RELEVANCE

It'll be interesting to see how important reform is to the voters. I'm thinking of lobbying reform, campaign-finance reform, to begin with. Both parties will be likely to present themselves as The Party of Reform. It remains to be seen if:

1) the voters buy it;

2) the voters care.

The other issue, of course, is Iraq...

Two good starts, Boss, thanks.

You don't think what passes for an economy will be on display?

I do. I was thinking fast when I posted.

Re the economy: I find it hard to figure out how people vote when they make a choice based on their best economic interest. I tend to view the GOP as saying: "You, too, can be rich some day." And a lot of folks buy into it...

An excellently succinct expression of the delusional appeal of greed upon which that party has habitually capitalized.

Thanks, chief. Funny how this thread hasn't developed any momentum. Maybe it's not heated enough. Yet...

I have thoughts but at this point in time remain terse in their brevity. I am, indeed, a shallow thinker.
Vote early,
vote often,
vote Kucinich.

Well, i did dangle a little bait . . .


Dys, that sounds so familiar . . . where might i have heard this before?

This is interesting... just saw it.

I've been thinking a lot about the Democrat thing. One point I saw somewhere is that with no clear leader, there is nobody able to enforce a consensus. The Democrats currently in power have a lot of ideological overlap, but they go off on various tangents and have various issues that are more or less important to them.

So, Dean and Reid are leaders of a sort, but there's not really that much they can do.

To overlap with the Obama thread, if I may, I think that a strong personality is more likely to gain voters than any particular constellation of issues.

"In politics, two weeks is forever." We are still a long way out from the election, and a number of events could drastically change what seem to be important half way through 2006. We speculate at our peril.

What do we expect the world to be like as the next Presidential canvass develops?

War on Terror. The split between support for, and condemnation of the current Administration's policies and means of prosecuting the War on Terror will probably still be hotly pursued by Partisans of both Parties. Probably the Democratic campaign will continue to make political capital out of the risk to civil rights resulting from this Administration's war policies. Civil rights are at risk, as they have been during every war the United States has ever been involved in. Thats a big burden for the Republican Party to carry. If between now and the election there is a major attack on U.S. soil, the balance will tip decidedly toward the Republican stance.

The nature of conflict in Southwest Asia, the cradle of radical Islamic terrorism, as the election nears will quite properly be argued by both Parties in their bid for election victory.

Southwest Asia. I suspect that U.S. troops will still be engaged to some extent in Southwest Asia. I believe that the current administration will work very hard to get an Iraqi government in place. Iraqi forces will become more effective, though terrorist violence in the country will continue. I think that we will see some U.S. troop reductions in Iraq as the Iraqi's become better able to function alone. As in times past, the U.S. will continue to provide monetary and logistical support to a country working to achieve stability.

The UN may issue some very harsh resolutions and restrictions against Iran o0ver their nuclear weapons program. I don't think much will come of it, but it could be a card in voter concerns over threats originating in Southwest Asia. I suspect that tensions between India and Pakistan will not change much, but may continue to cool for a bit. Overthrow of the current Pakistani regime is improbable, but would be regarded as a victory by the radical Islamic movement and would also be viewed, I think, as vindication of this Administration's policies. Any further terrorists attacks on U.S. soil, citizens, or property would strengthen voter support for the policies pursued by the Bush Administration. Overt threats toward Israel from Iran and/or the Palestinians, would probably work in favor of the Republican Party..

Continued armed conflict, whatever the trend, probably would be beneficial, in a voting sense, to conservatives and Republicans. Diminution of conflict would vindicate current policies, and further escalation would underscore the importance of staying the course. Of course, we all … conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats … fervently hope that the violence in Iraq will cease and our soldiers can be used elsewhere to national advantage. I doubt that anything in East Asia will be a major campaign issue directly, though as a secondary issue to trade policies, etc. it might get some play.


The National Economy. By far the largest problem is the mounting National Debt, and I seriously doubt that either Party will have any miraculous solutions to reducing it to less alarming proportions. I don't foresee a major recession between now and the election, and unemployment figures won't probably dramatically change in the time period. Neither Party is likely to change the nation's commitment to Free Trade and Open Borders (in an economic sense).

