I knew a DuPont heir, one of the cadet branches. He was...interesting. I had never seen a Picasso outside a museum before.
F. Scott Fitzgerald knew of what he spoke.
The nature of the American electoral beast
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46194
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Indeed. And by you, too, Anth. I too have known self-professed liberals who have exhibited distinctly racist tendencies. It just goes to show you that each individual needs to be judged as an individual.Anthriel wrote:Wonderful post, Ax.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
ax's post was right on the money.
You know, as an outsider watching American politics I have admit I am astonished at how things have changed.
I started paying attention to American politics when JFK was running for President, since my Grandpa pointed out an article in (I think) Reader's Digest. The point of the article was if JFK was elected, the Pope would soon be running America. My Grandpa hated "the Catholics" and he absolutely believed the premise of the article.
Now, in just a smidgen over 40 years we have people voting on Gay Marriage! Sure, some people voted "against it", but an awful lot of people didn't, or wouldn't. In 1960? Who knew "gay"? It wasn't even on the radar.
Issues such as gay marriage, or abortion, or stem-cell research touch us very deeply. These are momentous subjects, and I, for one, think they require the kind of public discourse they are getting. Does anyone doubt, truly doubt, that the gay marriage issue will be settled sooner rather than later, with gays being granted the right to marriage and all its benefits all over the US? I don't doubt it for a moment. Not quick enough for some, but really, when you stop to think about it: all of this has happened in less than a human lifetime.
Stem-cell research is not merely a possible route to curing disease, but opens many other cans of worms, some not so "good", leading to what ends? For instance, who decides when, and where, what alterations to the human genetic code are going to be made, and for what purposes? These questions must be aired, discussed, debated, loudly and long.
I'm not surprised that these issues cause such an uproar. Quite frankly, I am somewhat surprised that they are brought up at all!
You know, as an outsider watching American politics I have admit I am astonished at how things have changed.
I started paying attention to American politics when JFK was running for President, since my Grandpa pointed out an article in (I think) Reader's Digest. The point of the article was if JFK was elected, the Pope would soon be running America. My Grandpa hated "the Catholics" and he absolutely believed the premise of the article.
Now, in just a smidgen over 40 years we have people voting on Gay Marriage! Sure, some people voted "against it", but an awful lot of people didn't, or wouldn't. In 1960? Who knew "gay"? It wasn't even on the radar.
Issues such as gay marriage, or abortion, or stem-cell research touch us very deeply. These are momentous subjects, and I, for one, think they require the kind of public discourse they are getting. Does anyone doubt, truly doubt, that the gay marriage issue will be settled sooner rather than later, with gays being granted the right to marriage and all its benefits all over the US? I don't doubt it for a moment. Not quick enough for some, but really, when you stop to think about it: all of this has happened in less than a human lifetime.
Stem-cell research is not merely a possible route to curing disease, but opens many other cans of worms, some not so "good", leading to what ends? For instance, who decides when, and where, what alterations to the human genetic code are going to be made, and for what purposes? These questions must be aired, discussed, debated, loudly and long.
I'm not surprised that these issues cause such an uproar. Quite frankly, I am somewhat surprised that they are brought up at all!
Dig deeper.
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
I’ve been too busy with exams to follow this thread, so I’ll just make some observations of my own.
One of the oddities of American politics is that it is almost perfectly cyclical – it runs in a series of cycles. First, one party/ideology becomes dominant, and holds a natural majority. The other party is forced to moderate to make any headway, and is naturally considered to be ‘the opposition’ and out-of-touch with the electorate. Eventually, though, people get fed up and the two switch (a re-alignment).
Why?
America, more than any other western country, has a perfect two-party system. There’s a handful of reasons for this. One is that the office of President is indivisible. Many democracies have some sort of Parliamentary system. In such a system, a party that fails to gain a majority in the legislature is forced into a coalition to hold power. As such, smaller, weaker parties can make some headway by attaching themselves to a larger party as a natural coalition partner (as with the two big and two smaller parties in Germany). By contrast, in a Presidential system, the winner takes all (this is a disadvantage of such a system, although it has many advantages as well – but that’s for another thread). In the 1912 election, the fact that most people voted for either William Howard Taft or Theodore Roosevelt did not change the fact that the Presidency and every Cabinet position went to Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats. Had the U.S. had a Parliamentary system, then the result of the election would have been a Progressive-Republican coalition Government. By contrast, if Germany, for example, adopted a Presidential system of Government, then it would be likely that the Greens would amalgamate with the SDP and the Liberals with the CDU. There would be no point the Liberals running a candidate against the CDU, as they would simply draw votes away from them and risk handing the election to the SDP (unless preferential voting/IRV is adopted – but it is only used in Australia, Ireland and Malta IIRC).
