The comparison between the parties and their candidates would be laughable if it wasn’t deadly. For healthy minds there is no contest. You simply vote for the people who have a history of success, integrity and the good of the people in their hearts. The others are just swill that get hosed down the sewer
This quote from HCR’s letter, is a fundamental reality within our system: “ Democracy depends on at least two healthy political parties that can compete for voters on a level playing field.” IMO, we have had only one functioning party for years. The only realistic way to return to a sense of normal political stability is if the party off the rails can be defeated so definitively that it can be reformulated and made functional once again.
There has been solid Republican leadership but currently it is all in the rear view mirror.
Interesting critique on extremism in politics, which compares to the history of the French Revolution and the Stalin Terrors, the extremes continue in time until moderates revolt. Either the Moderates defuse and expel the Extremes or, as in Hitler's Germany and maybe Israel, the Extremes marginalize the Moderates with extreme prejudice and it is up to time and external forces to destroy the Extremes. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic.
I think you are right, Dave. History tells us that this is how it works. It is really time for US moderates to stand up tall and get it together. Failure to do so, puts the nation on a road to disaster.
Yessir. And, the bottom is just about ready to fall out as we continue to be distracted by all the deniers drinking out of that turd-filled punchbowl at mar-ah-lah-go. Time has come to kick the legs out from under that table.
Dave Gibson, it sounds like you are a realist. If you haven't already read or listened to Rachael Maddow's book, Prequel, it is well worth reading. It is fact-based and jaw dropping. I listened to it rather than reading it because Rachael narrates it herself and does a spectacular job.
Before the Mueller Report, and before most of us were aware, Rachael Maddow alerted us to the intention of Putin's Russia to kneecap the USA and influence our elections. I will always respect her for that.
That's partially true Hope, and yes I've applauded her too and still yet. However, more accurately, she was one of the very few "it" people that sounded that warning. Those who were not on "it" or "A" lists were dismissed out of hand.
Thank you, D4N. I'm not quite sure what or whom you are referring to, though. Are you saying the word was out about Russia but not brought to our attention?
You are saying something important. History doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes. We need a healthy two party system if we don't get one in at least the next couple of decades we are toast as a nation. Until a healthy center- right party emerges ( which I hope to God happens soon) I as a 70 year old retired historian have to continue voting center-left. Because there's not a reasonable center-right party.
And that is my prayer. The Republican Party is defeated up and down from coast to coast in all races. It is time for “We the People” have a government which works for all. For me, it is so obvious how inept the Republican Party is. As my one of my HR friends says, “They would all be on a PIP (performance improvement plan)” and out the day before the 30th day.
Isn't it ironic that the right is so very competent at messaging and so very inept at governing? The left must start on Nov. 6 to begin a ruthless PR campaign that highlights the perverts like Mark Robinson, the wackos like Michelle Bachman, and the grifters like Deathstar. Maybe if we lift up our voices we can bring down the fever on the right.
The trouble is that rural white America is so infested with virtually total adherence to Republican dogma that bicameral local, state government is politically impossible. So they also send their most adherent federal representatives to Washington to not challenge or provide some balance to the party line! The only hope we have for at least some future national balance in public policy is that the newly forming “Conservative Party” will emerge 50 days from now as the beginning of a reformation of the destructive ultra-conservative Republicanism?
It is not healthy for the continuation of American “democracy” that there be such a stark difference between all elected national Ds and Rs on virtually all political and governmental issues, do you think? Let’s try to restore at some rational dialogue
Yeah..Elizabeth, "driving while blind" is more like it. But, at least we seem to have become awakened, having had what we can clearly see with our 20/20 hindsight, having had it 'streamed' to us over these past 8 years wasted years of our lives. I guess it will only be really "wasted" if the (R)ss-holes prevail (win??) in November. VOTE. Driving out from under this mess is going to be even harder.
Sadly Liz, that's precisely the fact; "We" failed; I failed. We were "too busy" to pay the attention due. That's also the reason this election may likely be closer than it should be, and the dems still don't know how to message, nor take advice and constructive criticism, and humility is risky as some think. I'd argue otherwise, but hey, who am I. I have no rooms with walls papered over in diplomas.
Let's face it. We bought into it.., little by little by little. I don't think there was any 'plan' as some would put it. Human behavior though, is quite predictable. Kinda like "global warming", huh. And, here we are. Well, I'll be doggoned!
No, MadRussian12A, I disagree; there was a plan, and it went far back as early as Goldwater in '64. After the daisy commercial that was so devastating to the republicans, the republicans believed that the commercial was dirty pool and decided to also play dirty. Frankly, I think the dems back then had a point; they were calling Goldwater out for his willingness to use nuclear weapons. That was simply a crazy idea, and they called him out for it - thus, the daisy ad which ran only a couple of times if not, as reported, just once. This eventually morphed into the Southern Strategy, Nixon's proclamation of the "silent majority", Lee Atwater's embrace to tell nothing but lies (no one will be able to convince me that this wasn't a "strategy"), and all the way up to Mitch McConnel's effort to make Obama a one term president. You are right in believing that we bought into some of it as Nixon was damn good persuading those who believed that there was a "silent majority". In fact, the percentage of the "silent majority" has never really been identified. This, I say, according to several Google searches I've made. If someone can correct me on this, I would be willing to listen. However, one wishes to look at it, republicans in fact, did have a plan. And to our dismay and disbelief of what is happening today, the plan still goes on. As one of my favorite cartoon characters in Doonesbury puts it: "it's bad craziness" (Uncle Duke).
I understand your suspicions but I have always loved the comment "Don't ascribe to conspiracy what can just as easily be ascribed to random events. It's usually the latter."
