Nothing shows a lack of historical understanding more than people who bemoan that the bipartisan era of American politics is over.
No. To the contrary, we are living in the Golden Age of Bipartisanship: who knows that? This insight kind of came to me while talking to Tom in the comments section. People wonder why the two parties can't just get along and split the difference. I think the problem is that neither has a clear and decisive advantage or has been able to achieve one since the rise of Nixon.
Many note how recalcitrant and obstructionist the GOP has become in recent years. They remember a time when the party was more willing to work with Democrats. What isn't appreciated is that the real virtue of Eisenhower Republicanism was a Republican party that had made peace with its second class status.
To be sure, another part of this was that liberals weren't solely in the Democratic party then and all conservatives in the Republican party.
With the rise of Newt Gingrich in the late 70s the GOP was determined to take back the Congress after decades of Democratic dominance.
Most of American history has not been bipartisan. Prior to the victory of Nixon in 1968 and the end of the era of New Deal liberal Democratic dominance the US had basically only 3 distinct electoral eras-though you can as Kevin Phillips did divide them up into more subgroups.
http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Republican-Majority-American-Politics-ebook/dp/B00M5JXUHO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439003899&sr=1-1&keywords=kevin+phillips+the+emerging+republican+majority
'
There was the dominance of the Democrats in the 1800-1860. The northern liberal Dems made a Faustian bargain for the good of the party to accept the old Dixie Southern Democratic South with it's slave economy.
It's hard to believe now but the GOP was on the side of angels in 1860. It was a Northern party that was for abolition and the rise of the industrial power of the North; so yes, they.vee basically moved 180 degrees from being a Northern regional party to a Southern regional party.
You can look at each period of political dominance as starting with the Original Sin of the out party. For the sin of the Democrats in backing the Dixie slaveholding South, it was in the wilderness for the next 72 years. During that period, the Democratic party owned the White House just 16 years. In 42 out of 72 years the GOP had both the Presidency and both Houses of Congress.
Finally in 1932 with the failures of Herbert Hoover and the rise of the Depression, the Dems had served their time. Now the GOP was the guilty party. Their laissez-faire policies gave us the GD.
The Dems with the rise of the New Deal rang things for the next 36 years-28 of those years they owned the WH and both Houses of Congress.
With Nixon in 1968 the GOP came back. They didn't quite return to dominance as Kevin Phillips had prophesied but they did at least come to parity. And since then that's what we've had-total parity.
Neither party has achieved clear ascendancy. In the 70s and 80s the GOP humiliated the Dems in the presidential election again and again. However, during this same period the Dems never released their lock on Congress. In 1994 Gingrich's rebellion finally led the GOP back to running Congress. However, by then the Dems figured out how to take back the WH.
They've pretty much dominated presidential politics since with the GOP more and more dominating in Congress and at the state level.
What we need here is for one party or the other to take decisive advantage to achieve anything. Note though that while the GOP has come back to parity it still hasn't accepted its guilt for the Depression. It continues to fight the New Deal 80 years later. Note that Jeb wants to do away with Medicare.
Bipartisanship is the problem. What we need is one party rule. Bipartisanship is just a nice way of saying gridlock.
P.S. Again, I've mentioned this more than once but if you want to understand my political philosophy such as it is I recommend you read Gary Wills, 'Confessions of a Cosnervative'
That book which he wrote at the end of the 70s just before the rise of Reaganism describes my philosophy about politics as well as anything.
I'm basically a small c conservative myself. He made a point that bears repeating. The most educated and knowledgeable voters tend to be the most blatant and frankest partisans.
The mushy middle as it were-the vaunted undecideds tend to be low information voters.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conservative-Garry-Wills/dp/0385089775/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439001148&sr=1-1&keywords=garry+wills+confessions+of+a+conservative - See more at: http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/paul-waldman-vs-paul-krugman-on.html#comment-form
No. To the contrary, we are living in the Golden Age of Bipartisanship: who knows that? This insight kind of came to me while talking to Tom in the comments section. People wonder why the two parties can't just get along and split the difference. I think the problem is that neither has a clear and decisive advantage or has been able to achieve one since the rise of Nixon.
Many note how recalcitrant and obstructionist the GOP has become in recent years. They remember a time when the party was more willing to work with Democrats. What isn't appreciated is that the real virtue of Eisenhower Republicanism was a Republican party that had made peace with its second class status.
To be sure, another part of this was that liberals weren't solely in the Democratic party then and all conservatives in the Republican party.
With the rise of Newt Gingrich in the late 70s the GOP was determined to take back the Congress after decades of Democratic dominance.
Most of American history has not been bipartisan. Prior to the victory of Nixon in 1968 and the end of the era of New Deal liberal Democratic dominance the US had basically only 3 distinct electoral eras-though you can as Kevin Phillips did divide them up into more subgroups.
http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Republican-Majority-American-Politics-ebook/dp/B00M5JXUHO/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439003899&sr=1-1&keywords=kevin+phillips+the+emerging+republican+majority
'
There was the dominance of the Democrats in the 1800-1860. The northern liberal Dems made a Faustian bargain for the good of the party to accept the old Dixie Southern Democratic South with it's slave economy.
It's hard to believe now but the GOP was on the side of angels in 1860. It was a Northern party that was for abolition and the rise of the industrial power of the North; so yes, they.vee basically moved 180 degrees from being a Northern regional party to a Southern regional party.
You can look at each period of political dominance as starting with the Original Sin of the out party. For the sin of the Democrats in backing the Dixie slaveholding South, it was in the wilderness for the next 72 years. During that period, the Democratic party owned the White House just 16 years. In 42 out of 72 years the GOP had both the Presidency and both Houses of Congress.
Finally in 1932 with the failures of Herbert Hoover and the rise of the Depression, the Dems had served their time. Now the GOP was the guilty party. Their laissez-faire policies gave us the GD.
The Dems with the rise of the New Deal rang things for the next 36 years-28 of those years they owned the WH and both Houses of Congress.
With Nixon in 1968 the GOP came back. They didn't quite return to dominance as Kevin Phillips had prophesied but they did at least come to parity. And since then that's what we've had-total parity.
Neither party has achieved clear ascendancy. In the 70s and 80s the GOP humiliated the Dems in the presidential election again and again. However, during this same period the Dems never released their lock on Congress. In 1994 Gingrich's rebellion finally led the GOP back to running Congress. However, by then the Dems figured out how to take back the WH.
They've pretty much dominated presidential politics since with the GOP more and more dominating in Congress and at the state level.
What we need here is for one party or the other to take decisive advantage to achieve anything. Note though that while the GOP has come back to parity it still hasn't accepted its guilt for the Depression. It continues to fight the New Deal 80 years later. Note that Jeb wants to do away with Medicare.
Bipartisanship is the problem. What we need is one party rule. Bipartisanship is just a nice way of saying gridlock.
P.S. Again, I've mentioned this more than once but if you want to understand my political philosophy such as it is I recommend you read Gary Wills, 'Confessions of a Cosnervative'
That book which he wrote at the end of the 70s just before the rise of Reaganism describes my philosophy about politics as well as anything.
I'm basically a small c conservative myself. He made a point that bears repeating. The most educated and knowledgeable voters tend to be the most blatant and frankest partisans.
The mushy middle as it were-the vaunted undecideds tend to be low information voters.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conservative-Garry-Wills/dp/0385089775/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1439001148&sr=1-1&keywords=garry+wills+confessions+of+a+conservative - See more at: http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/paul-waldman-vs-paul-krugman-on.html#comment-form
No comments:
Post a Comment