|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 10, 2010 10:44:40 GMT -8
FDR was elected President in 1932. Two years later, the Depression was almost as bad as it was in '32 (unemployment was a whopping 21.7%!). Despite all that, the Dems increased their seats in the Congress (picked up 9 in the Senate!). Today, the Dems face a similar situation. The economy is just as bad as in January '09 and the administration's policies have been as ineffective as were FDR's in the early '30s. Whereas the Dems did well in '34, they likely will have their clocks cleaned in 2010. Why the difference? Well, there are a number of factors that are different, and those factors point to a choice the Democrats must make (perhaps less a problem for the GOP) in order to survive in the 21st Century. Here is a piece that presents some interesting ideas that Democrats should consider seriously for the good of their party and for the country as a whole. Since I prefer to let the author speak for himself, i will not spill too many beans in this introduction. I will make only this (perhaps cryptic, perhaps overly obvious) comment; This is 2010 and not 1934! blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/10/08/kausismo-or-death-dems-face-tough-choices-past-2010/AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 10, 2010 10:52:22 GMT -8
Some interesting comments at the end. Some people just will never get it!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Oct 13, 2010 7:16:43 GMT -8
The simple fact of the matter is that it will take strong Government Spending (Or isolationist action) to get this country rolling again. So far we have not seen it.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 13, 2010 9:33:06 GMT -8
Some interesting comments at the end. Some people just will never get it! I especially enjoyed this one. Shame on you, Mr. Mead! You and your readers (if these comments are any indication) both suffer from extreme political amnesia. Your article lambastes the Democrats for their “20th-Century” policies, as if FDR had passed the baton of power directly to Barack Obama. Even if your policy prescriptions are as modern and effective as you say they are (which I very much doubt), do you suppose that the Republicans are more likely to enact them than the Democrats? It was George W. Bush, if I remember correctly, who created most of the structural deficit that now plagues our system of government financing. It was George W. Bush who blithely assured the nation that no sacrifices needed to be made to fight a trillion-dollar war. It was George W. Bush and his congressional Republican enablers whose passion for deregulation greased the skids of the financial system as it plunged into the abyss. Are today’s Republicans the party to champion small business? Not likely: they were the party that opposed in Congress Obama’s attempt to expand credit for exactly those small businesses you say he’s ignoring. No, today’s Republicans are much more in the thrall of the Wall Street financiers, the drug companies and the Pentagon contractors than the Democrats are. And in the meantime, you and your commentators are trying to exorcise the ghost of FDR! If Obama and the Democrats are truly a “20th-Century” party, then the Republicans are a 19th-Century party, assuring us that all will be well if we simply return to the policies of William McKinley: lower taxes, less regulation and unfettered corporate power. Is this innovation? Francis Bacon was right: “He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.” If our dissatisfaction with the Democrats brings the Republicans into power, heaven help us; we will see new evils galore. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 13, 2010 11:55:11 GMT -8
Some interesting comments at the end. Some people just will never get it! I especially enjoyed this one. Shame on you, Mr. Mead! You and your readers (if these comments are any indication) both suffer from extreme political amnesia. Your article lambastes the Democrats for their “20th-Century” policies, as if FDR had passed the baton of power directly to Barack Obama. Even if your policy prescriptions are as modern and effective as you say they are (which I very much doubt), do you suppose that the Republicans are more likely to enact them than the Democrats? It was George W. Bush, if I remember correctly, who created most of the structural deficit that now plagues our system of government financing. It was George W. Bush who blithely assured the nation that no sacrifices needed to be made to fight a trillion-dollar war. It was George W. Bush and his congressional Republican enablers whose passion for deregulation greased the skids of the financial system as it plunged into the abyss. Are today’s Republicans the party to champion small business? Not likely: they were the party that opposed in Congress Obama’s attempt to expand credit for exactly those small businesses you say he’s ignoring. No, today’s Republicans are much more in the thrall of the Wall Street financiers, the drug companies and the Pentagon contractors than the Democrats are. And in the meantime, you and your commentators are trying to exorcise the ghost of FDR! If Obama and the Democrats are truly a “20th-Century” party, then the Republicans are a 19th-Century party, assuring us that all will be well if we simply return to the policies of William McKinley: lower taxes, less regulation and unfettered corporate power. Is this innovation? Francis Bacon was right: “He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils, for time is the greatest innovator.” If our dissatisfaction with the Democrats brings the Republicans into power, heaven help us; we will see new evils galore. Yes, this is one that will never get it!  |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Oct 13, 2010 19:30:09 GMT -8
The simple fact of the matter is that it will take strong Government Spending (Or isolationist action) to get this country rolling again. So far we have not seen it. Very true. Until people work and/or their is an incentive to produce more (or really at all) in this country nothing is going to happen. This would have been a great time to bite the bullet and replace the infrastructure that hasn't been touch in 50 years both to get people back to work and to prepare this country for 50 more years of doing absolutely nothing to it. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 16, 2010 7:53:56 GMT -8
I disagree with the writer. The Republican party is currently less popular than the Democrats. Demographics are against the Republicans, because they have alienated the fastest growing segments of our society.
While the great depression is like the great recession in many ways, the biggest difference is that this recession's impact occurred as the democrats were taking office and Roosevelt was not elected until Republican policies failed for two years beyond the 1929 crash. Those poor souls in the thirties had two years of Hoover wringing his hands like a blithering, dithering idiot.
Another problem is that when you ask voters specific questions they answer not like conservatives, but, often like liberals. The labels they use are too simplistic. Conservatives want to dismantle social security, end unemployment insurance, increase corporate influence, outsource jobs, show intolerance for new arrivals, leave people uninsured and tell them what they must do with their bodies etc. Their individual policies are an anathema to large portions of our society.
Just like I knew the the Republicans were not dead in 2008, I am equally certain that this writer is wrong about the Democrat's future. He is like most ideologically driven Republicans, not very bright. Who cares if the idiot found a forum to publish him. Stupid is stupid.
|
|