Jon, I'm not quite sure where the "conspiracy" lies. It is a fact that the Daisy ad against Goldwater in '64 was bitterly resented by the republicans at that time. They believed it was dirty pool and thus, the attack ads were not only born, but republicans also believed that democrats hit below the belt and put themselves on the road, promising, never to be caught with their pants down again https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-daisy-ad-changed-everything-about-political-advertising-180958741/. A plan at that time was not necessarily formulated, but in fact, did evolve into formulation into what I described: the Southern strategy (which was not a final solution, but a beginning for republicans to take control) which later evolved into, not only the "silent majority, but continued with the "moral majority" campaign on Reagan's behalf. Much of this was the brainstorming of one Lee Atwater, whom I suspect deeply, you know of well enough. I suppose there will always be back room planning of sorts by both parties, but the republicans are singularly famous for winning at all costs without shame. Roger Stone is of that belief and venue along with Paul Manafort, both who had much to do with Trump's campaigns and win in 2016. I do like your quote and will keep it in mind as I had never seen it before. However, in this case, republicans have been planning a long time to be the sole caretaker of this nation at the cost of anyone's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Well.. another factor to keep front and center, is 'the fact' that neoliberalism was "not" solely peddled by the R's; There were enablers, and 'the plans' as touched upon by Riad Mahyni ↓ ; 'The Plan' goes back a long way, even pre-Goldwater. Paying our war debts - all of them didn't digest well with the moneyed class - ever. Empires require slaves and cannon fodder; always follow the money, as JL Graham and I are fond of repeating. We all know that, but somehow keep giving away passes. Don't get me wrong, I've no despise for business - I can't, it's too vital for economic health and activity. I also have no despise for all wealthy folks. I don't put people in tiny boxes to define or understand them. I'm actually more of a conservative democrat - always have been. Yet, with the exception of inherited wealth, I firmly believe there is no bigger myth than that of the "self-made" man or women and crony capitalism, as has been exercised these past several decades is at the heart of many of our sorrows. A healthy society, including the construct of governments, trickle up - not down, and their is honest understanding and acceptance of those facts, realizing that we are all 'part of' and deserving, even if we sweep floors or collect refuse.
I mostly agree with you. Unlike you I could easily be described as a "rabid socialist" but I am also a pragmatic student of politics and so while my personal views are pretty far out there, when i am working to move things forward I tend to try to practice the "art of the possible".
Human nature is both predictable and unpredictable, but in the long view, human nature doesn't change. The tides of liberation and subjugation ebb and flow, but collectively we (not always knowingly) are responsible for that.
Yes JL Graham. Precisely what I meant. And I'm really pleased to read the comments here I seem to have (sort of) engendered. Somewhere along the line I'm related to Henry Clay.. the orator and statesman.. (so my relatives tell me). I'm afraid I've missed my calling, if it ever were. But, the education I've obtained here on HCR/LFA's has filled in caverns created from changing public schools around 20 times growing up. It's going to be a rough road driving out from all this rubble. I hope we're up to it. I trust we are.
Reagan started the war on the Middle Class, invented the fictionalized "Welfare Queen," began tax on Social Security payments, turned the mentally and emotionally ill out onto the streets, fired the Air Traffic Controllers and gave a massive tax cut to the wealthy and big corporations, tripling the national debt during his term in office. Reagan demonized the federal government that he headed: "Government is not the solution; government is the problem," [speech at CPAC.] Also, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" The problem is endemic in the system: accumulated capital is never satisfied and strives to pay no taxes while impoverishing the great majority of the people, without whom massive amounts of capital could not be produced. [Abraham Lincoln.]
I agree that Reagan was a major milestone, but is that when it started? What about Milton Friedman's book, Capitalism and Freedom (1961)? The founding principle of capitalism is in Adam Smith's book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). An appropriate name for Freidman's book is "The Theory of Immoral Sentiments."
The irony is that the Democratic party's success is due to applying the founding principle of capitalism while being referred to as "commies" by a party that does not have an elementary school level understanding of the concept.
Friedman laid the groundwork for the fall of the Republic with his foundational work on the "trickle down" myth,
but it was Lewis Powell's memorandum of 1971 that was the seminal battle plan and call to action that destroyed the middle class in the US.
Powell also inspired the founders of Heritage Foundation and ALEC, among other right-wing anti-democratic fifth column actors.
If Nixon had been less the Ted Cruz of Barry Goldwaters, he - rather than Reagan - would be remembered as the one who openly launched and popularized the fascist revolution in this country.
Nixon lied and pulled the country to the right, but he was not bereft of protection for the common good. He was the last Republican president who substantially promoted environmental protection, while Reagan appointed Watt and Gorsuch, and tried to kill the EPA. Would any modern Republican speak of
"These measures will require the oil companies and other energy producers to provide the public with the necessary information on their supplies. They will prevent the injustice of windfall profits for a few as a result of the sacrifices of the millions of Americans."
James, nor do they understand Marxism or socialism, two other words that they like to throw around. No pol here in Oregon can get elected if they identify as socialist. Right now we are being treated to many political ads for the House. I am amazed at the lies put out by DeRemer, the current rep for district five. She is a R and would have you think that she has been bipartisan. Our rep is the D, Salinas. She is running ads, but we haven't seen one from her R opponent. Then there is the mad man, Joe Kent, running as the R in Washington's 3rd. No policies of course. His opponent is the current D Perez, whose ads are much more effective and show a number of Rs supporting her.
My advice to Democrats is to stop identifying as socialists, start identifying as real capitalists, and start referring to Republicans as phony capitalists. Real capitalism is based on Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments, and phony capitalism is based on Milton Friedman's theory of immoral sentiments. Likewise, real Christianity is based on Jesus' theory of moral thought and action, and the crystal clear message from Trump supporters is that they are heading in the opposite direction.
I don't blame Adam Smith any more than I blame Jesus of Nazareth. I blame the people who identify as capitalists and Christians who act like they don't know the first thing about the person they claim to follow. Smith, like Jesus, promoted the idea that our actions toward one another must be moral.
Reagan was a fan of Freedman. As you indicate., Friedman mad essential claimed the business is rightfully sociopathic, and not surprisingly those choose profit over everything extolled his "wisdom". We got hustled.
You're right, they do understand it. But they understand it the way I understood my parents' telling me to stay home and do my homework when I wanted to go out and play with my friends. I understood, I just didn't agree. When the difference between right and wrong is obvious to some, it's not always obvious to everyone.