Also, the size of Federal electoral districts is worth noting. A House seat has some 750,000 people in it – too large to cater to some sort of niche audience. The seats span large areas and cut across demographics. By contrast, the U.K. has over 600 House of Commons seats for 60 million people – less than 1 for 100,000. London as a whole would not vote for the Respect party, but the seat of Bethnal Green would (and did). Naturally, this is a matter of population – 1 Representative for 100,000 people would leave the U.S. House with 3,000 seats. States are in a similar position – the Senate is the most important House, and winning Senate seats usually involves appealing to millions of voters across broad areas – urban, suburban and rural.
The upshot of it all is – voting one party out invariably results in voting the other party in.
The re-aligning elections are usually held to be 1828 (Democratic), 1860 (Republican), 1932 (Democratic) and 1980 (Republican). All are accompanied by –
Firstly, a steady demographic shift – new people who want something different to the existing order. In 1828, it was the expansion southwards. In 1860, it was the expansion westwards. In 1932, it was the growth of the cities. In 1980, it was the rise of the Sun Belt.
Secondly, something going wrong and existing party in power getting the blame. In 1860 and 1932 it was a single crisis – the secession of the southern states and the depression. In 1828 and 1980, it was a slow build up of problems (eg: Carter’s ‘malaise’). There is also a (perceived) ineffective or unpopular President from the majority party – J.Q. Adams, Buchanan, Hoover, Carter.
Thirdly, there is a new, exciting leader for the minority – Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan.
Take the most recent re-alignment (1980). By 1952, the Democrats had held power over the Presidency and almost continuous power over Congress for 20 years. Their power rested on the support of a coalition of three major groups – the Solid South, the working class (old ‘new dealers’), and progressives. Eisenhower, a Republican, was not afraid to describe himself as a Liberal. When, in 1964, Barry Goldwater tried to run as an unashamed conservative, he was flattened. Liberalism was held to be a good thing, and the Democrats the natural party of Government.
What happened?
They took the blame for a series of problems. The riots and violence of 1968, epitomized by the fistfight at the Democratic National Convention. These were seen as being the fault of the Liberal Democrats being too ‘permissive’. The Vietnam War dragged down LBJ, and his Great Society along with it. The war on poverty fared little better. In 1968, the Democrat coalition fell apart – the South walked out of the convention and nominated George Wallace of Alabama as a separate candidate. Progressives united behind RFK until he was assassinated. The old new dealers nominated Hubert Humphrey, who ran and lost to Richard Nixon. He was still a moderate, though (we’re all Keynesians now) – the Liberal orthodoxy still held sway, and the Democrats held Congress.
Abroad, the Soviet Union became stronger throughout the 70s, and the economy tanked. Neither of these were the Liberals or Democrats fault, but they took the blame. The Republicans were still fractured, and Watergate set them back badly.
The turning point came with Ronald Reagan. He formed a new coalition – to the old Republican base in the rural Midwest and parts of New England he added the South and much of the working class (Reagan Democrats). The 1980 election was expected to be close – after all, Reagan’s platform was near-identical to Goldwater’s failed one. He won in a landslide, carrying the Senate and many state Governments with him. Walter Mondale met the same fate in 1984, and when Micheal Dukakis lost to George Bush in 1984 for being too Liberal, it was clear that times had changed. Only with a moderate in Bill Clinton could the Democrats win, and even then not by much. And they couldn’t hold Congress, either. By 1994, many more voters were self-identifying as conservatives – the legacy of the Reagan revolution.
OK, that was a lot to say. I might come back to actually make a point later
One of the oddities of American politics is that it is almost perfectly cyclical – it runs in a series of cycles. First, one party/ideology becomes dominant, and holds a natural majority. The other party is forced to moderate to make any headway, and is naturally considered to be ‘the opposition’ and out-of-touch with the electorate. Eventually, though, people get fed up and the two switch (a re-alignment).
Why?
