nimh wrote:okie wrote:Among the things he talked about in that article was his criticism of "liberals," yes, they existed then, and I think he was alluding to the socialist wing of the Democratic Party led by FDR.
Well, describing FDR as a socialist just underlines how extreme you are. But you are right, of course, that there were liberals then, too - and that Ike argued against them. The whole thing, in fact, shows just how far right the country has moved since then, at least when it comes to the classic bread-and-butter stuff of socio-economic politics.
You are probably correct there. I should have used different verbage. FDR was not a full blown socialist of course, but let us all admit he was responsible for starting the biggest social program that we have in this country, forced taxation into Social Security, for trillions to be mismanaged and stolen from during the past few decades.
Quote:Liberals, back then, represented a centre-left constituency of the Democrats, a constituency of gradualist reformists who were mocked by more radical leftists as much as they were by conservatives. Now, of course, there is no equivalent anymore to the radical leftists of those times; it's the liberals who are considered to be on the very left flank of the political landscape.
So your summary begs the question, do the gradualists and the radicals really differ much in the final outcome, but merely in how they get there? I would submit to you that I doubt there is near as much difference as there might appear to be, by virtue of what they are willing to say publicly.
People that watch politics closely fully recognize that liberals rarely say all that they really want as the end result, so that they can get elected. As an extreme example, look at Hugo Chavez. If he had admitted all that he was willing to do to maintain his power, would he have still had enough support to be elected? Look at many communist dictators around the world, and you often see the same thing. They got elected, but once elected, to heck with fair elections after that. They don't always admit all that they have in mind. Hence we must be smart enough and vigilant enough to recognize these people. Another reason I would never vote for extreme liberals in this country, as seldom do they tell you what they really want to do.
Quote:Ike, meanwhile, considered a conservative back then, would now rank rather as a Schwarzenegger-type centrist. (Minus the attitude..)
I don't know how you can claim to know that. Would he agree with global warming proponents, environmentalists, relaxing illegal immigration, abortion, and down the list. I doubt it very seriously, nimh. I think you are way off base. In the sense that Ike was a bit of a pragmatist, yes Arnold claims to be as well, but I think far more extreme in Arnold's case, to the point that Arnold is no longer a conservative in much of anything. Not so with Ike.
okie wrote:In regard to high marginal tax rates, you and Thomas must admit he inherited these from previous administrations, and consistent with Eisenhower's presidency, he spent more time playing golf and allowing the country to do what it does best, run itself.
Sounds like a Linc Chafee kind of conservative. What was your opinion about Chafee again?[/quote]
I honestly don't know much about Chafee, except that I hear he doesn't vote with Republicans as a conservative on much of anything, so I think your comparison fails. Ike made it very clear he was for local government responsibility, and against big government fixes, which I doubt you can claim for Chafee by any stretch. As for all of Chafee's voting record, I would have to study it further, but this is my impression from hearing about him from time to time.
Quote:No. Comparing your politics with those of Eisenhower doesnt fly. And the Lincoln comparison, I'm not even going to go there.
I think it does fly, nimh, because I read the entire lenghty article and found him to be saying pretty much what I believe on most points. Do you have the article and have you read it? If not, then you need to do so before you disagree. I am using what Ike actually wrote, not what some professor or history book might have told you, which we all know is what they want it to be, not what it was.
Quote:Reagan, you can have. And then there is of course GWB - the President who has represented your brand of politics more than any other President. And his approval is at about 29% now - so much for being in the mainstream.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, in so many ways. Bush was not my pick, but I voted for him, and would do so again with the same choices presented. He is at least a better man than Kerry in my opinion, but Bush is not my brand of politics in many ways. I continue to defend Bush on the points that he deserves defending. Reagan was a good man, a man with optimism, that believed in America, and instilled that spirit in optimism in the country. Except for the leftists that always hated him, but they will do the same for anyone that isn't a socialist, anti-free market, or blame America first for virtually everything, whatever, so I don't care about them.
Quote:okie wrote:Interestingly, my parents favored Adlai Stevenson when he ran against Ike, because they were staunch FDR Democrats, and are still Democrats, but I have since found out that luckily the country did not elect Stevenson, who was truly the liberal, as opposed to Ike. Incidentally, my parents have not voted for any Democrats for a good long while, for president.
They were Oklahomans too, I'm guessing? Sounds like a fairly typical trajectory of that generation of Oklahomans.
Yes they are.
Quote:All the way back in 1912, Oklahoma was actually a
hotbed of Socialist Party support. In 1916, the Socialist presidential candidate got a higher share of the vote in Oklahoma (16%) than anywhere else in the Union. By the time "Okies" were being swept out by the Dust Bowl and FDR's New Deal offered support to survive, they became solid Democrat voters - Roosevelt got almost three-quarters of the vote there in '32. It was only Eisenhower and Nixon (in '60) who first brought Oklahoma into the Republican fold again, and that's basically where they've stayed since (apart from voting for LBJ twice). Culminating in the 66% of the vote that Bush got in '04.
Well, you know all that, of course, being from there - apart from the Socialist Party vote, probably (forgotten history).
So yes, all in all, both your parents and you probably pretty much represent the "typical" Oklahomans of your generations. However, Oklahoma
"flyover country". Even among the "red" heartlands, Oklahoma represents something of an extreme.
I mean, 66% for Bush in '04 - that says it all, really. Even for "flyover country", that was an extreme result, pitting Oklahoma to the right of
Alabama - only surpassed in its ueberconservatism by Nebraska, Idaho and Wyoming. The fourth most rightwing state in the Union, Oklahoma was.
In much of flyover country, however, from Virginia (Bush: 54%) to Tennessee (Bush: 57%), Missouri (Bush: 53%) and Arizona (Bush: 55%), common opinion is not anywhere as far to the right as it is in Oklahoma. So although you probably speak as much for your fellow state residents as anyone, representative of "fly over country USA", as Dys put it, you are not.
Well, you have your opinion, but as your dissertation points out, Oklahoma will vote for the man, not necessarily party, and Oklahoma recognized what a dud Kerry was. But they voted in a Democrat governor, so if a likeable and honest Democrat came along, they would very possibly vote for him or her. Clinton probably never.
When I say fly-over country, I am not only meaning red states, but rural counties all over the country, the people that live outside the major cities for the most part. I talked to a man the other day that runs cattle over a large spread, and has done that since his grandparents homesteaded the land over a hundred years ago. He joked about Al Gore, and his family's life of living close to the land, experiencing floods, droughts, and all the rest, he sees through the hypocrisy and the phoniness of the arrogant politicians like Al Gore. These are the types of people that I am talking about in fly over country.