HCR is nothing short of amazing. Her book, "How the South Won the Civil War," caused me to realize that we're really at war with oligarchs, and always will be. They're the ones who owned the slaves back in the days before the Civil War. What we're dealing with now are their progeny, euphemistically speaking. It's in the DNA. The one thing that one can never have enough of is money. Why, for example, would Musk and Bezos object to their employees receiving living wages? It takes government to "fix" the matter. FDR did it.
Yes Richard he did. My parents worked in the New Deal, my mother Dad’s boss, and close to Harry Hopkins. They were both interested in cooperatives. I grew up with a family who summered on Cape Cod as we did; they owned a well known plantation in VA. The mother of the children…my friends… was a kind gentle deeply spiritual woman. I’ve been shocked to learn that most of the children, highly educated and bright are still Republicans.
It's also why you will often 'hear' two or three schools of partially correct thought on the "real cause" of the in-civil war from the so - called 'southern' perspective.
Richard, thank you for your excellent analysis. As frustrated as I've been during this period, and not understanding why there can possibly be any ambivalence in this election cycle, I've been equally frustrated at the kid glove treatment of Reagan during and after his reign. His acting capabilities enabled him to dismantle social services and close mental hospitals with a big, disarming smile on his face, and few understood his evil intent.
JL, you're right, and perhaps I'm being too kind to Ford, but I do believe that he truly thought that impeaching Nixon would have been too traumatic for the country. I doubt that he could have foreseen what Trump wrought on all of us. Still, he opened the door and we're dealing with the devil - and all of his demons, including his Supreme Court - and that's going to be difficult to fix.
Richard, agreed that we can trace some of our current problems to that clown. And he became for some, a kind of saint. I still remember the cartoon that showed what was happening in his brain. One would think that having one president with dementia would be enough.
Oh Jeri; I'm so sorry to learn this. I 'know' this pain personally and intimately, having cared and overseen the care for my parents, spouse's parents and others.
I have always felt that Nancy Reagan was this nation's first de facto female President. At the end Reagan was non compos mentis. But, he wasn't thrown out onto the streets to sleep in cardboard boxes.
Wilson also had problems at the end of his presidency and his wife also ran things. No, St Ray gun didn't end up on the street, but everyone that his policies undermined did. Every time I see a homeless camp, I think about what he did. People now complain long and loud about this and continue to vote R and do not want any solution to the homeless crisis anywhere near them. Recently a guy walked down the street next to our property shouting obscenities and was obviously in need of mental help. Also my husband, when we were waiting for our lunch at the Saturday Market, saw a woman in the creek nearby, shouting. He called the police and waited until someone came. We often see people who are obviously mentally ill while we are out and we just hope they do not decide to step into traffic.
We it not for his celebrity with the public, the philosophy of Lincoln would be condemned as "anti-American" and "communism" today. Lincoln's
"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves---in their separate, and individual capacities.
In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere."
Terrifying? I'll tell you what is terrifying.
Boiled to it's bones Reagan's message was that democracy is a sham, the "common good" is bad, and that selfishness is good and the ultra-rich are societies natural leaders and benefactors. Been there, done that, and the result is subjugation. The media was somehow charmed by Reagan, but he was never what they called him; "a nice guy". https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/31/ronald-reagan-racist-recordings-nixon
Spot on, J L. Frances Perkins, FDR's Labor Secretary and the architect of the New Deal thought similarly: "The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to provide the means by which all the people under its jurisdiction can access the best possible life." From my vantage point, that means education, health care, housing, employment and more. In the U.S. we now have 806 persons who have amassed wealth equal to that of one-half the U.S. population (163,000,000.) This is a failure of government.
"The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to provide the means by which all the people under its jurisdiction can access the best possible life."
If it's government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, why would we not?
And don't forget the upheaval Reagan caused in Central America under the rubric of fighting Communism. He lighted a dozen little fires, which still smolder today and are mainly responsible for the flood of migrants who cannot survive in a winner-take-all society.
The last of my dear 'old' friends immigrated here from Honduras when Central America was on fire. I worked a lifetime with him as a coworker and dear friend. You can not believe the level of disrespect, personal cost, and inconvenience he suffered in this country during the tfg administrative cluster eff - all because of spanish surname and his native american appearance. On a flight home to see relatives during that time he was stopped, frisked, questioned, and missed his connecting flight from Huston, tx. to New Orleans where his brother lives. Rather than 'make waves' he ate the financial loss of the flight, rented a car for his family and drove to New Orleans. I was so p.o.'d that I couldn't see straight !
Sharon, we are the lucky ones - we grew up, prospered and retired with programs put in place by Democrats (Social Security, Medicare, fair wages and more.) Thank you for the compliment. My mother would be proud that her young boy (now 84) stands up for "the least of these." As I've grown older and hopefully, wiser, I've also come to realize what a travesty we've visited upon the other creatures that share this planet. More and more I have come to appreciate their capacity for caring, empathy and love along with their obvious intelligence.
"No solid gop leadership since Reagan was elected!"
Trump is merely Reagan writ large and writ vulgar. Different style, same Federalist, Heritage, agenda. No more dog whistles. Proud and out loud right wing racist religious extremism in service of unmitigated greed.
The Roberts Court via Leonard Leo is the spawn of Reagan in bed with Ralph Reed. Movement Conservatives in bed with the Religious Right.Project 2025 = Reagan's Southern Strategy come to fruition.
A marriage of convenience I expect. The most extreme right wing person I knew hated unions except for the one he belonged to. "It's only OK when WE do it" could be the GOP creed.
Nixon was dishonest and manipulative, but got outted. The lesson the "GOP" took from that was not "honesty is the best policy", but "If you are going to lie, lie BIGLY, and NEVER admit". School of Goebbles.
Almost all good but it started well before Reagan. In fact the GOP has been doing this for many many years with a few exceptions (Eisenhower particularly)
I think Reagan might have believed a lot of his own claptrap, but I don't think he was much of a "mastermind". More of a narcissistic mouthpiece. Trump is narcissistic too, but seems more of a cynical (and proud) abuser with no scruples whatsoever. Vance at least admits that he is lying (But ostensibly the right kind of lies). Consequences are for the "little people".
