Michael Barone writes a wonderful piece on this:
All of which leaves me with the conclusion that ideas are more important than partisan vote counts. Democrats could not go beyond the New Deal from 1938 to 1958, because they had not persuaded most Americans to go Roosevelt’s way until 13 years after his death. Similarly, Republicans never had reliable majorities for Reagan’s polices until 1994, six years after he left office. Democratic gains in 1974 made the House the most left-leaning branch of government for 20 years–in vivid contrast to the prognostication of ’60s liberals, who said it would always be the most conservative–and Republican gains in 1994 made it the most conservative-leaning. Those majorities affected public policy, but not always in ways their partisans liked.
If the Democrats are justified in preparing to change the drapes today, the questions to ask are: How enduring will be such a partisan switch? How much change in public policy will it accomplish? To the first question, the likelihood of an enduring partisan switch is not high–if you believe the polls showing the leading Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, walloping the best-known Democrats, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Al Gore, in 2008. Changes in public policy? Well, the lead item on the Democrats’ wish list is to raise the minimum wage, a law first passed in 1938. Not exactly a new idea.I don’t know what the results of the midterm elections of 2006 will be. But I doubt that they will have the sweeping partisan or policy consequences of the midterm elections of 1874 and 1894, or 1938 and 1994.
That perversion of the American form of democracy has contributed to where the Repub party finds itself now. Yes, the party in power.
Shiloh, I have to think that you are like the young man I spoke with yesterday. Bright, but young and hence woefully uninformed about the history of the last 38 years. I spent my early Saturday mornings watching the news reports from Vietnam, and the occasional Apollo mission lift off at least until the cartoons came on. I remember listening to the idiotic drivel and lies coming from Carter’s mouth during his run for the presidency. Even at 13 yrs old, I KNEW he was making promises that he couldn’t possibly keep. This to me meant that he was either lying or stupid for making them. I remember his idiotic misery index. I then remember the results of his presidency. I remember the double digit inflation rates, the double digit interest rates, and the double digit unemployment rates. I remember the terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics. I remember the rash of airline highjackings, the Achille Lauro highjacking, and the Israeli raid on the highjacked airliner at Entebbe Airport in Uganda. I remember the taking of the US Embassy in Tehran by Islamic militants. I remember the photos of our diplomats being held hostage and our CIA section chief hanging from a rope. I remember these things, you can’t twist them on me, you can’t deny them, I REMEMBER THEM HAPPENING. I remember Carter and the Church commission gutting our ability to collect human intelligence.
To claim that George W. Bush is the worst president ever, is utterly idiotic. The economy is booming. The Dow hit new records, unemployment is lower than the average of the last 30 years, interest rates are still quite low, and home ownership is at an all time high. For those who think that the Dow hitting highs is only good for the rich, they need to do a little research before condemning the big corporations. The largest owners of stock in any major corporation is invariably pension plans. When the stocks do well, they fund larger benefits for retirees, widows, and orphans. I’d wager that they provide more benefits for widows and orphans than any government program. The military is strong and our intelligence community is returning to its earlier capabilities, despite the best efforts of the Democrats and the Main Stream Media.
Yes, the intelligence that lead to the invasion of Iraq may have been flawed, but intelligence is NEVER fool proof. I have a widely varied background both in and out of the military. While we haven’t found the WMDs in Iraq that we expected, we did find enough to be significant for terrorist use. Look at the effect of only a few ozs of powdered Anthrax sent through the mail a few years ago. The cult in Tokyo only released a few quarts of Sarin in the Tokyo Subway and killed dozens and injured hundreds more. How many casualties would be acceptable had Al Quaeda released a few gallons into the ventilation system at Grand Central Station during rush hour? There would have been hundreds of dead, thousands injured and millions of dollars of damage. They’re called weapons of mass destruction because even small quantities can cause large numbers of deaths.
While the death of any soldier is regrettable, the facts are that historically the conflict in Iraq has been substantially below the norm for casualties. We lost over 2500 on D-Day and over 6800 on Iwo Jima in only 36 days. We still have military forces in Germany and on Okinawa in Japanese territory. We were still fighting against Japanese soldiers resisting capture in the Philipines until well into the 1970s. I feel we screwed up in not bringing Muqtada Al Sadr into the fold early on. I think his Mahdi Army would’ve been extremely helpful in suppressing the Sunni resistance, as long as it was kept from turning into a death squad.
As for the workings of government being kept secret, that is a given when at war. Why would anyone claiming to support the troops want to give the enemy intelligence that will help them kill our soldiers?