- This topic has 5 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
Cool infografic.[html]
Image source: http://www.topdegreesonline.org[/html]I find it interesting that far more people identified themselves as Democrats in '83 than today, yet a Republican easily won the election in late '83 and a Democrat won in '12. How can this be explained? The infogram shows that many people who considered themselves Democrats in '83 shifted to Independent identification whereas the % of Republicans stayed the same. I think the may indicate a cultural shift to the left over the decades. Whereas many Democrats could still vote for a conservative in Reagan, people who are now Independent still vote for the liberal guy in Obama, even though they don't think of themselves as Democrat. At least, this the most plausible explanation I can think of.There's also the fact that in 1983, the Democratic Party still retained many of the socially-conservative, working-class types who had not yet come to break away from their party on ideological grounds.
Mondale was a horrible candidate and the Democrats of 1983 were not nearly as liberal as they are today.
True about the liberalization of the Democrats. I think the polarization of politics became particularly acute beginning in the 1980s, such as with the Borking of Robert Bork (1987) and later with the treatment of Clarence Thomas (1991).While we're on topic, perhaps the biggest SCOTUS blunder of this era was the selection of David Souter by GHWB. How that happened is mind-boggling to me.
While we're on topic, perhaps the biggest SCOTUS blunder of this era was the selection of David Souter by GHWB. How that happened is mind-boggling to me.
Because the Elder Bush was just as liberal as Bill Clinton. The only reason he was elected is Dukakis was a horrible candidate and he rode Reagan's coat-tails into office. His broken promises kept him from being re-elected most significantly, his breaking of his tax pledge.
But even if he were liberal, how did he pull it over on the rest of us, on Republican members of Congress, etc.? SCOTUS nominees are typically scrutinized pretty highly by the media and public. From what I recall when Souter was nominated, no one knew much about him. It seems like he was given a “pass”. I guess it was a lesson for people not to blindly trust the decisions of their elected officials, even if they have a friendly political affiliation attached to their name.
I don't it was bush that was hiding anything. I think it was Souter who was dissembling. If I remember correctly, he was pretty much an enigma during his confirmation, even more so than was John Roberts. I would put 'ol John Roberts right up there as a disappointing SCOTUS pick too. I would not have thought in 100 years he would have found Obamacare Constitutional but he did.
I recall that as well about Souter, but you'd think that Bush had to know some stuff. Otherwise, he was negligent for pulling a rabbit out of a hat without thinking it through. I can understand where John Roberts was coming from, even if I do not like the outcome. Hypothetically, justices are supposed to decide on the merits of a case without regard to the outcome. It just so happened that the outcome of the Obamacare case was huge.
I could understand Roberts' decision if the individual mandate penalty was called a tax in the law, but it is not, it is specifically referred to as a non-compliance penalty.As to Souter, his appointment is just one more piece of evidence that the Elder Bush was and is a closet liberal.
That makes me realize how old I am. In 1983 I'd graduated from college, gotten married, bought a home, and started a family. My wife–like many of my friend's wives–was a stay at home mom as back then many people thought that to be important.I'd also lived through the Viet Nam war, Watergate, and the Carter presidency. IMO some of our nation's worst times.
I'd also lived through the Viet Nam war, Watergate, and the Carter presidency. IMO some of our nation's worst times.
Until the present. I don't think we have ever had an Admin as dangerous to the rights of the individual as today. I am increasingly convinced that the current administration only cares about the individual to the extent that they can be used to keep them in power.We truly are entering the era of the collective.I am starting to think Donnie is not so far around the bend after all.