America, more than any other western country, has a perfect two-party system. There’s a handful of reasons for this. One is that the office of President is indivisible. Many democracies have some sort of Parliamentary system. In such a system, a party that fails to gain a majority in the legislature is forced into a coalition to hold power. As such, smaller, weaker parties can make some headway by attaching themselves to a larger party as a natural coalition partner (as with the two big and two smaller parties in Germany). By contrast, in a Presidential system, the winner takes all (this is a disadvantage of such a system, although it has many advantages as well – but that’s for another thread). In the 1912 election, the fact that most people voted for either William Howard Taft or Theodore Roosevelt did not change the fact that the Presidency and every Cabinet position went to Woodrow Wilson and the Democrats. Had the U.S. had a Parliamentary system, then the result of the election would have been a Progressive-Republican coalition Government. By contrast, if Germany, for example, adopted a Presidential system of Government, then it would be likely that the Greens would amalgamate with the SDP and the Liberals with the CDU. There would be no point the Liberals running a candidate against the CDU, as they would simply draw votes away from them and risk handing the election to the SDP (unless preferential voting/IRV is adopted – but it is only used in Australia, Ireland and Malta IIRC).
Also, the size of Federal electoral districts is worth noting. A House seat has some 750,000 people in it – too large to cater to some sort of niche audience. The seats span large areas and cut across demographics. By contrast, the U.K. has over 600 House of Commons seats for 60 million people – less than 1 for 100,000. London as a whole would not vote for the Respect party, but the seat of Bethnal Green would (and did). Naturally, this is a matter of population – 1 Representative for 100,000 people would leave the U.S. House with 3,000 seats. States are in a similar position – the Senate is the most important House, and winning Senate seats usually involves appealing to millions of voters across broad areas – urban, suburban and rural.
The upshot of it all is – voting one party out invariably results in voting the other party in.
The re-aligning elections are usually held to be 1828 (Democratic), 1860 (Republican), 1932 (Democratic) and 1980 (Republican). All are accompanied by –
Firstly, a steady demographic shift – new people who want something different to the existing order. In 1828, it was the expansion southwards. In 1860, it was the expansion westwards. In 1932, it was the growth of the cities. In 1980, it was the rise of the Sun Belt.
Secondly, something going wrong and existing party in power getting the blame. In 1860 and 1932 it was a single crisis – the secession of the southern states and the depression. In 1828 and 1980, it was a slow build up of problems (eg: Carter’s ‘malaise’). There is also a (perceived) ineffective or unpopular President from the majority party – J.Q. Adams, Buchanan, Hoover, Carter.
Thirdly, there is a new, exciting leader for the minority – Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, Reagan.
Take the most recent re-alignment (1980). By 1952, the Democrats had held power over the Presidency and almost continuous power over Congress for 20 years. Their power rested on the support of a coalition of three major groups – the Solid South, the working class (old ‘new dealers’), and progressives. Eisenhower, a Republican, was not afraid to describe himself as a Liberal. When, in 1964, Barry Goldwater tried to run as an unashamed conservative, he was flattened. Liberalism was held to be a good thing, and the Democrats the natural party of Government.
What happened?
They took the blame for a series of problems. The riots and violence of 1968, epitomized by the fistfight at the Democratic National Convention. These were seen as being the fault of the Liberal Democrats being too ‘permissive’. The Vietnam War dragged down LBJ, and his Great Society along with it. The war on poverty fared little better. In 1968, the Democrat coalition fell apart – the South walked out of the convention and nominated George Wallace of Alabama as a separate candidate. Progressives united behind RFK until he was assassinated. The old new dealers nominated Hubert Humphrey, who ran and lost to Richard Nixon. He was still a moderate, though (we’re all Keynesians now) – the Liberal orthodoxy still held sway, and the Democrats held Congress.
Abroad, the Soviet Union became stronger throughout the 70s, and the economy tanked. Neither of these were the Liberals or Democrats fault, but they took the blame. The Republicans were still fractured, and Watergate set them back badly.
The turning point came with Ronald Reagan. He formed a new coalition – to the old Republican base in the rural Midwest and parts of New England he added the South and much of the working class (Reagan Democrats). The 1980 election was expected to be close – after all, Reagan’s platform was near-identical to Goldwater’s failed one. He won in a landslide, carrying the Senate and many state Governments with him. Walter Mondale met the same fate in 1984, and when Micheal Dukakis lost to George Bush in 1984 for being too Liberal, it was clear that times had changed. Only with a moderate in Bill Clinton could the Democrats win, and even then not by much. And they couldn’t hold Congress, either. By 1994, many more voters were self-identifying as conservatives – the legacy of the Reagan revolution.