Voters will, as usual, vote their own pocketbook. The Democrats will argue that the wealthy (whoever they are) should pay more and that the poor (whoever they are) should pay less, but be given more benefits. I don't think that plays well with most middle-class Americans (whoever they are, and most think of themselves as middle-class despite other people's definition). Since I believe many more voters are doing all right than who are falling into despair, the status quo will probably prevail on the economic issues.

National Political Mood. Liberal Democrats predominate in the large urban areas, and along the coasts of New England, Michigan, and California. The rest of the country is much more conservative, and resent the intellectual snobbery of their coastal/urbane brothers. Folks in the heartland of America aren't in a boom-cycle (which might make them more "liberal"), but they are getting by and are suspicious of political moves that might worsen local conditions. Most Americans still see the world through religious tinted glasses, and distrust those who are perceived as wanting to change "traditional values". This is a largely conservative electorate, and the Democratic Party still doesn't seem to understand why their highly "moral" stance doesn't get more support from those they typify as "bumpkins", "ignorant dupes of the Republican Party", etc. I expect that the Republican Platform will go after those votes just as strongly as it has in the recent past. On the other hand, there isn't anything to suggest that the Democrats have learned that people like Senators Kennedy and Clinton are not vote getters outside of their strongholds.

Special Interest Issues. I see the abortion issue as of little consequence in the coming election. The extremists on both sides of the issue cancel one another out. Conservatives may get a tiny edge from the Right to Life Movement that is appealing to the religious voters. This isn't really, so far as I'm concerned, a national issue; it should properly be decided by the people of the various States within the framework of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I expect that both Parties will tilt slightly to placate the extremists most numerous in their existing ranks.

Immigration is a much more "national issue". Neither Party has, nor is likely to have, a "solution" that will gain more votes than it will lose. President Bushes "solution" is probably about as good as any, but there isn't enough Republican support to get it into law. Closing off the border to Mexico is a practical impossibility. To further criminalize illegal immigrants would be a bad public policy. I suspect that both Parties will spin the issue to maximize votes, but neither will have a clear-cut policy that will only cost votes.

Campaign Reforms. Everyone will talk about it, but nothing will be done. Both Parties secretly like the way things are … so long as their Party is in power. With few exceptions, only those out of power demand reform. Candidates will promise reform, but only the dim witted will actually expect that anything will be done.

Thanks to everyone so far, and particularly to Asherman for a detailed response.

Soz, i agree about the strong personality--but that won't help without a platform, which the campaigning "stringers" push in the candidates' absence. That personality factor is essential to promoting the program--which means there need be a program in the first place.

Yeah, I agree.

(Here for a minute, want to come back later to consider Asherman's response more thoroughly, looks interesting.)

One thing -- abortion? What do you guys think, from all perspectives? (What Republicans should do, what Democrats should do.)

I really like the initiative I saw someplace (forget where right now) to reduce the NEED for abortions -- that's a good, proactive, non-partisan way to approach the subject, I think.

Though at the end of it, people will have to still answer the legal or illegal question.

I've seen a lot of suggestion that Dems give up the abortion issue as too polarizing/ extreme -- I don't think I agree with that, but I'm not sure.

(Not that Dems should suddenly say abortion should be illegal, but pushing it down a bit in importance. Hmm, the more I write about it, the worse it sounds, especially post-Roberts.)

On Dems, the key question to me is how much they want to appeal to the middle, versus go for who they are and reach for the beef, or firm tofu, as the case may be.

Which brings up the question of who they are.

From my point of view, the average Democrat is a Republican. but people like me are fewer on the ground.

(I am registered Dem, but am a stranger in a strange land.)

Will Rogers stated that he was a member of no organized political party--that he was a Democrat.

The Democrats often have the problem that they are the party of "everybody else." Blacks and other members of minority groups are often Democrats because they feel neglected or marginalized by the Republicans. Because of abortion, to which Soz pointed, many women feel alienated by the Republicans. Members of organized labor certainly have no reason to buddy up with the Republicans. The rhetoric of extremist conservatives--for whom there appears to be a far higher proportion of radio and television demagogues than is the case with other groups--alarms immigrants, among whom, despite the rhetoric, there are many naturalized citizens, and therefore voters. People for whom the environment is the crucial issue of today's society have little reason to support the Republicans.

