Comments on: A pervasive public mood for change. Or not.

By: Donklephant » Blog Archive » The Coalition of the Divided

Donklephant » Blog Archive » The Coalition of the Divided — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 18:17:05 +0000

[...] nor is it between “Experience” vs. “Experience”, nor is it between “Change” vs. “Change“. This election is not really even between McCain vs. Obama considered in a political vacuum. [...]

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:59:07 +0000

mw, that was then and this is now and McCain has sworn to nominate people like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. He has promised that he will continue the Bush tax policies. This is what you were discussing, how McCain in the White House and a Democratic Congress would be the best thing. Your attack on Obama has nothing to do with what I pointed out about how the Republicans of the last 8 years have come up with a strategy that destroys your claims about the virtues of divided government.

By: Avinash_Tyagi

Avinash_Tyagi — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:46:26 +0000

mw, well until two years ago it was the GOP, since they had control of both the congress and the White house, not to mention a strong hand in the supreme court.

BBQ, yes I would say that the culture wars era is ending, now knowing what era we are heading into is a bit more tricky, as that can really only be known in hindsight, however we can get hints if we look at the current economic and poltiical situation, as it is we are moving away from a period where the US was the clearly dominant world power and moving more towards an era where power is more distributed, both militarily and economically, in addition it also seems like the nation is trending more left, politically speaking, the backlash against liberalism caused by the riots of the 60′s and the vietnam war are fading, both due to the fact that those who came of age in that era are now aging, and because we now have the Iraq war, which has resulted in its own backlash against the right.

By: steeve

steeve — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:24:51 +0000

—to all of you—

this is why John McCain cant bring about a change.

John McCain did think for himself for a very long time, and what all of you have said about his record of bipartisanship is true. He was a good man for a very long time, whether i agreed with his views or not i will give him that. But look where it got him.. Every time he ran for president he got shot down by his OWN party. The Republicans dont want a free-thinker they want a puppet (it may not have always been that way but thats how it is now). And as his ambition to be president has become more important to him than his values. He has sold out, and now the Republican party is using his “Maverick” image that expired 2 years ago as a basis for their campaign so that they can stay in control. He wont be running the show and neither will Palin.. He doesnt have the backbone to stand up for himself anymore, and Palin is just a political tool to them.. they have no respect for her.

the McCain with values and principles died 2 years ago. Now hes just an old man who wants to be president so bad that he has sold out on everything he fought for.

By: mw

mw — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 05:07:23 +0000

@avinash
I have no idea what you are saying. Who is the “ruling party”?

@MM
Yeah… but I cannot figure out if there is anything “actionable” – as they say – about this observation. I need to noodle on it some more. Somebody with a PHD must have written about the phenomena somewhere.

@JS
I’ll repeat that McCain has more of a documented track record of reaching across the aisle than Obama in the Senate. Remember the “Gang of 14″? McCain was the ringleader. A big part of the reason why he was reviled and attacked by the ragged right up to the eve of clinching the nomination was because of McCain’s stand in the Senate on the judicial appointments. If McCain sold out to right to get the nomination, please explain to me exactly what happened with Obama on Public Financing and Telecom Immunity. Was he selling out then, or is he selling out now? Which is the real Obama?

By: BBQ

BBQ — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 05:05:22 +0000

Avinash,
I am curious what new era you think we are heading in or is it just that you think the culture wars era, as you referred to it, is ending?

By: Jim S

Jim S — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:06:44 +0000

The problem, mw, is that the Bush administration and the current generation of Republicans have broken your model. They have shown the way for their successors to break government, to bring it to a complete halt whenever they decide it gives them a political advantage so long as they have a Republican president and the Democrats don’t have 60+ votes in the Senate. The leadership does not believe in reaching across the aisle in spite of what John McCain says and they have the ability to keep their people in line. It doesn’t matter what it means to the country so long as they can spin it for political purposes. Since McCain has shown that he has sold whatever integrity he had to the far right of the party I have no reason to believe that he won’t do as he has promised and continue the overwhelming majority of Bush policies given a chance. And the Democrats will not be able to do a thing without that 60+ number.

By: mike mcEachran

mike mcEachran — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:39:10 +0000

mw – that was on my mind the whole time I listened to McCain’s acceptance speech – that maybe only a Republican can make the changes we need. It also makes sense that the first woman on a winning ticket would be Republican – they hate Hillary – and not just because of her policies. But Palin…okay, now we can think about a woman. I hate to admit it, but there is a lot to be said for your theory. I just wish it weren’t true.

By: J. Harden

J. Harden — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:29:09 +0000

one of my poli sci professors

that explains a lot…just so you know Avinash, my poli sci professors were catagorical F*^%ing idiots.

By: Avinash_Tyagi

Avinash_Tyagi — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 03:17:25 +0000

Problem is all of the examples you cite were during the last realignment period, one of my poli sci professors referred to it as the culture wars realignment, which was a direct result of white backlash/vietnam in the 60′s, and has echoed until now, however if we are now entering a new period as I believe we are, will that theory continue to hold true, as we can see from the new deal coalition era, that preceded the culture wars era, there was a benefit to the ruling party controlling a unified government, who knows what will be the result of a new era. I can understand your argument, however I am skeptical as to whether it will continue to hold true.