I credit Reagan with a lot more sincerity than Reagan, but still see him as a narcissist. Some years back I recall reading an interview with Reagan in which he claimed that some people in Hollywood were communists. Asked how he knew that they were communists, he said that he composed a statement that (IIRC) "any anti-communist would be proud to sign" and some refused to sign it. It takes a lot of hubris to suppose that proved much of anything. And it seemed to me that in the mid 20th Century the criteria for branding anyone a communist was pretty subjective. I met with brilliant Frank Oppenheimer, the brother of Robert, and both were persecuted in a most demagogic way. Reagan may have cared about America, but only in a very narrow, tunnel vision way.
I have read credible claims that Reagan deliberately prolonged the Iran -Hostage situation, which which if true, should have been in itself a total deal breaker. To my mind the Iran-Contra thing was corrupt as hell, and one of the right wing death squads that Reagan passionately supported machine-gunned a friend in an El Salvador open air cafe. I was never sure what he was doing there but he was somehow connected to the AFL-CIO.
Reagan's legacy here has been sew the notion that government is alien to the public's common interests and that big money and big business are the natural leaders of society; a view which seems to me a cornerstone of the transition to nearly half the voting population supporting "alternate facts" and Trump.
Well, he sought to serve HIS United States, not necessarily the one that actually existed. Reagan was a Democrat until the party started to change, when the South led the party and for him change was not an option so he became a Republican. But he was also rich and was mostly interested in benefit ting his rich friends.
We need to remember that the Council for National Policy was created in 1981 to make sure Reagan's campaign promises and policies were implemented. Also he was the first GOP president to be presented with the Heritage Foundation's "Mandate for Leadership." Project 2025 is just another generation of policies to be implemented by the next GOP president. The policy mandates have become more and more radical since Reagan and there are literally no old guard GOP operatives in place to stop the extreme policies from being implemented, especially if the GOP has the Presidency, the Congress, and as we know, the Supreme Court.
Reagan gave the plutocrats enough money and legal impunity to buy the government. It got worse from there. Were there truth in labeling, they would know be known as the "Anti-republican Party".
Reagan was Patient Zero of the infectious disease that is the Republican Party. He made that whole "make government small enough I can drown it in a bathtub" fashionable, which wrecked our culture and led directly to Trump. He also brought trickle-down economics into fashion, which wrecked the middle and working classes, and for which the Nobel committee should revoke Milton Friedman's Prize for Economics.
The plot was in place to put Teagan in power. He didn’t start it, he was just their stooge to get the ball rolling and put key people in place. The Koch brothers and a few others were the planners.
Is Republican leadership in the rear view mirror? I would say it is in exile, which is to say that the Republican party has made it impossible for a leader to be in a position of power. They got rid of "whites only" and replaced it with a "sycophants only" sign.
Both parties suck- the Democrats used frivolous lawsuits to keep RFKJR off the ballot (so undemocratic) and made Harris the nominee without due process, not to mention the censorship that Biden used on Kennedy.
Actually the false equivalencies of Putin allies such as Stein and LaRouche helped Trump win via duopolist vote splitting stooges. And they're still at it.
Couldn't agree more, especially on LaRouche (knowing he was being used). Had some long discussions with a political veteran LaRouche supporter/operative(?) at a protest in D.C. who kept trying to sell us on stuff we saw through in Hawaii. His former hippie looking supporters changed to very conservative dress and tried everything to sell the ideas without saying who was behind them. A lot of gullible people donated without knowing the money was going to LaRouch.
Jill Stein supporters were more like Ralph Nader supporters (to us), rational enough in policy desires but naive in the impact of what splitting votes would do vs trying to get one or both parties to get recognition of their concerns and at least some actual results in a coalition type balance.
We may see the rise of an alternative to the two main parties that counts for something, but would have to be built and accomplish enough to be perceived as viable. Even highly popular Teddy Roosevelt could not will a viable party into existence. My guess is that had Nader demonstrated strength in the primaries, but in the end supported Gore, he would have retained political influence he might have built on. As a spoiler, most of those who were not his outright enemies came to hate his guts.
Voting is not just an announcement of personal preferences. It is a share of power that, in aggregate, has consequences, sometimes profound consequences for a whole society; and often those who already suffer most suffer disproportionately more when poor choices determine the result. Life is full of choices we find less than ideal, and I think that part of wisdom is seeing which unpalatable choice brings one closer to fulfilling one's goals, and which not.
The comparison between the parties and their candidates would be laughable if it wasn’t deadly. For healthy minds there is no contest. You simply vote for the people who have a history of success, integrity and the good of the people in their hearts. The others are just swill that get hosed down the sewer
This quote from HCR’s letter, is a fundamental reality within our system: “ Democracy depends on at least two healthy political parties that can compete for voters on a level playing field.” IMO, we have had only one functioning party for years. The only realistic way to return to a sense of normal political stability is if the party off the rails can be defeated so definitively that it can be reformulated and made functional once again.
There has been solid Republican leadership but currently it is all in the rear view mirror.
Interesting critique on extremism in politics, which compares to the history of the French Revolution and the Stalin Terrors, the extremes continue in time until moderates revolt. Either the Moderates defuse and expel the Extremes or, as in Hitler's Germany and maybe Israel, the Extremes marginalize the Moderates with extreme prejudice and it is up to time and external forces to destroy the Extremes. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic.
I think you are right, Dave. History tells us that this is how it works. It is really time for US moderates to stand up tall and get it together. Failure to do so, puts the nation on a road to disaster.
Yessir. And, the bottom is just about ready to fall out as we continue to be distracted by all the deniers drinking out of that turd-filled punchbowl at mar-ah-lah-go. Time has come to kick the legs out from under that table.
I call that trash dump, ''Mar ah Lardo,'' home of the most rotten, vile, blob of garbage, Donald TUMP.
Lol... One of the late night hosts, it escapes me at this moment whom, called him (it) "the garbage goblin" ! I thought that was hilarious.