OK, that was a lot to say. I might come back to actually make a point later
Great post, Lord M.
There is another factor in US politics that has to be taken into account, I think, and that is ... for want of a better word ... certain delusions held by the American public. We identify JFK with a liberal regime because he put full executive support behind his brother's civil rights agenda. But on foreign policy Kennedy and Reagan are probably closer than any other two presidents in my lifetime. They also both had a strong TV presence and an affable relationship with the Press which unduly influenced voters. And they both had a great love of executive power, in contrast to Eisenhower and Nixon, let's say.
One thing that has to be remembered about the 1964 election is that Johnson ran on a get-out-of-Vietnam ticket, whereas Goldwater was advocating an end to the WWII draft coupled with a decisive commitment to win our objective in Vietnam and then get out of that and all other foreign adventurisms. The Johnson landslide was a combination of a vote for a dead Kennedy (I think) plus a serious message to get out of Vietnam. And yet it seems plain to me in retrospect that our only real chance of getting what the public wanted was to have voted for Goldwater and not Johnson. But neither of them were very appealing on TV, and when that's the case the one who uses the smallest words tends to win. Something similar happened with Nixon v. Kennedy ... in retrospect, Nixon was more liberal than Kennedy, imo. But TV created a different perception of these two men (and had long worked to Nixon's disfavor).
If you move into earlier centuries the photogenic factor has less weight, of course, but candidates like Jackson and Lincoln did derive their popularity from an appearance of populism. They were at ease talking to the common man, and this caused the common man to have an unwarranted level of trust in them. (I think in Lincoln's case it was warranted, but not in Jackson's. We can almost, almost lay the blame for the Great Depression at the feet of Andrew Jackson.)
The photogenic factor, the personality factor, whatever you want to call it ... Americans like their presidents to look good and not talk too smart. Guys like Nixon lose on both counts; guys like Carter lose on one; guys like Reagan who really are moronic TV stars make voters swoon all over.
Offhand, I would say that the US electorate has never really gotten what it thought it was getting when it went to the polls. It is an interesting question what kind of coalition voting gives us some of our goofier results because I'm pretty sure that they are not what the electorate intended.
Jn
There is another factor in US politics that has to be taken into account, I think, and that is ... for want of a better word ... certain delusions held by the American public. We identify JFK with a liberal regime because he put full executive support behind his brother's civil rights agenda. But on foreign policy Kennedy and Reagan are probably closer than any other two presidents in my lifetime. They also both had a strong TV presence and an affable relationship with the Press which unduly influenced voters. And they both had a great love of executive power, in contrast to Eisenhower and Nixon, let's say.
One thing that has to be remembered about the 1964 election is that Johnson ran on a get-out-of-Vietnam ticket, whereas Goldwater was advocating an end to the WWII draft coupled with a decisive commitment to win our objective in Vietnam and then get out of that and all other foreign adventurisms. The Johnson landslide was a combination of a vote for a dead Kennedy (I think) plus a serious message to get out of Vietnam. And yet it seems plain to me in retrospect that our only real chance of getting what the public wanted was to have voted for Goldwater and not Johnson. But neither of them were very appealing on TV, and when that's the case the one who uses the smallest words tends to win. Something similar happened with Nixon v. Kennedy ... in retrospect, Nixon was more liberal than Kennedy, imo. But TV created a different perception of these two men (and had long worked to Nixon's disfavor).
If you move into earlier centuries the photogenic factor has less weight, of course, but candidates like Jackson and Lincoln did derive their popularity from an appearance of populism. They were at ease talking to the common man, and this caused the common man to have an unwarranted level of trust in them. (I think in Lincoln's case it was warranted, but not in Jackson's. We can almost, almost lay the blame for the Great Depression at the feet of Andrew Jackson.)
The photogenic factor, the personality factor, whatever you want to call it ... Americans like their presidents to look good and not talk too smart. Guys like Nixon lose on both counts; guys like Carter lose on one; guys like Reagan who really are moronic TV stars make voters swoon all over.
