The gerbil in charge of my brain on Fridays has decided not to go long on Imagination today, so I am following the thoughts of The Anchoress, adding my own impressions and inviting our readers to do the same. The Anchoress' fine article is here, and basically it addresses how things have changed since 1977. The Anchoress is herself building on a piece at CBS by Dick Meyer, but I see no reason to advertise for a Communist agent if I can avoid it, so that's all I will say here about CBS. Basically both Meyer and The Anchoress are discussing what they call Civic Immaturity, and frankly I chuckle at the notion that this is something new; I've certainly seen this before, but never mind, the topic is worth discussing.
People have been nasty about politics for as long as the word has existed. I remember reading quite a bit about what the media of their day had to say about President Lincoln, about President Truman, about President Adams. It has been quite common, even within their own political party, for accusations of incompetence, malfeasance, even treason, to be leveled against one person by another person or group. It seems to me that to some extent we are fooling ourselves to believe that people have changed to such a degree that anyone may expect to be treated with respect and decorum. What seems to have changed, however, is how the mainstream disrespect manifests itself, and for that, I think I have a different answer than Mr. Meyer or The Anchoress. Simply put, look at what has changed, most significantly, in the United States since 1977; It is no longer unreasonable or impractical to serve the public with a Conservative worldview. The reaction to this sea change has been hostile and bitter, in the extreme, and this can best be seen in the treatment and expectations of the President.
In 1964, life was good for a Democrat and for liberal policy advocates everywhere in America. The Democrats controlled Congress, held the courts in ideological orbit, and Democrats had won 7 of the last 9 Presidential elections (4 by FDR, then Truman, Kennedy and LBJ one apiece, against only Eisenhower's two wins). In addition, Johnson's last victory was a landslide by any measure, and so it appeared that nothing would happen to change that condition, least of all that the hated Richard Nixon would show his face on the national level again. By 1977, a few bumps had occurred, so that Republicans could now claim 4 wins in the last 11 elections, but with Nixon having been forced to resign, control by the Left appeared even more sure than ever. Then it all came tumbling down.
In 1980 President Carter became the first sitting President running for re-election in a general election to lose since Hoover. In 1984 Reagan won an even bigger landslide, slamming home the fact that America could get behind a Conservative leader. When Reagan's Vice-President, George H.W. Bush, won in 1988 in an electorally-impressive fashion, the GOP could claim 5 wins in the last 6 elections, and 7 of the last 10. The Republicans effectively owned the rights to the White House. This was one reason for the emergence of the 'Must Hate Bush' pandemic; the destruction of the Liberal Dominance Myth.
A campaign of smear tactics, media misinformation to attack the President, and a false face for the public allowed Bill Clinton to claim the White House in 1992, in a fashion not unlike the way Nixon took it in 1968. While Clinton was able to win two terms, he never managed a popular majority of the vote, and never established a commanding sense that he was in control of the issues or the policies. Bill Clinton sort of rode the flow and played for the public, like a stand-up comedian hoping not to get booed off the stage. So a great deal depended on the 2000 election, whether another Democrat would get a shot to actually do more than sit in the office, or else whether the public would put the Republicans again in the White House. The election was controversial, but in historical terms the focus was decided by the events of 9/11. Essentially, one either understood the significance of 9/11 and supported President Bush, or else one went into prolonged denial and gradually (some not so gradually) lost sense of reality. Such dementia is evident by the repeated denial that the election counted, demands for impeachment on the grounds of Presidential actions directly authorized by Congress, or fantasy films which misportrayed historical events or fantasized about assassination.
When President Bush was re-elected in 2004 by several million votes, the effect on the political sphere of existence was to amplify and polarize existing fights and bias. The dementia I noted earlier has reached such a detachment from reality, that President Bush is now being blamed for events and effects which he could not possibly control or affect, and he remains the object of intense personal hatred, the fact that he will never run for any public office again having completely missed the comprehension of the haters.
Moving forward, it is difficult to know what sort of results in the 2008 Presidential election would serve to relieve this condition. Democrats are expecting a great deal, as if the wins in the House and Senate in 2006 will guarantee a White House win in 2008. Certainly there is something to the so-called 'political party fatigue', yet it should also be understood that the 2008 election will be held in the context of the Democrats' actions in control of Congress for two years. The public will like, dislike, or be apathetic to the actions of the Democrats' Congress, but if fatigue plays a role, it could well hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans. Also, there is a reason why the GOP has won seven of the last ten Presidential elections, and some of that reason - frankly - is that few of the Democrats' offerings for the race have struck Americans as a good leader. While the Republicans have shown a similar failing at times, at the Executive level only the Democrats can consistently blow their opportunities so often. But in any case, it is difficult to imagine that a Democrat President aligned with a Democrat Congress would care to even make the slightest attempt at respecting his colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And if the Republicans continue to hold the Oval Office, the feuding and bitterness is bound to continue, especially if the GOP begins reclaiming Congressional and Senate seats.