Dave Gibson, it sounds like you are a realist. If you haven't already read or listened to Rachael Maddow's book, Prequel, it is well worth reading. It is fact-based and jaw dropping. I listened to it rather than reading it because Rachael narrates it herself and does a spectacular job.
Before the Mueller Report, and before most of us were aware, Rachael Maddow alerted us to the intention of Putin's Russia to kneecap the USA and influence our elections. I will always respect her for that.
That's partially true Hope, and yes I've applauded her too and still yet. However, more accurately, she was one of the very few "it" people that sounded that warning. Those who were not on "it" or "A" lists were dismissed out of hand.
Thank you, D4N. I'm not quite sure what or whom you are referring to, though. Are you saying the word was out about Russia but not brought to our attention?
Very articulate parallel.
You are saying something important. History doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes. We need a healthy two party system if we don't get one in at least the next couple of decades we are toast as a nation. Until a healthy center- right party emerges ( which I hope to God happens soon) I as a 70 year old retired historian have to continue voting center-left. Because there's not a reasonable center-right party.
“Moderates revolt” is the oxymoron of all time.
( -; Well, yes; It needs stating differently Joe.
Or maybe what you referred to here as your pessimism is optimism in disguise.
Sadly your “ pessimistic “ thoughts are not unrealistic
And that is my prayer. The Republican Party is defeated up and down from coast to coast in all races. It is time for “We the People” have a government which works for all. For me, it is so obvious how inept the Republican Party is. As my one of my HR friends says, “They would all be on a PIP (performance improvement plan)” and out the day before the 30th day.
Isn't it ironic that the right is so very competent at messaging and so very inept at governing? The left must start on Nov. 6 to begin a ruthless PR campaign that highlights the perverts like Mark Robinson, the wackos like Michelle Bachman, and the grifters like Deathstar. Maybe if we lift up our voices we can bring down the fever on the right.
The trouble is that rural white America is so infested with virtually total adherence to Republican dogma that bicameral local, state government is politically impossible. So they also send their most adherent federal representatives to Washington to not challenge or provide some balance to the party line! The only hope we have for at least some future national balance in public policy is that the newly forming “Conservative Party” will emerge 50 days from now as the beginning of a reformation of the destructive ultra-conservative Republicanism?
It is not healthy for the continuation of American “democracy” that there be such a stark difference between all elected national Ds and Rs on virtually all political and governmental issues, do you think? Let’s try to restore at some rational dialogue
Here, here! I’m with you on that thought.
Me too but I'd have to add "Good luck with that!" 🙃
That they created the chronic plan to take over state legislation is so evil and creepy!
And that we were asleep at the wheel😞
Yeah..Elizabeth, "driving while blind" is more like it. But, at least we seem to have become awakened, having had what we can clearly see with our 20/20 hindsight, having had it 'streamed' to us over these past 8 years wasted years of our lives. I guess it will only be really "wasted" if the (R)ss-holes prevail (win??) in November. VOTE. Driving out from under this mess is going to be even harder.
Sadly Liz, that's precisely the fact; "We" failed; I failed. We were "too busy" to pay the attention due. That's also the reason this election may likely be closer than it should be, and the dems still don't know how to message, nor take advice and constructive criticism, and humility is risky as some think. I'd argue otherwise, but hey, who am I. I have no rooms with walls papered over in diplomas.
Let's face it. We bought into it.., little by little by little. I don't think there was any 'plan' as some would put it. Human behavior though, is quite predictable. Kinda like "global warming", huh. And, here we are. Well, I'll be doggoned!
No, MadRussian12A, I disagree; there was a plan, and it went far back as early as Goldwater in '64. After the daisy commercial that was so devastating to the republicans, the republicans believed that the commercial was dirty pool and decided to also play dirty. Frankly, I think the dems back then had a point; they were calling Goldwater out for his willingness to use nuclear weapons. That was simply a crazy idea, and they called him out for it - thus, the daisy ad which ran only a couple of times if not, as reported, just once. This eventually morphed into the Southern Strategy, Nixon's proclamation of the "silent majority", Lee Atwater's embrace to tell nothing but lies (no one will be able to convince me that this wasn't a "strategy"), and all the way up to Mitch McConnel's effort to make Obama a one term president. You are right in believing that we bought into some of it as Nixon was damn good persuading those who believed that there was a "silent majority". In fact, the percentage of the "silent majority" has never really been identified. This, I say, according to several Google searches I've made. If someone can correct me on this, I would be willing to listen. However, one wishes to look at it, republicans in fact, did have a plan. And to our dismay and disbelief of what is happening today, the plan still goes on. As one of my favorite cartoon characters in Doonesbury puts it: "it's bad craziness" (Uncle Duke).
I understand your suspicions but I have always loved the comment "Don't ascribe to conspiracy what can just as easily be ascribed to random events. It's usually the latter."
Jon, I'm not quite sure where the "conspiracy" lies. It is a fact that the Daisy ad against Goldwater in '64 was bitterly resented by the republicans at that time. They believed it was dirty pool and thus, the attack ads were not only born, but republicans also believed that democrats hit below the belt and put themselves on the road, promising, never to be caught with their pants down again https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-daisy-ad-changed-everything-about-political-advertising-180958741/. A plan at that time was not necessarily formulated, but in fact, did evolve into formulation into what I described: the Southern strategy (which was not a final solution, but a beginning for republicans to take control) which later evolved into, not only the "silent majority, but continued with the "moral majority" campaign on Reagan's behalf. Much of this was the brainstorming of one Lee Atwater, whom I suspect deeply, you know of well enough. I suppose there will always be back room planning of sorts by both parties, but the republicans are singularly famous for winning at all costs without shame. Roger Stone is of that belief and venue along with Paul Manafort, both who had much to do with Trump's campaigns and win in 2016. I do like your quote and will keep it in mind as I had never seen it before. However, in this case, republicans have been planning a long time to be the sole caretaker of this nation at the cost of anyone's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Well.. another factor to keep front and center, is 'the fact' that neoliberalism was "not" solely peddled by the R's; There were enablers, and 'the plans' as touched upon by Riad Mahyni ↓ ; 'The Plan' goes back a long way, even pre-Goldwater. Paying our war debts - all of them didn't digest well with the moneyed class - ever. Empires require slaves and cannon fodder; always follow the money, as JL Graham and I are fond of repeating. We all know that, but somehow keep giving away passes. Don't get me wrong, I've no despise for business - I can't, it's too vital for economic health and activity. I also have no despise for all wealthy folks. I don't put people in tiny boxes to define or understand them. I'm actually more of a conservative democrat - always have been. Yet, with the exception of inherited wealth, I firmly believe there is no bigger myth than that of the "self-made" man or women and crony capitalism, as has been exercised these past several decades is at the heart of many of our sorrows. A healthy society, including the construct of governments, trickle up - not down, and their is honest understanding and acceptance of those facts, realizing that we are all 'part of' and deserving, even if we sweep floors or collect refuse.