Offhand, I would say that the US electorate has never really gotten what it thought it was getting when it went to the polls. It is an interesting question what kind of coalition voting gives us some of our goofier results because I'm pretty sure that they are not what the electorate intended.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
One more thing -
Another point I needed to make is one about coalitions. America is too large and diverse for one interest group to win power. If you run as a libertarian from Alaska with a party of libertarians from Alaska, you might win Alaska, and you might win the vote of libertarians from the other states, but you won’t win the country. Governments in America are formed by ideological and regional alliances.
The problem is that the members of these groups can be directly at odds with each other. For example, the Democrats were held in power from 1932 to 1980 with the support of southern conservatives and northern progressives. This was not an issue while the focus was on economics – both were behind the New Deal and opposed to rampant Wall Street capitalism or New England ‘old money’. When the focus shifted to civil rights and Vietnam War, they found they had less in common (enough for the South to support Goldwater in 1964, Wallace in 1968 and Nixon in 1972).
The Republicans hold power (or did, until last week) based on a coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and centrists who support the GOP on either moral policy, foreign policy, or both. This was fine while the issue was trying to revive the economy and face down the USSR, and fine while everyone wanted welfare reform and an end to the increasingly dodgy Democrat-controlled Congress. It is not fine now, as there are very deep divisions over moral and foreign policy between the libertarians and some conservatives and centrists and neo-conservatives. Enough to throw seats throughout the northeast and Midwest from red to blue in the 2006 elections. If the Democrats can persuade these groups to support liberal progressives, then we will see realignment.
BTW, Jny, to take us off topic a little, what did Jackson do to held cause the Depression?
Another point I needed to make is one about coalitions. America is too large and diverse for one interest group to win power. If you run as a libertarian from Alaska with a party of libertarians from Alaska, you might win Alaska, and you might win the vote of libertarians from the other states, but you won’t win the country. Governments in America are formed by ideological and regional alliances.
The problem is that the members of these groups can be directly at odds with each other. For example, the Democrats were held in power from 1932 to 1980 with the support of southern conservatives and northern progressives. This was not an issue while the focus was on economics – both were behind the New Deal and opposed to rampant Wall Street capitalism or New England ‘old money’. When the focus shifted to civil rights and Vietnam War, they found they had less in common (enough for the South to support Goldwater in 1964, Wallace in 1968 and Nixon in 1972).
The Republicans hold power (or did, until last week) based on a coalition of conservatives, libertarians, and centrists who support the GOP on either moral policy, foreign policy, or both. This was fine while the issue was trying to revive the economy and face down the USSR, and fine while everyone wanted welfare reform and an end to the increasingly dodgy Democrat-controlled Congress. It is not fine now, as there are very deep divisions over moral and foreign policy between the libertarians and some conservatives and centrists and neo-conservatives. Enough to throw seats throughout the northeast and Midwest from red to blue in the 2006 elections. If the Democrats can persuade these groups to support liberal progressives, then we will see realignment.
BTW, Jny, to take us off topic a little, what did Jackson do to held cause the Depression?
-
nerdanel
- This is Rome
- Posts: 5963
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:48 pm
- Location: Concrete Jungle by the Lagoon
Thank you, vison. That was a much needed glimpse of perspective for me. Because of my age, I am often unable to put these matters into context (other than "I want all my rights and I want them now!")
You know, I was at dinner with a friend tonight, and George Allen came up. I told her how much I now love the word "macaca" (sometimes, I will even identify myself as "Indian-American, or as some say back in Virginia, macacan") and she asked me to explain further. As angry as I was when I first heard of "macaca," it has been so helpful in the months since then, in showing me how things really do change with time.
Y'see, time used to be that a Virginia politician making a racist remark was not exactly considered breaking news by every (or any) newspaper in the country. Probably used to be that a Virginia politician *not* making racist remarks was the newsworthy event. For Allen's gaffe to receive such attention? Let's hear it for progress.
Moreover, for Allen's remark to be one factor (among many) that cost him his Senate seat? Boy, is that sweet. And boy, is that something that Virginia voters a generation ago would not have done (given that even in 2006, nearly 50% of them were willing to vote for a known racist.)
But most importantly, for me, it is a sign of progress that my Indian friends and me can joke about our "macacan" heritage and have it universally understood that the proper object of scorn and derision is not us, but the imbecile who thought to use such an absurd insult (and then try to talk his way out of it using even more absurd excuses.) I mean...I'm told it used to be that racial minorities had to accept slurs and derision as a daily part of their lives. No laughing matter. No humor value at all. That it can now be so rare that we can laugh at its absurdity? *That's* progress.