It's ugly, and it's going to stay ugly, is how I see it.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
Commentary
Comments (10)
I have been voting since 19... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Glenn Koons | January 5, 2007 1:37 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I have been voting since 1960. I find any talk about bipartisanship utter nonsence. The American voter, now feminized, pacifistic and welfarized, seems to want no confrontation on any level of life. No sacrifice is worth anything for many American voters. Yet , it was the rise of conservatism, which I have adhered to since I was 15 years old, has been a partisan ideology which has benefited America when instituted. I want partisanship from my Party not wussy appeasement. If America does fall entirely into the pacifistic, socialistic mode, this nation will become a Third World nation and frankly any Democrat elected just prompts this eventuality. Republican voters must, must unite on all their interests and levels. Unless we can present a united conservative agenda on 4-5 major issues, voters will always choose security domet5stically over security and military necessities.
1. Posted by Glenn Koons | January 5, 2007 1:37 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 5, 2007 13:37
2. Posted by Dallas | January 5, 2007 3:01 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
DJ...the election gave me the greatest gift. I have given up talk radio (country music now fills my car and my earphones when I walk)...I quit reading all blogs except for Wizbang because I still want to keep up with your sane wisdom and your intelligent commentary. (by the way I skip everyone else except for Lorie on Wizbang...way too hateful and spiteful...don't need that in my life ever again).
I didn't realize how much I had immersed myself in pure junk on the net. Mark my words...I am not the only one. Likely many "radio talkers" and blog writers may find their hits much less than they used to be. I may be wrong. It certainly is true for me.
Life is happier, lighter, more giving and forgiving and sweeter without the growing vitriolic converse everywhere.
If something truly big happens...I know I will find out.
I am praying for your health and for your complete clean bill! You are so valuable and valued. It was very easy to erase the vast majority of blogs. It was impossible to erase you.
A fan in Texas.
Dallas
2. Posted by Dallas | January 5, 2007 3:01 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 5, 2007 15:01
3. Posted by The Anchoress | January 5, 2007 7:33 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
DJ, a good piece, but I think you are too harsh on Meyer. He may work for CBS, but he has dared to criticize his own on more than one occasion and nothing I have ever read by him indicates he is a "communist." I think he's rather moderate, myself.
3. Posted by The Anchoress | January 5, 2007 7:33 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 5, 2007 19:33
4. Posted by Scrapiron | January 6, 2007 12:25 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Not to worry about the next dhimmi president. Todays dhimmi idiots in congress are trying to destroy the power of the president without relizing that every thing they say and every rule they make in violation of the constitution will come back to bite them on the a** when the roles are reversed.
It's been a fun two months and only gets funnier as each day goes by. Give the dhimmi's enough rope and they match Saddam.
4. Posted by Scrapiron | January 6, 2007 12:25 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 6, 2007 12:25
5. Posted by ba | January 6, 2007 4:18 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Scrapiron, I gather 'dhimmi's' refers to democrats. While I understand what you are saying, let's not call them dhimmi's. But you are correct, for as much as they yell about balance of power, THEY want all the power OVER the PRESIDENT of these United States governed by we the people and NOT them. We elected President Bush. No matter what some say, MAJORITY of voters voted for Pres. Bush. (isn't it funny how if our President wins by 3 percent - the media says he barely got in, but if the democrats win the Senate by 'barely' 2 percent; it's a mandate to change?) In truth, they didn't win the senate, It's 49 Republicans and 49 Democrats in the Senate. But Ms. Pelosi sees only through her
eyeglasses.
Sen. Leiberman is independent, which is probably accurate; he doesn't really want association with the party that first supported him and then again in subjective judgement when he doesn't go along with them completely, attacked him verbally while supporting a known leftist. (how much does it take to know what the democrat party is about)
Mr. Leiberman very well could vote Republican on many matters. (making the tie breaker V.P. Cheney) Ms. Pelosi, does not have a clear democrat ideology for her, she is ignoring half of this nation and that's going to hurt the democrats in 2008 and 2010 if working Americans (independents) start paying more taxes or when college students find the democrats LIED about helping them with their student loan payments, it's going to hurt them, or when the medicaid persons benefits are cut; because dems couldn't decide which subjective truth to go to, cuts for working Americans or cuts to medicaid benefits.
and if the democrats attempt to cut and run from a middle east problem when victory is around the bend; then we can say the dems LIED when they say the support the troops.