I mostly agree with you. Unlike you I could easily be described as a "rabid socialist" but I am also a pragmatic student of politics and so while my personal views are pretty far out there, when i am working to move things forward I tend to try to practice the "art of the possible".
Human nature is both predictable and unpredictable, but in the long view, human nature doesn't change. The tides of liberation and subjugation ebb and flow, but collectively we (not always knowingly) are responsible for that.
Yes JL Graham. Precisely what I meant. And I'm really pleased to read the comments here I seem to have (sort of) engendered. Somewhere along the line I'm related to Henry Clay.. the orator and statesman.. (so my relatives tell me). I'm afraid I've missed my calling, if it ever were. But, the education I've obtained here on HCR/LFA's has filled in caverns created from changing public schools around 20 times growing up. It's going to be a rough road driving out from all this rubble. I hope we're up to it. I trust we are.
Thats a long game strategy. If anything it reflects the Democrats lack of vision and lack of planning to inspire constant civic interest in democray
And successful. In plain sight, but ignored
So patently corrupt.
No solid gop leadership since Reagan was elected!
Reagan started the war on the Middle Class, invented the fictionalized "Welfare Queen," began tax on Social Security payments, turned the mentally and emotionally ill out onto the streets, fired the Air Traffic Controllers and gave a massive tax cut to the wealthy and big corporations, tripling the national debt during his term in office. Reagan demonized the federal government that he headed: "Government is not the solution; government is the problem," [speech at CPAC.] Also, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" The problem is endemic in the system: accumulated capital is never satisfied and strives to pay no taxes while impoverishing the great majority of the people, without whom massive amounts of capital could not be produced. [Abraham Lincoln.]
I agree that Reagan was a major milestone, but is that when it started? What about Milton Friedman's book, Capitalism and Freedom (1961)? The founding principle of capitalism is in Adam Smith's book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759). An appropriate name for Freidman's book is "The Theory of Immoral Sentiments."
The irony is that the Democratic party's success is due to applying the founding principle of capitalism while being referred to as "commies" by a party that does not have an elementary school level understanding of the concept.
Friedman laid the groundwork for the fall of the Republic with his foundational work on the "trickle down" myth,
but it was Lewis Powell's memorandum of 1971 that was the seminal battle plan and call to action that destroyed the middle class in the US.
Powell also inspired the founders of Heritage Foundation and ALEC, among other right-wing anti-democratic fifth column actors.
If Nixon had been less the Ted Cruz of Barry Goldwaters, he - rather than Reagan - would be remembered as the one who openly launched and popularized the fascist revolution in this country.
Nixon lied and pulled the country to the right, but he was not bereft of protection for the common good. He was the last Republican president who substantially promoted environmental protection, while Reagan appointed Watt and Gorsuch, and tried to kill the EPA. Would any modern Republican speak of
"These measures will require the oil companies and other energy producers to provide the public with the necessary information on their supplies. They will prevent the injustice of windfall profits for a few as a result of the sacrifices of the millions of Americans."
Profit? Injustice? That's "communist" talk.
James, nor do they understand Marxism or socialism, two other words that they like to throw around. No pol here in Oregon can get elected if they identify as socialist. Right now we are being treated to many political ads for the House. I am amazed at the lies put out by DeRemer, the current rep for district five. She is a R and would have you think that she has been bipartisan. Our rep is the D, Salinas. She is running ads, but we haven't seen one from her R opponent. Then there is the mad man, Joe Kent, running as the R in Washington's 3rd. No policies of course. His opponent is the current D Perez, whose ads are much more effective and show a number of Rs supporting her.
My advice to Democrats is to stop identifying as socialists, start identifying as real capitalists, and start referring to Republicans as phony capitalists. Real capitalism is based on Adam Smith's theory of moral sentiments, and phony capitalism is based on Milton Friedman's theory of immoral sentiments. Likewise, real Christianity is based on Jesus' theory of moral thought and action, and the crystal clear message from Trump supporters is that they are heading in the opposite direction.
James Don’t blame Adam Smith. He highlighted the danger of capitalists getting together to screw others.
I don't blame Adam Smith any more than I blame Jesus of Nazareth. I blame the people who identify as capitalists and Christians who act like they don't know the first thing about the person they claim to follow. Smith, like Jesus, promoted the idea that our actions toward one another must be moral.
Reagan was a fan of Freedman. As you indicate., Friedman mad essential claimed the business is rightfully sociopathic, and not surprisingly those choose profit over everything extolled his "wisdom". We got hustled.
There it is JL.... *Hustled
Oh they understand it James, believe me they do. It's just not 'enough.'
You're right, they do understand it. But they understand it the way I understood my parents' telling me to stay home and do my homework when I wanted to go out and play with my friends. I understood, I just didn't agree. When the difference between right and wrong is obvious to some, it's not always obvious to everyone.
There you go Richard. Excellent as always in response to HCR, who’s a national hero.
HCR is nothing short of amazing. Her book, "How the South Won the Civil War," caused me to realize that we're really at war with oligarchs, and always will be. They're the ones who owned the slaves back in the days before the Civil War. What we're dealing with now are their progeny, euphemistically speaking. It's in the DNA. The one thing that one can never have enough of is money. Why, for example, would Musk and Bezos object to their employees receiving living wages? It takes government to "fix" the matter. FDR did it.