So I guess the analogous moment will be when some politician decades from now looks at a married gay couple and says something bigoted that meets with public outrage, and that eventually costs the politician his or her career, as Allen's macaca remark probably just did (I'm guessing that the gaffe could be said to account for at least 7,000 votes out of the more the roughly 2 million cast; it certainly influenced every Virginia moderate I know.) It is astonishing how things change over time. I guess...I just feel that it's all the more sad that we humans don't live that long, you know? It seems so cruel that, say, slaves and Reconstruction-era blacks aren't around now to see how far we've come. And I for one wish I could stick around until, say, 2200, to see where America is then.
You know, I was at dinner with a friend tonight, and George Allen came up. I told her how much I now love the word "macaca" (sometimes, I will even identify myself as "Indian-American, or as some say back in Virginia, macacan") and she asked me to explain further. As angry as I was when I first heard of "macaca," it has been so helpful in the months since then, in showing me how things really do change with time.
Y'see, time used to be that a Virginia politician making a racist remark was not exactly considered breaking news by every (or any) newspaper in the country. Probably used to be that a Virginia politician *not* making racist remarks was the newsworthy event. For Allen's gaffe to receive such attention? Let's hear it for progress.
Moreover, for Allen's remark to be one factor (among many) that cost him his Senate seat? Boy, is that sweet. And boy, is that something that Virginia voters a generation ago would not have done (given that even in 2006, nearly 50% of them were willing to vote for a known racist.)
But most importantly, for me, it is a sign of progress that my Indian friends and me can joke about our "macacan" heritage and have it universally understood that the proper object of scorn and derision is not us, but the imbecile who thought to use such an absurd insult (and then try to talk his way out of it using even more absurd excuses.) I mean...I'm told it used to be that racial minorities had to accept slurs and derision as a daily part of their lives. No laughing matter. No humor value at all. That it can now be so rare that we can laugh at its absurdity? *That's* progress.
So I guess the analogous moment will be when some politician decades from now looks at a married gay couple and says something bigoted that meets with public outrage, and that eventually costs the politician his or her career, as Allen's macaca remark probably just did (I'm guessing that the gaffe could be said to account for at least 7,000 votes out of the more the roughly 2 million cast; it certainly influenced every Virginia moderate I know.) It is astonishing how things change over time. I guess...I just feel that it's all the more sad that we humans don't live that long, you know? It seems so cruel that, say, slaves and Reconstruction-era blacks aren't around now to see how far we've come. And I for one wish I could stick around until, say, 2200, to see where America is then.
I won't just survive
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
Oh, you will see me thrive
Can't write my story
I'm beyond the archetype
I won't just conform
No matter how you shake my core
'Cause my roots, they run deep, oh
When, when the fire's at my feet again
And the vultures all start circling
They're whispering, "You're out of time,"
But still I rise
This is no mistake, no accident
When you think the final nail is in, think again
Don't be surprised, I will still rise
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
I find it interesting that the macaca incident swung Virginia, and thus swung the entire Senate. George Allen’s inability to keep his mouth shut cost his party control of Congress – if I were a Republican, I wouldn’t be happy with the (soon to be ex-) Senator from Virginia right now.
What really rubbed me the wrong way about the macaca remark was how boorish and stupid it came across. It isn’t so much that I have a problem with racist comments (although I do) but that I have a problem with people who call out stupid and belittling comments at others, especially for no real reason. “Let’s all give macaca here a big welcome to America” is an absurdly condescending thing to say, even discounting the fact that it is overtly racist. It’s a probably a matter of pure personal experience – I’ve never experienced real overt racism, but I do know what it feels like to have comments that made at me.
In addition, I have little respect for stupidity, and saying something like that when your party is on the nose is really, really stupid.
What’s also interesting is that about 7% of Virginians are born overseas – more than in any other southern state. I doubt they took kindly to being labeled using a racist slur and ‘welcomed’ to America.
Either way, it really got me involved in the Virginia Senate race – I was following it very closely, and it was a great moment for me when Webb pulled through.
What really rubbed me the wrong way about the macaca remark was how boorish and stupid it came across. It isn’t so much that I have a problem with racist comments (although I do) but that I have a problem with people who call out stupid and belittling comments at others, especially for no real reason. “Let’s all give macaca here a big welcome to America” is an absurdly condescending thing to say, even discounting the fact that it is overtly racist. It’s a probably a matter of pure personal experience – I’ve never experienced real overt racism, but I do know what it feels like to have comments that made at me.
