Whither America?

[RedFanAlways1966]

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".

[Redsfaithful]

You're an angry elf.

[pedro]

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]

You're an angry elf.

Not sure, RF, that I understand!

[pedro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[RollyInRaleigh]

With most folks, right or left, perception is reality.

[RedsBaron]

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]

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]

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.