"we're really at war with oligarchs"
And have been for centuries.
Yes Richard he did. My parents worked in the New Deal, my mother Dad’s boss, and close to Harry Hopkins. They were both interested in cooperatives. I grew up with a family who summered on Cape Cod as we did; they owned a well known plantation in VA. The mother of the children…my friends… was a kind gentle deeply spiritual woman. I’ve been shocked to learn that most of the children, highly educated and bright are still Republicans.
Yes. You’re most unfortunately correct.
It's also why you will often 'hear' two or three schools of partially correct thought on the "real cause" of the in-civil war from the so - called 'southern' perspective.
Richard, thank you for your excellent analysis. As frustrated as I've been during this period, and not understanding why there can possibly be any ambivalence in this election cycle, I've been equally frustrated at the kid glove treatment of Reagan during and after his reign. His acting capabilities enabled him to dismantle social services and close mental hospitals with a big, disarming smile on his face, and few understood his evil intent.
Watergate was the end of holding Republicans accountable.
JL, you're right, and perhaps I'm being too kind to Ford, but I do believe that he truly thought that impeaching Nixon would have been too traumatic for the country. I doubt that he could have foreseen what Trump wrought on all of us. Still, he opened the door and we're dealing with the devil - and all of his demons, including his Supreme Court - and that's going to be difficult to fix.
Richard, agreed that we can trace some of our current problems to that clown. And he became for some, a kind of saint. I still remember the cartoon that showed what was happening in his brain. One would think that having one president with dementia would be enough.
My husband had dementia and he was still a kind man who thought of others as he died. They were cretins to start with.
What an onerous burden for you both. I am sending best wishes to you.
Oh Jeri; I'm so sorry to learn this. I 'know' this pain personally and intimately, having cared and overseen the care for my parents, spouse's parents and others.
Yes, only made worse by their mental problems.
I have always felt that Nancy Reagan was this nation's first de facto female President. At the end Reagan was non compos mentis. But, he wasn't thrown out onto the streets to sleep in cardboard boxes.
Wilson also had problems at the end of his presidency and his wife also ran things. No, St Ray gun didn't end up on the street, but everyone that his policies undermined did. Every time I see a homeless camp, I think about what he did. People now complain long and loud about this and continue to vote R and do not want any solution to the homeless crisis anywhere near them. Recently a guy walked down the street next to our property shouting obscenities and was obviously in need of mental help. Also my husband, when we were waiting for our lunch at the Saturday Market, saw a woman in the creek nearby, shouting. He called the police and waited until someone came. We often see people who are obviously mentally ill while we are out and we just hope they do not decide to step into traffic.
I think she ruled the fool.
Richard After Woodrow Wilson’s stroke, Edith Wilson clearly was ‘acting president,’ who controlled what was sent to President
Wilson an who saw him.
He could still read a script. When he went off message he got weird.
Too many of us (and the press) are more concerned with a candidate's TV performance than his or her proven governmental skills.
We it not for his celebrity with the public, the philosophy of Lincoln would be condemned as "anti-American" and "communism" today. Lincoln's
"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves---in their separate, and individual capacities.
In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere."
Terrifying? I'll tell you what is terrifying.
Boiled to it's bones Reagan's message was that democracy is a sham, the "common good" is bad, and that selfishness is good and the ultra-rich are societies natural leaders and benefactors. Been there, done that, and the result is subjugation. The media was somehow charmed by Reagan, but he was never what they called him; "a nice guy". https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/31/ronald-reagan-racist-recordings-nixon
Spot on, J L. Frances Perkins, FDR's Labor Secretary and the architect of the New Deal thought similarly: "The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to provide the means by which all the people under its jurisdiction can access the best possible life." From my vantage point, that means education, health care, housing, employment and more. In the U.S. we now have 806 persons who have amassed wealth equal to that of one-half the U.S. population (163,000,000.) This is a failure of government.
"The people are what matter to government, and a government should aim to provide the means by which all the people under its jurisdiction can access the best possible life."
If it's government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, why would we not?
And don't forget the upheaval Reagan caused in Central America under the rubric of fighting Communism. He lighted a dozen little fires, which still smolder today and are mainly responsible for the flood of migrants who cannot survive in a winner-take-all society.
And a broad wake of horrors.
The last of my dear 'old' friends immigrated here from Honduras when Central America was on fire. I worked a lifetime with him as a coworker and dear friend. You can not believe the level of disrespect, personal cost, and inconvenience he suffered in this country during the tfg administrative cluster eff - all because of spanish surname and his native american appearance. On a flight home to see relatives during that time he was stopped, frisked, questioned, and missed his connecting flight from Huston, tx. to New Orleans where his brother lives. Rather than 'make waves' he ate the financial loss of the flight, rented a car for his family and drove to New Orleans. I was so p.o.'d that I couldn't see straight !
Richard, you are so intelligent! I love reading your posts. You are always spot on! Hugs from this old woman!
Sharon, we are the lucky ones - we grew up, prospered and retired with programs put in place by Democrats (Social Security, Medicare, fair wages and more.) Thank you for the compliment. My mother would be proud that her young boy (now 84) stands up for "the least of these." As I've grown older and hopefully, wiser, I've also come to realize what a travesty we've visited upon the other creatures that share this planet. More and more I have come to appreciate their capacity for caring, empathy and love along with their obvious intelligence.
A brain and a heart.
Richard And from this old man!
Correct; Reagan shifted it all to a higher gear.
You're not getting nearly enough likes for this terrific comment. I'd give you 100 likes if I could.
Yep...
"No solid gop leadership since Reagan was elected!"
Trump is merely Reagan writ large and writ vulgar. Different style, same Federalist, Heritage, agenda. No more dog whistles. Proud and out loud right wing racist religious extremism in service of unmitigated greed.
The Roberts Court via Leonard Leo is the spawn of Reagan in bed with Ralph Reed. Movement Conservatives in bed with the Religious Right.Project 2025 = Reagan's Southern Strategy come to fruition.
Isn't it strange that Reagan was the head of the actor's union and Dumpty was a NY democrat before they tasted the Federalist Kool Aid.