In addition, I have little respect for stupidity, and saying something like that when your party is on the nose is really, really stupid.
What’s also interesting is that about 7% of Virginians are born overseas – more than in any other southern state. I doubt they took kindly to being labeled using a racist slur and ‘welcomed’ to America.
Either way, it really got me involved in the Virginia Senate race – I was following it very closely, and it was a great moment for me when Webb pulled through.
He vetoed renewal of the second National Banking Act. The Great Depression got started in the banking sector, as had the sixteen smaller depressions that had preceded it.Lord M wrote:TW, Jny, to take us off topic a little, what did Jackson do to held cause the Depression?
Jackson had run an east v. west campaign, and was afraid that banking reform would give too much power to the east coast at the expense of the emerging west, but it was actually the western farmers who stood the most to gain from even tougher reforms in banking because they were always the first to be hurt when banks failed. By 'west' in those years we mean 'midwest.'
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46194
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Actually, even in 2006, more then 50% of the white vote still went to Allen. It was the overwhelming support of the black community that put Webb (a former Republican and Navy secretary under Reagan) over the top. In fact, the same was true in both Montana and Rhode Island; the Republican candidates had a majority of the white vote (actually in Rhode Island Chafee had 50% of the white vote) but lost the election because African-Americans came out in force and voted overwhelmingly Democratic.nerdanel wrote:(given that even in 2006, nearly 50% of them were willing to vote for a known racist.)
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
This term "macaca" isn't familiar to me. I never heard or saw it before Mr. Allen's little faux pas. I don't mean to be obtuse, but is it in common use? He was speaking to a man originally from India? I live among thousands of immigrants from India but never heard anyone using that term to insult them, although I've heard many others.Lord_Morningstar wrote:I find it interesting that the macaca incident swung Virginia, and thus swung the entire Senate. George Allen’s inability to keep his mouth shut cost his party control of Congress – if I were a Republican, I wouldn’t be happy with the (soon to be ex-) Senator from Virginia right now.
What really rubbed me the wrong way about the macaca remark was how boorish and stupid it came across. It isn’t so much that I have a problem with racist comments (although I do) but that I have a problem with people who call out stupid and belittling comments at others, especially for no real reason. “Let’s all give macaca here a big welcome to America” is an absurdly condescending thing to say, even discounting the fact that it is overtly racist. It’s a probably a matter of pure personal experience – I’ve never experienced real overt racism, but I do know what it feels like to have comments that made at me.
In addition, I have little respect for stupidity, and saying something like that when your party is on the nose is really, really stupid.
What’s also interesting is that about 7% of Virginians are born overseas – more than in any other southern state. I doubt they took kindly to being labeled using a racist slur and ‘welcomed’ to America.
Either way, it really got me involved in the Virginia Senate race – I was following it very closely, and it was a great moment for me when Webb pulled through.
Does this put an end to his presidential aspirations?
Dig deeper.
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
It is used in French-speaking African nations as a racist term to describe black people. Allen’s original defence was that he didn’t know what it meant. This kinda didn’t hold water it turned out his mother was from Tunisia.vison wrote: This term "macaca" isn't familiar to me. I never heard or saw it before Mr. Allen's little faux pas. I don't mean to be obtuse, but is it in common use? He was speaking to a man originally from India? I live among thousands of immigrants from India but never heard anyone using that term to insult them, although I've heard many others.
Yes.vison wrote:Does this put an end to his presidential aspirations?
-
Túrin Turambar
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 9:37 am
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Allen's mother was of French Tunisian origin.
Wikipedia has some useful info, as usual, and a full explanation of the incident here.
What really did it in for Allen was how he kept digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole he'd created. For example, at one point he was saying something like "I didn't mean it offensivley - I say stupid things all the time".
If anyone's curious, here's a video of the incident. The internet's a great thing - twenty years' ago a politician would get away with something like this.
Wikipedia has some useful info, as usual, and a full explanation of the incident here.
What really did it in for Allen was how he kept digging himself deeper and deeper into the hole he'd created. For example, at one point he was saying something like "I didn't mean it offensivley - I say stupid things all the time".
If anyone's curious, here's a video of the incident. The internet's a great thing - twenty years' ago a politician would get away with something like this.
