Conserving, celebrating, and contributing to the excellence that is Western Civilization.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
A Very Brief History Of Bi-Partisanship In The US
In a quick and interesting read, Jim Abrams, writing for AP, details the short history of actual bi-partisan governance in the US, and tells how periods of great partisan divides precede times of great social change in the country.
The problem we have today is the definition of bipartisanship: Republicans giving in to what Democrats want to do.
If a Republican administration did half as much to belittle the opposition as Obama does, he would be crucified by Democrats in Congress and by the MSM. But for Obama to do it is perfectly fine.
" The golden age of bipartisanship, to the extent it existed, came in the 1940s through the 1960s, when politicians united behind World War II and the Cold War and neither party had a clearcut ideology. Democrats had their Northern liberals and Southern conservatives[otherwise known as 'Segregationists'~ed.],while the GOP was divided between Goldwater Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans "
Those years coincided with my birth, childhood, growth through the teens, to adulthood, and going off to war. It really was "diffrent" then, especailly if yo consider things like a Texas Decocrtatic President strong armed a Georgia Demcrat House Speaker in to passin ght eCivil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Right Act of 1965, both with bi-partisan votes relatively proprotional to party representation.
It really was better then.
If John F Kennedy were to give his campaign speeches and inaugural speeches today, he would be hooted from the stage by his own party and its assorted self-anointed minions.
We have changed and it is ugly. I don't see a positive change coming anytime soon. It is now all personal in a selfish way.
Consider how personally uncomfortable Civil Rights legislation might have been to Sam Rayburn, Georgia Congressman and Speaker of the House in the 60's. He still enabled passage of both seminal bills.
Compare to today.
I am not praising past leaders or individual men and women, who managed to lead within a national dynamic,, so much as I am condeming the faux leaders of today who engage in one long shrill and strident polemic of demegoguery and intolerant trivia.
"I am not praising past leaders or individual men and women, who managed to lead within a national dynamic,. . ."
Maybe you should be, Ari, especially given your next sentence -
"so much as I am condeming the faux leaders of today who engage in one long shrill and strident polemic of demegoguery and intolerant trivia."
The same dynamics were in play then as now, but we had actual damned LEADERS, as opposed to the idiotic ideologues of today, who pander (Hell, lets use the real word, they PIMP) to the whores of modern voting blocs who really know no better, because all that they were taught in the shithole 'schools' they attended were their rights to the fruits of others labor.
Remember, this is the second generation that thinks 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is part of the US Constitution.
Of course, by those lights, actually expecting anyone to show the least bit of personal responsibility, or to punish those who do not with limited funding for their vile lifestyles, is cruel at least and racist at worst.
That's a fascinating article, Sidd. At least they aren't beating or shooting each other in Congress (yet). I didn't know the story behind the Burr duel.
" I am not praising past leaders or individual men and women, who managed to lead within a national dynamic,, so much as I am condeming the faux leaders of today who engage in one long shrill and strident polemic of demegoguery and intolerant trivia. "
The problem we have today is the definition of bipartisanship: Republicans giving in to what Democrats want to do.
ReplyDeleteIf a Republican administration did half as much to belittle the opposition as Obama does, he would be crucified by Democrats in Congress and by the MSM. But for Obama to do it is perfectly fine.
" The golden age of bipartisanship, to the extent it existed, came in the 1940s through the 1960s, when politicians united behind World War II and the Cold War and neither party had a clearcut ideology. Democrats had their Northern liberals and Southern conservatives[otherwise known as 'Segregationists'~ed.],while the GOP was divided between Goldwater Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans "
ReplyDeleteThose years coincided with my birth, childhood, growth through the teens, to adulthood, and going off to war. It really was "diffrent" then, especailly if yo consider things like a Texas Decocrtatic President strong armed a Georgia Demcrat House Speaker in to passin ght eCivil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Right Act of 1965, both with bi-partisan votes relatively proprotional to party representation.
It really was better then.
If John F Kennedy were to give his campaign speeches and inaugural speeches today, he would be hooted from the stage by his own party and its assorted self-anointed minions.
We have changed and it is ugly. I don't see a positive change coming anytime soon. It is now all personal in a selfish way.
Consider how personally uncomfortable Civil Rights legislation might have been to Sam Rayburn, Georgia Congressman and Speaker of the House in the 60's. He still enabled passage of both seminal bills.
Compare to today.
I am not praising past leaders or individual men and women, who managed to lead within a national dynamic,, so much as I am condeming the faux leaders of today who engage in one long shrill and strident polemic of demegoguery and intolerant trivia.
"I am not praising past leaders or individual men and women, who managed to lead within a national dynamic,. . ."
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should be, Ari, especially given your next sentence -
"so much as I am condeming the faux leaders of today who engage in one long shrill and strident polemic of demegoguery and intolerant trivia."
The same dynamics were in play then as now, but we had actual damned LEADERS, as opposed to the idiotic ideologues of today, who pander (Hell, lets use the real word, they PIMP) to the whores of modern voting blocs who really know no better, because all that they were taught in the shithole 'schools' they attended were their rights to the fruits of others labor.
Remember, this is the second generation that thinks 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' is part of the US Constitution.
Of course, by those lights, actually expecting anyone to show the least bit of personal responsibility, or to punish those who do not with limited funding for their vile lifestyles, is cruel at least and racist at worst.
ReplyDeleteThat's a fascinating article, Sidd. At least they aren't beating or shooting each other in Congress (yet). I didn't know the story behind the Burr duel.
ReplyDelete"
I am not praising past leaders or individual men and women, who managed to lead within a national dynamic,, so much as I am condeming the faux leaders of today who engage in one long shrill and strident polemic of demegoguery and intolerant trivia.
"
Right on the money.