A marriage of convenience I expect. The most extreme right wing person I knew hated unions except for the one he belonged to. "It's only OK when WE do it" could be the GOP creed.
Totally agree--this started with Reagan
Nixon was dishonest and manipulative, but got outted. The lesson the "GOP" took from that was not "honesty is the best policy", but "If you are going to lie, lie BIGLY, and NEVER admit". School of Goebbles.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/09/11/donald-trump-bob-woodward-book-fear-deny-accusations-women/1269617002/
Almost all good but it started well before Reagan. In fact the GOP has been doing this for many many years with a few exceptions (Eisenhower particularly)
And strange how many consider that a gift from God.
Sociopathic greed without the veneer. Bereft of "manners".
And Reagan was corrupt!
I think Reagan might have believed a lot of his own claptrap, but I don't think he was much of a "mastermind". More of a narcissistic mouthpiece. Trump is narcissistic too, but seems more of a cynical (and proud) abuser with no scruples whatsoever. Vance at least admits that he is lying (But ostensibly the right kind of lies). Consequences are for the "little people".
JL Reagan, in his own way, sought to serve the United States. In sharp contrast, Trump has always sought to serve himself.
I credit Reagan with a lot more sincerity than Reagan, but still see him as a narcissist. Some years back I recall reading an interview with Reagan in which he claimed that some people in Hollywood were communists. Asked how he knew that they were communists, he said that he composed a statement that (IIRC) "any anti-communist would be proud to sign" and some refused to sign it. It takes a lot of hubris to suppose that proved much of anything. And it seemed to me that in the mid 20th Century the criteria for branding anyone a communist was pretty subjective. I met with brilliant Frank Oppenheimer, the brother of Robert, and both were persecuted in a most demagogic way. Reagan may have cared about America, but only in a very narrow, tunnel vision way.
I have read credible claims that Reagan deliberately prolonged the Iran -Hostage situation, which which if true, should have been in itself a total deal breaker. To my mind the Iran-Contra thing was corrupt as hell, and one of the right wing death squads that Reagan passionately supported machine-gunned a friend in an El Salvador open air cafe. I was never sure what he was doing there but he was somehow connected to the AFL-CIO.
Reagan's legacy here has been sew the notion that government is alien to the public's common interests and that big money and big business are the natural leaders of society; a view which seems to me a cornerstone of the transition to nearly half the voting population supporting "alternate facts" and Trump.
Well, he sought to serve HIS United States, not necessarily the one that actually existed. Reagan was a Democrat until the party started to change, when the South led the party and for him change was not an option so he became a Republican. But he was also rich and was mostly interested in benefit ting his rich friends.
We need to remember that the Council for National Policy was created in 1981 to make sure Reagan's campaign promises and policies were implemented. Also he was the first GOP president to be presented with the Heritage Foundation's "Mandate for Leadership." Project 2025 is just another generation of policies to be implemented by the next GOP president. The policy mandates have become more and more radical since Reagan and there are literally no old guard GOP operatives in place to stop the extreme policies from being implemented, especially if the GOP has the Presidency, the Congress, and as we know, the Supreme Court.
Reagan gave the plutocrats enough money and legal impunity to buy the government. It got worse from there. Were there truth in labeling, they would know be known as the "Anti-republican Party".
You mean Eisenhower.
Reagan was a simpleton dupe.
Reagan was Patient Zero of the infectious disease that is the Republican Party. He made that whole "make government small enough I can drown it in a bathtub" fashionable, which wrecked our culture and led directly to Trump. He also brought trickle-down economics into fashion, which wrecked the middle and working classes, and for which the Nobel committee should revoke Milton Friedman's Prize for Economics.
The plot was in place to put Teagan in power. He didn’t start it, he was just their stooge to get the ball rolling and put key people in place. The Koch brothers and a few others were the planners.
Reagan not Teagan.
Is Republican leadership in the rear view mirror? I would say it is in exile, which is to say that the Republican party has made it impossible for a leader to be in a position of power. They got rid of "whites only" and replaced it with a "sycophants only" sign.
Both parties suck- the Democrats used frivolous lawsuits to keep RFKJR off the ballot (so undemocratic) and made Harris the nominee without due process, not to mention the censorship that Biden used on Kennedy.
Ah John…both sides do it is a losing proposition!
Actually the false equivalencies of Putin allies such as Stein and LaRouche helped Trump win via duopolist vote splitting stooges. And they're still at it.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/12/lyndon-larouche-roger-stone-russia-robert-mueller/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russians-launched-pro-jill-stein-social-media-blitz-help-trump-n951166
Couldn't agree more, especially on LaRouche (knowing he was being used). Had some long discussions with a political veteran LaRouche supporter/operative(?) at a protest in D.C. who kept trying to sell us on stuff we saw through in Hawaii. His former hippie looking supporters changed to very conservative dress and tried everything to sell the ideas without saying who was behind them. A lot of gullible people donated without knowing the money was going to LaRouch.
Jill Stein supporters were more like Ralph Nader supporters (to us), rational enough in policy desires but naive in the impact of what splitting votes would do vs trying to get one or both parties to get recognition of their concerns and at least some actual results in a coalition type balance.
Oh yes, Putin's friend, Jill, not green, Stein. I had to explain to one of my LMTs who had voted for her why he had been conned.
We may see the rise of an alternative to the two main parties that counts for something, but would have to be built and accomplish enough to be perceived as viable. Even highly popular Teddy Roosevelt could not will a viable party into existence. My guess is that had Nader demonstrated strength in the primaries, but in the end supported Gore, he would have retained political influence he might have built on. As a spoiler, most of those who were not his outright enemies came to hate his guts.
Voting is not just an announcement of personal preferences. It is a share of power that, in aggregate, has consequences, sometimes profound consequences for a whole society; and often those who already suffer most suffer disproportionately more when poor choices determine the result. Life is full of choices we find less than ideal, and I think that part of wisdom is seeing which unpalatable choice brings one closer to fulfilling one's goals, and which not.
Apples to Oregon comparisons.
I wonder