So the Democratic |Party ends up being a catch-all for all of those who are put off by the ideology of the Republicans, who have in the last thirty years, abandoned their moderate constituency, although many "moderate conservatives" still continue to vote Republican. The Democrats therefore find themselves in the position of trying to be nearly all things to almost all people, just because Democratic state and national legislators have to appeal to such a diversity of constituency to stay in office. This is a problem with which the Democrats have been increasingly burdened since the 1960s.

In the earliest post-slavery days, blacks were Republicans because of Lincoln, and white Southerners became members of the Democratic Party so as not to be marginalized in national politics. But the Democratic Party had made a morganatic marriage. With the rapid change of the Republicans from a small, radical party under Lincoln to the ruling party, and with the post-civil war boom in prosperity, which continued while Europe sank into economic depression in the 1870s and 1880s, the Republicans became increasingly the party of big business interests. Immigrants were the object of white Protestant suspicion, a good example of which is the anit-Catholic, anti-Irish propaganda cartoons of Thomas Nast, who is now only remembered for his political cartoons attacking Tammany Hall. But Tammany Hall was the Democratic Party machine in New York, and the religious bigot and ethnic bigot Nast attacked them because they were largely Irish and Catholic. Irish Catholics tended to migrate to the Democratic Party because they were unwelcome with the Republicans. The unification of Italy in 1860 lead to many economic refugees from the south of that nation, and, as Catholics, they looked to the Democratic Party as the home of Catholic toleration, as did the Poles who fled Europe after numerous failed uprisings. Eastern European Jews from Poland, Russia and the Ukraine gravitated to the political machines such as Tammany Hall beause the Democrats had learned that at least a veneer of religious tolerance could get votes, which is the bottom line regardless of ideology.

All the while, the "Lily Whites"--racist Southern Protestants who were anti-Catholic and anti-Jew, and therefore usually anti-immigrant--were a mainstay of the Democratic Party, which needed the votes of the South to continue to have leverage in national politics. With the identification of the Republicans with capitalists, the newly born organized labor movement sought a home with the Democrats, as well. The earliest labor organizers were in the coal fields, where many of the miners were Irish, or Poles and other eastern Europeans--once again, ethnic and religious prejudice drove them into the arms of the Democrats. Later labor organizers followed suit, as the Repulicans were increasingly identified with the strike-breakers and the scab labor.

By the late 1880s, the "radical" wing of the Republican Party was almost dead. There had been a reform movement in the party late in the 1870s, and future luminaries such as Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. and Henry Cabot Lodge were members of that band of "Republican radicals." But in 1884, the Republicans nominated James G. Blaine of Maine, who was seen as corrupt by radical Republicans (most likely, because he was just as corrupt as any other machine politician of the day, Republican or Democrat--he was, however, a loud-mouth, and was indiscrete, making it more difficult to hide his dirty linen). Roosevelt, who had begun his political career in the New York Assembly as a radical attack politician, attacking the Democratic machine and corrupt Republicans, refused to support Blaine, as did Henry Cabot Lodge. He and Lodge were unfarily branded "mugwumps," and i say unfairly because they simply withdrew from campaigning rather than support someone whom they considered to be corrupt. The term mugwumps was applied to Republicans who actively worked to defeat Blaine, it being said that "they had their mugs on one side of the fence, and their 'wumps' on the other." Blaine was defeated in a very close race by the reform candidate of the Democratic Party, Grover Cleveland, who had cleaned up Buffalo, New York, and against whom nobody was ever able to prove an allegation of corruption--and that was quite an accomplishment in that day.

Roosevelt was hungry for political preferment, and took a position on the Civil Service Commission from the Democrat Cleveland. He was an enthusiastic and energetic reformer, and made a lot of enemies in Washington for his efforts to clean up the civil service. Roosevelt had to be the most hated-by-Republican-leaders Republican who ever succeeded in politics. Another close election came in 1888, when Cleveland won the popular vote, but was defeated in the Electoral College by Benjamin Harrions (the only grandson of a President to be elected to the office). Cleveland came back in 1892, though, and politics had become very bitter.