You don't 'cut and run' from war just because it's getting HARD (or politically unfavorable)
Our President has guts, democrats are looking to make themselves look good, to half the nation - without clearly understanding what is at stake, for the middle east as a whole and America. Again, the dems will be seen as criticizing without any PLAN to provide. (49-49 Senate, that shall be changing, if even by one - to put Republicans in the Senate chair again)
Not to worry scrapiron
5. Posted by ba | January 6, 2007 4:18 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 6, 2007 16:18
6. Posted by slingshot | January 7, 2007 11:45 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
does america's standing with other countries matter?
6. Posted by slingshot | January 7, 2007 11:45 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 7, 2007 23:45
7. Posted by vidyohs | January 8, 2007 9:39 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Ms. Pelosi may be seeing things through her own rosy glasses, but perception is everything in forming an opinion, so as for the vast majority of the country who get all their information through the leftist mainstream media their perception is going to be from information that never counters any claim or insanity of the democrats. Ms. Pelosi's rosy glasses will become theirs.
Just ask yourself, has any mainstream media outlet uttered the words, "Wait a minute Nancy, getting in by the skin of your teeth is not a clear mandate." No, and they won't.
7. Posted by vidyohs | January 8, 2007 9:39 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 8, 2007 09:39
8. Posted by slingshot | January 8, 2007 8:22 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
the mainstream media is not "leftist." that is simply false. in fact, if mainstream media includes cable news, it vastly more right wing than it is liberal. in addition, why are you guys all worked up about pelosi's mandate or non-mandate? when dubya barely won, he declared a mandate to spend political capital, and you all thought that was fine. just gove me some more tax cuts, already, ok? sheesh.
8. Posted by slingshot | January 8, 2007 8:22 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 8, 2007 20:22
9. Posted by ba | January 9, 2007 12:13 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
>has any mainstream media outlet uttered the words, "Wait a minute Nancy, getting in by the skin of your teeth is not a clear mandate." No, and they won't.
Notice 'slingshot' twisted the idea around? Gotta watch that fellow conservatives. I stated "When our President won by 3 percent, the LIBERAL media proclaimed a close election. When the dems 'win' the Senate by bare 2 percent margins (or less) The MEDIA announces 'the took control'/slingshot
can't hear (read) He then twists things from the focus of the commentary on what the media announces to state what Pres. Bush said with regards his having political capital (not because of his winning the election, but that voters voted in more REPUBLICANS than DEMOCRATS in 2004, to gain a majority of 55 - 44) That's a statement that is true. 55 - 44 is worth speaking about, not 49 - 49 (with one independent win who is for staying put in the Iraq war)
Slingshot just tried to twist the whole subject around. Yes, slingshot - the media is definitely liberal towards the democrat candidates than republican candidates. I can provide you a link with facts - it's quite in-depth...but definitely the media is not objective in its reporting. Very subjective.
9. Posted by ba | January 9, 2007 12:13 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 9, 2007 00:13
10. Posted by ba | January 9, 2007 12:33 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
p.s. slingshot, with regards your question, does America's standing with other countries matter?
I think it is best to look at that statement on the small scale (it's easier to comprehend at times) If you and a friend (ally) were walking down the street, laughing having and enjoyable day, and suddenly you saw a bunch of bullies (say 4 as in a gang) roughing up a two skinny guys wearing glasses and carrying library books (get the picture?) and you said to your friend, come on let's go help those 2 out (so at least
it was an even match) and your "friend" tried to pull you back saying ahhhh come on, it's not worth getting messed up over...it's only a fist fight, let them work it out themselves...or any other cowardly excuse not to be involved--WOULD you act in defense of those who needed help, irregardless of what your friend thought of you, or would you look out only for yourself - and your 'standing' with your friend?
Then too, there are friends who do not share the same spirit on life as we do. We don't act - by first seeing what our friends think of our actions. (again, sorry this sounds like a broken record - but it's the same thing - subjective actions or objective (why are we here) Are we here to gain the most friends or are we here to make a difference. Objectively, who do we honor
FIRST - another mortal person, OR a SPIRIT who is
BIGGER than mere 'us.'
(read over the lyrics of The Impossible Dream -
a song that came from the play Man of LaMancha)
10. Posted by ba | January 9, 2007 12:33 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on January 9, 2007 00:33