwinger (duh), dismiss the argument without refuting (or even addressing) any of its points, and throw in dope-smoking and Michael Moore for good measure.

Its your right to post. I'm just not going to waste my time anymore.

REDREAD
01-28-2005, 10:54 PM
I don't understand how it could help the US to alienate the largest market (not to mention the cheapest source of labor) in the world.

Aisa buys practically nothing from us anyway. We sell some food over there I guess (which is given absurd tariffs in Japan, if not other places).

China has a fixed currency exchange rate vs the dollar which is unfair and makes us impossible to compete.

The Aisan countries are going to continue to welcome the international companies that provide jobs in unsafe conditions and pollute the countryside, no matter what the US government does.
(note I didn't say "American" companies, because practically the whole S+P 500 are truly interantional not american now)

REDREAD
01-28-2005, 10:58 PM
It would be nice to think that we could retreat from the world and still thrive. Has that worked in your life? Because it hasn't worked in mine.

No offense, but I believe you are about my age, aren't you? (Less than 40)
Our entire life, the US has overmeddled in the affairs of the entire globe and sent foreign aid to practically every nation on the globe, and used the UN as its puppet.

It was somewhat justified in the cold war, but not now.

Hey, as soon as Aisa wants free trade, provides humanitarian working conditions, and stops recklessly polluting, I'm ready to do it.
America is getting screwed.

Reds/Flyers Fan
01-29-2005, 10:50 AM
On the other hand, the right-wing moment might be passing. Lots of folks "get it" and are starting to ask the right questions.




How do you figure? Republicans have won 5 of the last 7 presidential elections. Red states outnumber blue states almost 4 to 1 - a number that increased last year as Iowa and New Mexico went from blue to red. Even in the so-called traditional blue states, red counties are a growing force. Republican governors dominate the nation's statehouses, including in such solid blue states as California and Massachusetts. Republicans recorded significant gains in both the House and Senate in November, the first time that has happened for a Republican winning re-election in more than 50 years. And right-leaning Fox News continues to dominate left-leaning CNN in television news ratings.

RANDY IN INDY
01-29-2005, 10:58 AM
With most folks, right or left, perception is reality.

RedsBaron
01-29-2005, 11:30 AM
It is hard to know when a political movement has peaked and will start to decline. Some Republicans have compared 2004 to other elections which were turning points, such as 1860, 1896 and 1932, when one party firmly assumed political control for a generation-perhaps it was. However, 2004 could also be for Republicans what 1964 was for Democrats, an election where one party seemed to have achieved dominance for a long time to come, only to find it was its high tide.
If anyone here responds to this post, I can probably predict the responses: Democrats will be certain that 2004 marked the peak for the Republicans while those in the G.O.P. will be confident that 2004 cemented Republican control for the next generation. I don't claim to know.
America has tended to have elections that put one party in general control every 28 to 36 years. 1800 put Democratic-Republicans, lead by Jefferson and Madison, in firm control, with the Federalist Party eventually ceasing to exist.
In 1828 and 1832, Andrew Jackson founded the Democratic Party, which was dominant until the Civil War.
1860 put Lincoln and the Republicans in control for a generation.
1896 marked a new Republican generation, an election which reportedly was studied by Karl Rove.
1932 saw FDR and the Democrats assume control, and the Democrats dominated until 1968.
1968 is interesting. The election marked the start of an era when Republicans generally dominated presidential politics, winning five of the next six presidential elections, yet the Democrats generally controlled the Senate and kept control of the House. In 1992 the Democrats regained the White House for the next eight years, only to lose both Houses of Congress two years later.
America is hardly a one party nation. Bush won a majority of the popular vote, something JFK and Clinton never did, so he has every bit as much of a right to claim a "mandate" as they did----but it was no landslide. Republican control of Congress is not by a huge margin either.

Chip R
01-29-2005, 03:34 PM
That's an interesting post, RB. I mentioned something similar to that on a post here a few months ago. With the exception of FDR's term, the country doesn't seem to want one party or the other dominating the White House for a really long period of time. The Congress is another matter altogether, though. I don't think any administration - even by their own party - is seen as perfect. Two years from now we could see some Republicans breaking from Bush on some or most of his policies in order to give GOP voters who have issues with Bush a different choice without having to vote Democratic. It's difficult, as Hubert Humphrey, Gerald Ford, George Bush the Elder and Al Gore have found out. to tie yourself strongly to the current president. Out of those 4, only Bush won the election and he didn't even get 50% of the vote. It doesn't matter how successful the sitting president is, a VP or someone in the same party who has parallel views with the president, that candidate is going to be seen as either a lapdog or just someone who is too close to the current administration's policies to represent some kind of change. And I think that is the heart of the matter. Most Americans - whether it be for good or bad - want some kind of change every once in a while. You can analyze all the elections in the 20th century where the other party won the election and reasons for that power change could range anywhere from corruption, a split in the party in power, war, lack of war, economic issues, whatever but it basically comes down to people wanting a change.

RedsBaron
01-29-2005, 08:53 PM
Thanks Chip. I agree (except for a small error-George H. W. Bush got about 53% of the popular vote in 1988; His son in 2004 was the first candidate since then to attain a popular vote majority).
There usually seems to be an assumption that the vice president will become president, but this generally occurs only if the president dies in office. Bush 41 in 1988 was the first sitting vice president to be elected president since Martin Van Buren in 1836. Nixon in 1960, Humphrey in 1968 and Gore in 2000 all tried and failed. I don't think many people expect Cheney to even try to follow Bush 43 in 2008.
I have no idea who either party will nominate in 2008, but I do think the almost inevitable desire for a change will help the Democratic candidate.

Johnny Footstool
01-31-2005, 01:24 AM
Red states outnumber blue states almost 4 to 1 - a number that increased last year as Iowa and New Mexico went from blue to red. Even in the so-called traditional blue states, red counties are a growing force.

And yet the sitting Republican president won the popular vote by only about 3%. And New Hampshire went from red to blue. So the margin is not nearly as wide as it is being portrayed.

ws1990reds
01-31-2005, 01:29 AM
I'm sure to get bashed to hell in a handbasket, but here goes. I believe the world is perfectly capable of doing without 'money'. Who cares whether the rest of the world won't lend us money? Just create it ourselves! Basically, money itself is completely worthless, so why are we even worrying about it? I just laugh at all this inflation and 'decline in value of the American dollar' talk. Of course, inflation is a real thing in that prices of products over years do rise. It doesn't have to be that way, though. Still, I believe that society is perfectly capable of making do with the same prices for the same products everyyear. Let the difference in quality of products determine which products are sold, not the price. For example, set the price of the basic, generic pencil to cost 2 cents. It will cost that much every year. Because there would be no inflation, prices wouldn't rise, there wouldn't have to be increases in salary for the same title (merit and title would determine salary). However, one could choose to purchase certain pencils because they have a different type of lead, over other pencils. Maybe I should join the Mennonites, or a bargaining club.