| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| According to Bob Woodward, Bill Clinton once called Bill Clinton a Republican... |
Are you sure you appreciated the context of "Eisenhower Republicans" as opposed to "Reagan Republicans," On the Other Hand? |
Yeah, its not that controversial. Eisenhower was a Republican who was pragmatic, suspicious of big gov't, especially a large military, but who was moderate on social issues. He would've been right at home with the Democratic Leadership Council, who are reviled by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Are you sure you appreciated the context of "Eisenhower Republicans" as opposed to "Reagan Republicans," On the Other Hand?
|
Umm yeah, I'm pretty sure I do, even without reading Kuros' post above. "Eisenhower Republicans" would be liberal(by GOP standards) Republicans, "Reagan Republicans" would be conservative Republicans. This does not invalidate my understanding of Clinton's remarks, ie. he was admitting that he was ideologically the same as at least some Republicans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Acknowledged and agreed: B. Clinton was more similar to New-Deal-era Republicans, including D. Eisenhower and R. Nixon, than Reagan-era Republicans, such as R. Reagan and W. Bush.
But when liberals such as M. Moore attack and denounce B. Clinton as "a Republican," I do not think they appreciate the nuanced differences between and among Republicans, as the Republican Party has changed over time, and, in any case, they seem especially eager just to link B. Clinton with Reagan-era Republicans for propagandistic effect.
Last edited by Gopher on Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Acknowledged and agreed: B. Clinton was more similar to New-Deal-era Republicans, including D. Eisenhower and R. Nixon, than Reagan-era Republicans, such as R. Reagan and W. Bush. |
On another message board, I recently witnessed a debate between two hardcore leftists, one of whom insisted that Eisenhower was far more progressive than any Democratic president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
D. Eisenhower and R. Nixon were similar to B. Clinton in many ways. But I would not call D. Eisenhower "more progressive" than FDR or LBJ.
Republicans changed after B. Goldwater lost in 1964; and then again as R. Reagan, the religious right, and places such as Orange County emerged and redefined the Party. Check out Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors: the Origins of the New American Right (2001). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
D. Eisenhower and R. Nixon were similar to B. Clinton in many ways. But I would not call D. Eisenhower "more progressive" than FDR or LBJ.
|
I think this guy's immediate foil was Truman, and the focus was mostly on foreign policy, ie. Truman nuked cities and fought imperialistic wars(Korea), Eisenhower(allegedly) opposed nuking cities, and stopped imperialistic wars(the Suez). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| places such as Orange County emerged and redefined the Party |
Yeah, it's funny how all those California Okies turned out to be pretty much the polar opposite of what Steinbeck imagined they would become. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| I think this guy's immediate foil was Truman, and the focus was mostly on foreign policy, ie. Truman nuked cities and fought imperialistic wars (Korea), Eisenhower (allegedly) opposed nuking cities, and stopped imperialistic wars (the Suez). |
That would be a bad reading of history, then, on nearly every count cited, above. So bad that I would not know where to start in critiquing it. In fact, nuke it and start all over... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This whole Clinton/Eisenhower/Reagan issue only shows how far to the right mainstream politics have gone.
Flame away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found the whole soccer mum approach not professional!
yes you might win votes by saying I am one of you bla bla blar
but people dont want MRS smith running the country! running the PTA meeting yes! the country NO! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bibbitybop
Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So Reesedog, what do you think after having a couple days to get past Palin's photogenic nature? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bangbayed wrote: |
| This whole Clinton/Eisenhower/Reagan issue only shows how far to the right mainstream politics have gone. |
It shows change. No more no less. The Republicans changed between the 1940s and the 2000s. And the Democrats, too, changed, between the 1940s and the 2000s.
Americans' "normal politics" change. It went classically liberal from the late-nineteenth century to the Depression. Then it went statist from the Depression through the Reagan era. Since R. Reagan, it has swung back to the classically liberal. This represents, more or less, American history's larger, post-Civil War pattern. I strongly suspect that we currently find ourselves in the midst of massive change on multiple fronts post-9/11 and especially with respect to today's financial crisis. The govt has begun to activate New-Deal machinery (they have bought into the banking system and reaffirmed and indeed raised the limits on FDIC, for example, which is exactly where FDR began). But we stand inside the thing and cannot see it or identify where it is going, if indeed it is changing on the scale I believe it might be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bangbayed wrote: |
This whole Clinton/Eisenhower/Reagan issue only shows how far to the right mainstream politics have gone.
Flame away. |
No. It shows how insufficient the two terms Left and Right have become in describing America's political discourse and its various ideologies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Correct. Especially where we see W. Bush, on the far right, aggressively proposing and now overseeing massive state-intervention in the banking system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