The Republicans had dominated national government from Lincoln to the defeat of Blaine in 1884 (including a very bitterly contested election in 1876 when Hayes befeated the conservative Democratic reformer Sam Tilden), and the close elections in which Cleveland, Harrison and then Cleveland again were elected considerably embittered the political scene. Republicans were offended, especially as propaganda against as religious and ethnic bigots was successfully used among immigrants, despite the reliance of the Democrats on the racist and religiously bigoted Southerners known as Lily Whites.

The Democrats had found a winning combination, appealing to immigrants, blacks who felt abandoned by the Republicans, organized labor, small farmers and Southern racists--quite a schizophrenic situation to be in, but they managed it for about eighty years. (At about this time, Carrie Catt, the successor to Susan Anthony in the women's suffrage movement, appealed for the vote on the contention that only white women would vote and that this could be used to defeat the Democratic "n*ggers and dagoes." The point being, nearly everyone's heroes are subject to being revealed for having feet of clay.) The issue of "free silver" enabled William Jennings Bryan to weld the small holder and small craftsman to the Democrats--and even the "radical" reformer Theodore Roosevelt was so appalled by the prospect that he actively campaigned against Bryan, much mor than actually campaiging for the Republicans.

Acq's point about the appeal to greed is well-taken, and the Republicans, whose political machinery was just as corrupt as the Democrats, continued to appeal to small holders and small craftsmen who had ambitions to rise, but they (the Republicans) consistently alienated the same groups by the legislative programs they pushed--especially the gold standard and "free trade" (the latter of which is a fairy tale). The Republicans were losing their grip, but were still powerful. William McKinley was genuinely honest and decent man, who genuninely did not want to go to war with Spain, and his campaign manager, Mark Hanna, a millionaire industrialist who decided to go into politics because he wanted to be a Senator. Hanna was just as rotten as McKinley was pure, and he was one of America's first brilliant campaign managers. In those days, Senators were still usually appointed--the constitution had not been amended yet to provide for their election. If McKinely got in the White House, Hanna got into the Senate, which is exactly what happened.

McKinely appointed Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, to the despair of Republican Party leaders. Roosevelt was distrusted and seen as a dangerous radical who was not loyal to the party. He had taken the office on the promise that he could resign and get a commission in the army if war with Spain came about, and he worked like the very devil to get the Navy ready to take down the evil Spaniard in that event. After the war, in which Roosevelt became a hero (justifiably, whatever else may be alleged, he was intelligent, active, resourceful and fearless), and was elected Governor of New York. Thomas Platt, the boss of the Republican Party machine in New York, was tearing his hair out. He had been elected to the Senate in one of the few states which then elected Senators, but it was a shoo-in, as the Republicans had locked up most of the state outside New York City by capitalizing on resentment of the corrupt, Irish Catholic political machine there.

In 1900, Platt was determined to get Roosevelt out of the Governor's manions in Albany, so he managed to do an end-run around Mark Hanna, no mean feat, and got Roosevelt kicked upstairs to the Vice Presidential slot. When McKinley was shot, and then died a few days later, Roosevelt embarked on his career as the most popular American President apart from George Washington. He was handily re-elected in 1904 by the largest proportional plurality in any contested election, and brought his radical Republican friend, William Howard Taft back from the Philippines (where Taft had been the Governor) to groom him as successor. Roosevelt later decided Taft had betrayed him, though, and although Taft had easily won the election in 1908 (although it was much closer than Roosevelt in 1904), Roosevelt opposed him in 1912, with his Progressive or Bullmoose Party. Roosevelt was shot, and although he lived, his campaign ground to halt. Not before, however, Wilson drubbed Taft, burying him in an electoral landslide.

