Hmmm . . . well do we agree that the GOP has failed to nominate a national leader for the Reaganomics part of their historical agenda for the first time since 1964?
1 Like
Well yes, but I donāt think itās a coincidence that they did so the Democrats started doing that job for them. In the 1960s America was choosing between a 1960s Republican and a 1960s Democrat in presidential races. In Clinton vs. Trump itās a choice between a 1960s Republican and a complete wildcard with a big racist streak.
I was watching John Oliver of lead last night, and he mentioned that while most countries banned lead paint in homes in the 1920s, Americaās lead industry was still arguing lead was safe in the 1980s. Denying reality and ruining the lives of the many to support the wealth of a few isnāt a 1960s Republican plot, it is the essential character of America. The republicans left a void in that role and the democrats are filling it.
9 Likes
Agreement. Iāll take it! 
Why did that happen? I think it happened largely because the Dems passed major civil rights legislation in 1965, and the union base of the Dem coalition split apart over race and other cultural issues?
The Dem leaders who cared about race and gender no longer had a unified national base. Racist working class dems started voting nationally more often for the GOP on cultural wedge issues and helped maintain a functional national majority coalition from 1968 until . . .
Well, until last week.
2 Likes
I guess I just have no idea why it happened. I mean, why did the Dems pass civil rights legislation in the first place? If Johnson had taken the drubbing instead of Goldwater in 1964, would the Republicans have passed the Civil Rights Act (or something like it) and weād now have the racist Democratic party? I donāt know enough about the history at the time, but I do know from some cursory searching that while Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act, 1964, he had generally been for civil rights before that (being a proto-Libertarian that makes some sense) and so he may have just been opposing the democrats, defining himself by what his opponents were not. Maybe if a coin flip had landed differently weād be talking about how minorities recognize the importance of libertarianism because it lets individuals succeed on individual mertis and thus is a natural counter to racism and itās the old bigots who want big government because they are dependent on its social programs (that latter one would actually make sense).
Honestly, I donāt even know what the democrats and the republicans are. In Canada weāve got the Conservatives and the Liberals usually fighting it out for power. In the UK thereās the Conservatives and Labour. In the US youāve got the Democrats and the Republicans - itās a Democratic Republic, so all I know is that both of the parties are pro-USA.
5 Likes
And pro NeoLiberialism.
4 Likes
I donāt know where you got that belief.
I believe politicians should make deals to extract whatever concessions they can and seize opportunities to do so. If they insist upon going down the route of obstructionism even if they could get at least some of what they want done, they really have no business being a politician in the first place.
I believe it is better to take a single step forward than stay in the same place for decades because you refuse to compromise.
1 Like
I think itās important consider why a national coalition might break apart over one or more issues or come together over the same or different issues. Itās partly important because, if the base goes away, then the most well intentioned representatives lack political power to enact policies.
This question doesnāt follow for me.
The U.S. did have a racist democratic party dating back to and before the first days that the GOP formed, partly from abolitionists organizing against slavery. Slavery was an issue that also split the national coalition of the Whigs, and the Whigs dissolved.
Conservatives within the GOP or the Dems havenāt generally or meaningfully supported civil rights reforms.
Conservatives in the U.S. organized largely ā and often indirectly ā in opposition to civil rights work, even dating back to the 30s and 40s.
That organization by conservatives eventually aligned with the Nixon/Reagan coalition which then perservered nationally from 1968-ish through last week.
2 Likes
I guess I just became lost in trying to understand the difference between the two parties aside from a few accidents of history and the necessity of them opposing one another. At some point clearly both parties were against civil rights, then one party became for civil rights, and that seems to have established a long thread of Democrats being the right-side-of-history party and Republicans being the wrong-side-of-history party which has morphed into the turn-back-time party. But the gravitational centre seems to still be neoliberalism. Maybe in Sanders were are seeing that the democrats are having a movement to once again get on the right side of history and leave neoliberalism behind?
8 Likes
That might depend on who one means by the democrats. Establishment ones have of course been all too happy to suppress Sanders and all heās been fighting for.
10 Likes
I think eventually the establishment bows to pressure from the majority. I donāt know, maybe not in America.
1 Like
It really depends on who brings more pressure: the majority, or the holders of the purse strings.
7 Likes
Maybe, but itās just so difficult to perceive any effective pressure from the majority these days. The protests against the Iraq War may not have represented the majority, but they were the largest in history, and yet, ignored nonetheless.
7 Likes
This topic is sadly slipping down the list.
Interesting spin the media are trying to put on Sanderās expected win in WV tonight. Claims that 39% of his vote will vote for Trump in Nov.
If thatās true, WV must be very Trump friendly, because heās already winning at a canter.
Or they just really hate Clinton down there.
2 Likes
If - somehow - Trump supporters managed to get Sanders the nomination because they wanted to give Trump a clearer path to victory, that would be the best irony of my lifetime.
11 Likes
Apparently some random local pro-coal protest voter is getting a substantial proportion of the Dem vote. 7%? Might even pointlessly get a delegate.
1 Like
There is definitely been some whitewashing of Bernie Sanderās foreign policy decisions. The truth is Hlllary never attacked him on his positions because it would seem hypocritical, but weāre left with this view that Hillary Clinton is a neocon level warhawk and Bernie Sanders is a pacifist.
The truth is, Bernie Sanders voted for the legislation which made drone strikes, Guantanamo Bay, secret renditions and more legal. It is an absolutely horrible law made under pressure, but it was a terrible mistake nonetheless.
@Aloisius, up above you said you usually donāt vote for president, and also said you had contributed to the Sanders campaign, but the rest of your posts feel an awful lot like pro-Clinton concern-trolling of Sanders. This confusing context makes it a little hard to figure out what you are trying to say.
Sanders has compromised on some legislation. That is part of his reputation as an effective legislator. Are you really trying to assert based on this that Clinton and Sanders have almost indistinguishable interventionist policies?
5 Likes
From earlier this year, but stillā¦
11 Likes
Or Republicans voting in a Dem primary.
1 Like
So I was skimming the article, and saw:
āIām kind of a 1960s person.ā
Turns out it was in response to her taste in music, but it seems a fitting quotation.
3 Likes
