Yo.. Rick, your comments are interesting. How about taking a minute to give me your thoughts on this, which I read some time ago. What do you think of it?
During World War II, when the United States led the defense of democracy against fascism, and after it, when the U.S. stood against communism, members of both major political parties ce…
Yo.. Rick, your comments are interesting. How about taking a minute to give me your thoughts on this, which I read some time ago. What do you think of it?
During World War II, when the United States led the defense of democracy against fascism, and after it, when the U.S. stood against communism, members of both major political parties celebrated American liberal democracy. Democratic presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower made it a point to emphasize the importance of the rule of law and people’s right to choose their government, as well as how much more effectively democracies managed their economies and how much fairer those economies were than those in which authoritarians and their cronies pocketed most of a country’s wealth.
Those mid-twentieth-century presidents helped to construct a “liberal consensus” in which Americans rallied behind a democratic government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. That government was so widely popular that political scientists in the 1960s posited that politicians should stop trying to court voters by defending its broadly accepted principles. Instead, they should put together coalitions of interest groups that could win elections.
As traditional Republicans and Democrats moved away from a defense of democracy, the power to define the U.S. government fell to a small faction of “Movement Conservatives” who were determined to undermine the liberal consensus. Big-business Republicans who hated regulations and taxes joined with racist former Democrats and patriarchal white evangelicals who wanted to reinforce traditional race and gender hierarchies to insist that the government had grown far too big and was crushing individual Americans.
This is a mouthful and will take some time and thought. But my initial thoughts are trying to determine your definition of “LIBERAL CONSENSUS” when you said that I thought of two things. The FINEST results of DC govt in my life was Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich as speaker who actually worked together to the middle….to moderate both sides and it worked very well.
But herein lies a conflict for me. John kennedy. One of the best..would be a middle of the road moderate republican today,….(ask not speech) and philosophy. the reason for the issue today is that the democrats have gone too far left to an extreme …and due to that…the right has fought back….and now we have too much hate and dissension.
Yo.. Rick, your comments are interesting. How about taking a minute to give me your thoughts on this, which I read some time ago. What do you think of it?
During World War II, when the United States led the defense of democracy against fascism, and after it, when the U.S. stood against communism, members of both major political parties celebrated American liberal democracy. Democratic presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Republican president Dwight D. Eisenhower made it a point to emphasize the importance of the rule of law and people’s right to choose their government, as well as how much more effectively democracies managed their economies and how much fairer those economies were than those in which authoritarians and their cronies pocketed most of a country’s wealth.
Those mid-twentieth-century presidents helped to construct a “liberal consensus” in which Americans rallied behind a democratic government that regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, promoted infrastructure, and protected civil rights. That government was so widely popular that political scientists in the 1960s posited that politicians should stop trying to court voters by defending its broadly accepted principles. Instead, they should put together coalitions of interest groups that could win elections.
As traditional Republicans and Democrats moved away from a defense of democracy, the power to define the U.S. government fell to a small faction of “Movement Conservatives” who were determined to undermine the liberal consensus. Big-business Republicans who hated regulations and taxes joined with racist former Democrats and patriarchal white evangelicals who wanted to reinforce traditional race and gender hierarchies to insist that the government had grown far too big and was crushing individual Americans.
Thanks for taking the time, Rick.
This is a mouthful and will take some time and thought. But my initial thoughts are trying to determine your definition of “LIBERAL CONSENSUS” when you said that I thought of two things. The FINEST results of DC govt in my life was Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich as speaker who actually worked together to the middle….to moderate both sides and it worked very well.
But herein lies a conflict for me. John kennedy. One of the best..would be a middle of the road moderate republican today,….(ask not speech) and philosophy. the reason for the issue today is that the democrats have gone too far left to an extreme …and due to that…the right has fought back….and now we have too much hate and dissension.