The Democratic Party was on the rise, and would over the next fifty years seize control of the Congress, relinquishing it only temporarily after the Second World War. The old schizophrenic alliances were preserved, incredibly--blacks almost ceased to vote, because, although they had loved Roosevelt (who didn't really think much of them, but courted them), their allegiance to the Republicans was dead, but they couldn't stomach the Lily Whites of the Democratic Party. There were no real women's issues in those days (Margaret Sanger was considered to a dangerous radical and a heretic, literally--even Roosevelt branded her a "race traitor"), and demographics suggest that women, when the finally got the vote, tended to vote much as their husbands or fathers did, seemingly imbibing the political opinions around the dinner table. Wilson was no exception to the Democratic schizophrenia, campaigning equally well in the industrial North and the rural South. But he was true to his class--he issued an executive order to segregate black women in government offices in Washington to that white women would not be obliged to sit next to black women in their offices.

The blacks were firmly won back to the Republicans by Franklin Roosevelt (thanks largely to Eleanor) and by Harry Truman--the latter desegregated the armed forces by executive order. Eisenhower and the Republican Congress were an anomaly which did not last, and by the time Nixon ran, it appeared that Replicans could win the White House thanks to the electoral college, but it was considered common wisdom that they would never win the Congress again.

The so-called "Reagan Democrats" were not really a Reagan phenomenon. The pundits and demographers failed to notice that Nixon's "Silent Majority" included a great many Southern Democrats who were disillusioned by the failure of Dixiecrat candidates, and were betting on the Republicans, because they had been so alienated by the Democrats during the civil rights era--they hated Bobby Kennedy with a passion. Blacks were by then firmly in the Democratic camp. The old schizophrenia of the Southern racist Democrats was ending, but no one noticed at the time. Carter defeated Ford largely because of the unfortunate image of the latter. Nelson Rockefeller was the leader of the moderate Republicans, and he p*ssed everybody off--moderate Republicans were becoming an endangered species, and Nelson simply accelerated the process.

Which, more or less, brings us up to the present. History lesson over . . .

Snap ! ! !
Back to reality
Hey Look ! ! !
It's just me rappin' . . .

*************************************

The Democrats were so buried by the so-called "Silent Majority" tactic which was so successful for Nixon, that in 1976 they actually held a telethon to raise money for the Party. But the two parties have a death-grip on politics from the local to the national level, and they can never be counted out. They continued strong in Congress for many years, just as the Republicans worked tirelessly to recapture the Congress, finally succeeding in Clinton's first term at the mid-term elections.

So it becomes difficult to say just who the Democrats are. They have become the party of refuge for those who are not so much Democrats as they are people eager to assert that they are not Republicans. It is for this reason that i find this topic important.

The Democrats have been in a long slump, and won't get out unless they can successfully define themselves in terms attractive to the electorate. The Republicans have never really shook the image of the party of capitalism and privilege which they acquired in the late 19th century, but they have had remarkable success in appealing to "the little guy." Obviously, though, they now have some serious baggage to deal with.

We've got war, we've got the economy, we've got immigration. All of these are longstanding issues which echo down the halls of our history. The issue of abortion to which Soz has pointed is about the only modern issue at stake. So, i say, the devil will be in the details.

A very good brief of American political history since Reconstruction, but with a decided Democratic twist. That's alright, if I had written the same brief it would probably have had a Republican twist. I was struck by how much that I consider important to that brief was necessarily left out. It is just impossible to truly understand complex trends without having a much deeper acquaintence with the series of events that underlay major trends. So we end up writing what are regarded (wrongly) as long briefs only to end up with a cartoon. Things would be much easier, if more folks would read deeper into our history, and spend less time spouting emotionally driven nonsense. It often seems that popular conceptions about our history and Presidents are far more wrong than correct.

I'm just completing a biography of James Buchanan by Philip Klein. Buchanan is frequently listed as one of the worst Presidents, yet he has remained obscure. Prof. Klein is the leading Buchanan scholar, and his understanding of Buchanan sheds new light on a man whose good reputation and public service have been discounted for almost 150 years. Like many who read American political history, we tend to focus on those famous few with large followings of idolterous partisans. Thoughtful reading of careful, balanced history/biographies of Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR is likely to give the lie to their legends. Only Washington appears greater for close inspection. On the other hand, I've yet to find any President, no matter how bad their popular reputation, whose administration did not have redeeming features. Corruption before government posts were filled and protected by Civil Service was a feature of every administration in our history, yet we overlook the practices for popular heros and tar those we dislike for the same behavior.