By: mw

mw — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:50:06 +0000

@avinash
I have a post idea percolating that I think is pertinent to your comment, but it’ll probably be a week or two before I get around to writing it. I’ll throw it out here even though it is half-baked. When you consider issues that the country is roughly split on, it often seems the best chance to get those things passed, is having a President that is considered to be on the opposite side of the issue. That is because with hard fought divisive issues, the primary legislative impact a president can have (besides a veto), is to restrain opposition by his own party.

Some examples:
GWB strong armed the Prescription Benefit Entitlement program. No Dem President could have pushed that through Republican opposition.

Bill Clinton pushed through Welfare Reform. No Rep President could have pushed that through Dem opposition.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore pushed through NAFTA. No Rep President could have pushed that through Dem opposition.

GHB supported a tax increase compromise (that may have cost him re-election) No Dem President could have pushed that through Rep opposition.

Reagan and GHB fostered Perestroika and normalizing relations with the Soviet Union. A Dem President would not have been able to restrain Rep opposition. As it is, GHB and Reagan were accused of being a Chamberlain-esque appeaser.

Carter deregulated the airline, trucking, rail, communications, oil and finance industries. No Rep president would have been able to restrain Dem opposition.

Nixon actually imposed wage/price controls on the whole country! I still can’t get over that one. Plus, despite being a McCarthy-esque red baiter, he signed the peace treaty with Vietnam,opened Red China and negotiated SALT and ABM treaties with the USSR. Under his administration OSHA, the EPA, the Office of Minority Business Enterprises came into existence and the first federal Affirmative Action program was initiated.

Of course it does not always work this way, but it is surpisng how many examples like this there are. I’m not completely sure what to make of all it all, but one could infer that under an Obama administration we are more likely to get more oil drilling, nukes built, and free-trade agreements signed. Under a McCain administration we may be more likely to get Universal Health Care and stronger environmental action on Global Warming pushed through.

By: Avinash_Tyagi

Avinash_Tyagi — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:52:36 +0000

While I agree that Legislative surges can happen without united government, there is little reason to believe that true shifts like the New Deal or the Great society would have happened without a unified government, there was a reason so many of Truman’s plans in the “fair deal” failed or were scaled down, and that was because of congressional opposition, we won’t get the change we need at this point in time under a divided government, McCain and the republicans won’t support the Dem majority in congress, just like Bush and the Republicans haven’t supported the current dem majority, you’ll see little progress on the domestic policies we need to implement.

By: mw

mw — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 22:20:54 +0000

@avinash
Sure. But there are also examples of single party government (four years of Carter, first two years of Clinton administration) that were completely ineffective, and there are many examples of divided government that were highly productive. Mayhew’s finding is that Congressional productivity is uncorrelated to united vs. divided government – that single party government is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce a legislative surge.

If you are correct that we are at a “realignment point”, then whatever is that “realignment point” means – i.e. if it means that there is a broad agreement that change is needed on specific political issues – it is likely they will happen regardless of whether there is united or divided government. Mayhew also speculates about other drivers for “legislative surges”, but you’ll just have to read the book.

If what you mean by “realignment point” is broad acceptance of the same old partisan Democratic liberal laundry list “vision” that Obama was flogging in his acceptance speech – I doubt it.

By: Avinash_Tyagi

Avinash_Tyagi — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:57:09 +0000

Didn’t the dems control both the executive and legislative branches during much of FDR’s time in office? I’m just saying, I believe we are at a realignment pont and to achieve the needed progress we need a presdient with vision and a congress that will allow him to execute that vision

By: Brittanicus

Brittanicus — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:09:27 +0000

When the American taxpayer is feeding, housing and giving free health care, to anybody who slips across the border. When our administration and those before them, allow the export of billions of dollars to Mexico and other third world countries. No wonder our nation is on the edge of a wilting economic precipice?
Even without the war in Iraq, President Bush would have devastated our wavering economy. Mr. Bush nearly forced an illegal immigration AMNESTY on the hurting US taxpayer. But the people screamed loud and clear. NO path to citizenship. No AMNESTY! If we must have GUEST WORKERS for any job’s that American supposedly ‘Won’t Do..? Then they must not expect or receive any path to citizenship.

According to the (1986) Immigration Control act. Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A): they broke Federal law. It states, “..a person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) Then Mayor Newsom, Mayor Villigrossa who must be held accountable for the deaths of 3 Bolgna family members, Jamiel Shaw under the obnoxious ‘Sanctuary City’ laws by illegal gang member filth.

Personally I don’t trust either Obama, McCain, Palin, Biden or any one of our elected politicians. All they want to do is get elected and it will be basically more of the same, as the corporate donors call the shots. Time will quickly tell, if there is any real change in Washington?

The international globalists don’t live in the world regular Americans live in, so issues like illegal alien crime, pollution, energy shortages don’t bother their lifestyles.

That’s why the US Chamber of Commerce will endow on us with a path to citizenship for millions of illegal alien families. AMNESTY!

We will be expected to support them. Forcibly assigned mandates to us to feed, house and give free health care to, that Americans cannot afford themselves. Look around you! Diversity, multiculturalism and finally balkanization will cause OVERPOPULATION. Unless we make English a mandatory language, America will condemn itself to a third world catastrophe.

We are just importing even more poverty, which we will be supporting. If anything we need THE CREAM of engineers, scientists and PhD like other nations. Our Own people need help, instead of underwriting the impoverished around the world. Only the uncensored truth will open your eyes at NUMBERSUSA, CAPSWEB Read Judicial Watch site about importing poverty into America, that taxpayers are forced to support.

Copy, Paste and Distribute Freely.