Well, there I go again spouting off. I hope that folks read Set's brief above, but then go on to read for themselves about the political history that happened in our great-great-great grandparents time. I would avoid most political writings produced within the lifetime, or generation, of the events and personages depicted. Popular and partisan feeling are too close and are not usually objective enough for even moderatly good history.

There was a "twist" toward the Democratic Party, because i was examining how they got to this point in their history . . . I wrote:



In noting that the support for the Republican Party has been increasingly conditioned by a perception that they are the party of capitalists and the privileged, i was making an observation on perceptions, and not necessarily reality.

My object was to attempt to trace the forces which have impinged on the Democratic Party since what had been a complete disaster for them, the American Civil War.

I do hope your posting above was meant to clarify for others, for I personally "got it". It is almost impossible for us, no matter how hard we try, to be completely objective and without biasis on subjects where we have formed an opinion. It shows in your writing and in mine. We don't generally dispute the facts, though I'm known to mispeak on occasion. We just come to different conclusions from material that is always open to misinterpretation. As historians I believe we both understand that and can still respect the other person's scholarship and good intent.

Certainly Boss, and the point was to underline that my object was to look at the Democratic Party. From 1860 to 1912, you have a Democratic President exactly twice--the two separated terms of Grover Cleveland. In the second week of November, 1864, members of the Democratic Party would have been excused for thinking their party was going down the tubes. From then until the election of Grover Cleveland, they virtually had to rebuild their party from the ground up. I was trying to point out the task they faced, and how they tackled it, and i tried to make a point of showing the bizarre character of the coalition which they formed.

Even with the election of Cleveland, and the first abortive efforts of Roosevelt and a very few others to reform the Civil Service (and Roosevelt was a life-long, die-hard Republican), the Republicans dominated not only national politics, but the entire complexion of the government in all of its ramifications. The spoils system aside, the Democrats simply had little opportunity to get their foot in the door.

Wilson's election was a watershed. Roosevelt's attack on Taft (i can think of no better term) didn't simply split the Republican vote as has been the case in some other elections (notably what happened when Stephen Douglas and John Breckenridge both ran as Democrats in 1860), it created ill-will in the electorate. Many Republican voters stayed home--many others voted for Wilson. Wilson won the popular vote and the electoral college. It was a long, slow process of mid-term elections and successful Democratic candidates which lead to the return to power of the Democrats. From Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln, the Democrats dominated the national government as the Republicans would do in the period from Lincoln to Wilson. These are facts, if the degree of the importance of them is subject to dispute.

And yes, i always assume that you understand that. By the way, i appreciated your remark that Washington is about the only one who looks better on close inspection.

From the election of 1850 to the election of FDR, the Democrats only captured the Executive Mansion twice (Cleveland and Wilson). Both Democratic victories resulted of a badly split Republican Party. Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860 was only possible by the deep divisions between sectional Democrats. Prior to 1860 the Republican Party was extremely radical, even revolutionary, in its dedication to high tariffs, free soil and abolition. It was very sectional and had little popular support, and if the Democrats had been able to unite behind a single candidate the Republicans would have lost badly in that important election year.

Almost from its inception, the Democratic Party has been subject to internal discord and contention from the special and sectional interests of its members. With the collapse of the Federalist Party during and just after the War of 1812, no single unified Party existed to contest the Democrats. . The Democratic Party had been struggling for party unity since the time of Andrew Jackson. When the Democrats could muster its full strength, they won elections almost as a routine matter, but they were constantly at war with themselves. That tradition has continues to this day, though roughly half of the Presidential elections since FDR have been won by Democrats (FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter and Clinton).

I expect that the Republican Party in the upcoming election will be more unified than the Democrats. Generally in modern times the Democrats have done best when the outstanding issues were domestic, while the Republican Party seems strongest on foreign policy issues. Looks bad for the Democrats to me, but maybe not.