If Bush is unpopular, then why did us Republicans badly defeat the Democrats in 04'?

Parent Cafe
21

<p>FountainSiren:</p>

<p>You are right that there was a lot of polarization in the 60s and early 70s. But to a great extent it had a different feel. There were really three polarizing issues: </p>

<p>(1) Racial integration and civil rights. This was mainly – not entirely – a North-South issue, or more precisely a North & West & Blacks vs. some Southern Whites issue. There was also a very brief period of race riots in large northern cities around the kind of police issues we still see today, but that was really limited to a few months.</p>

<p>(2) The Vietnam War. THE polarizing issue.</p>

<p>(3) Nixon and Watergate (which was really about Vietnam).</p>

<p>With the exception of the early stages of Watergate, none of these was polarized by political party, and many politicians found themselves on the “liberal” side of some issues and the “conservative” side of others. Lots of basically liberal Democrats were pro-war, and the anti-war voice in Congress consisted of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding the shows of bravado (and real violence) in the South, I believe there was a general sense that change was coming and that it was right, and the only questions were how far, how fast, and exactly how the white political elites were going to sell it to their base. There were plenty of Southern White integrationists, even though they were a minority. One of the judges I clerked for basically desegregated Louisiana. He was hung in effigy on the floor of the state legislature and had crosses burned on his lawn, but his memory of the time was that all that was show, and that he got lots of support from most of the establishment behind the scenes. Nixon executed his “Southern Strategy” in 1968, and that was the beginning (or the acceleration) of the realignment between Reps and Dems, but on substance there was precious little difference between Nixon and Humphrey on civil rights – there was really a pretty broad consensus outside the Deep South about what should be happening.</p>

<p>And at the same time those issues were dividing people, there were a lot of issues that were uniting them. The first Nixon term saw the first environmental and occupational safety laws passed. Nixon’s opening to China was broadly popular. Even on the war, I remember reading Halderman’s diaries a number of years ago and being struck by how close Nixon et al. were to the anti-war mainstream in their ideas. Nixon made some mistakes, but there wasn’t a day of his administration when he wasn’t trying to get a peace agreement within the next six months.</p>

<p>The Republican Party had people like Javits, Dirksen, Scott, Weicker, Brookes, Rockefeller, Lindsay, Ford – not conservative ideologues, to say the least. In New York State, the Republicans were the party of good government and civil rights, the Democrats of ethnic pandering and petty corruption. The Democrats had Scoop Jackson, Pat Brown, and of course Lyndon Johnson – tough, mainstream, effective politicians. There was little or no negative campaigning (apart from some “dirty tricks” in 1972).</p>

<p>Now, EVERYTHING is polarized on Rep-Dem lines, and the White House goes out of its way to create that, in order to energize a conservative base.</p>

22

<p>…sour grapes…</p>

23

<p>“while Bush’s disgraceful military record was virtually ignored in the press.”</p>

<p>Is that a joke? It was the “press” in the incarnation of CBS News that attempted to throw the election by publicizing forged documents with regard to President Bush’s military service. Had they not been caught, they might have succeeded.</p>

24

<p>at least Kerry was in Nam, not hiding away…</p>

<p>yes the country was divided in the 60 and 70-</p>

<p>all that civil rights, women’s rights, all those people fighting for those things causing a ruskus, shame shame</p>

25

<p>and as for forged documents, this administration never used any, right…make me laugh</p>

<p>Bush’s military service was disgraceful CBS report or not…</p>

26

<p>The “Republican” of the 60’s and 70’s does not even begin to resemble today’s GOP, with its wantonly wasteful spendthrift ways.</p>

<p>I come from a long line of Republicans, all of whom are disgusted with their party. Talk about polarized…the GOP has fractured its most trusted base.</p>

<p>The country has never been more polarized, not in the way it is now, even in the 60’s and 70’s.</p>

27

<p>

</p>

<p>You are, perhaps, familiar with the “law of identity.”
<a href=“http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html[/url]”>http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Your statement is, in this sense, a redundancy. Of course it has never been more polarized than in the way it is now. By this definition it would be more polarized, “in the way it is now,” than it was in the 1960’s…or the 1860’s.</p>

<p>[Fwiw, with feeling: “free your mind and your ass will follow”—straight from the mouth of the Mothership]]</p>

<p>.</p>

28

<p>good thing FS is here to correct us in our passion because otherwise how would we functon…it is amazing we have somehow lasted all these years without a 17 yearold correcting our grammer and phrases all the time…especially as her writing is so clear, clean, consise, and coherent…</p>

29

<p>that’s 19 to you, you ole…</p>

<p>oh, yeah, and thanks for “especially as her writing is so clear, clean, consise, and coherent…”</p>

<p>It’s nice to be noticed…I’m blushing.</p>

30

<p>I only wonder why a 19 year old is so interested in hanging out on a message board of parents…it’s very odd (not that we don’t just love having you here, FS, to point out our foibles).</p>

31

<ol>
<li>An elected President’s popularity is subject to change depending on his actions in office. For example, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton, who was popular enough to be elected twice, lost a lot of popularity for himself and his party. Similarly, Bush has lost a lot of popularity since he won the 2004 election for his views/actions on various issues.</li>
<li>The Republicans DID badly defeat the Democrats in 04. Bush did NOT badly defeat or “crush” Kerry, but combining his presidential victory with the congressional victories of his fellow Republicans, it’s safe to say that the Democrats WERE badly defeated overall (in all races, not just for the presidency).</li>
<li>I realize my grammar could have been improved but this is an internet forum and I need to go make dinner.</li>
</ol>

32

<p>Back to dreamy Hanover in three days (packing today), at which time I’ll wish you all, adieu (other than an occasional flanking maneuver when in the throes of boredom and fatigue)!</p>

33

<p>I do have to say, that I hope all the posters here on CC do register to vote as soon as they can, my D has it marked on her calendar, she feels it is her civic duty to vote and participate in the democratic process, because if you don’t participate you can’t complain…</p>

<p>And if you are away from home in school, find out what the process is for absentee ballots, or registering in new state…</p>

<p>Or if out of home country, make sure if you are of age to register…it is imperative that you take advantage of the chances you have to vote</p>

<p>You do have a right to register to vote in your college community, and if they give you any flack, step up and fight for your rights…</p>

<p>ever 18 year old should register, to not do so is shameful</p>

34

<p>

The interesting thing is that in a recent poll, Bush, despite his lower popularity numbers, STILL is more popular than Kerry or Gore. </p>

<p>

I know that this is going back to when many on this forum were too young to remember, but the “daisy” add used against Goldwater was a low point in American politics, second only to the NAACP ad used against Bush implying that he was complicit with or at least was soft on the dragging death of a black man.</p>

35

<p>FS, I was your age in the early 70’s, in high school in the 60’s, and I agree with those who say that the United States is more polarized now than it was then. Yes, there definitely was polarization over the Vietnam War, no doubt about that. However, it was not really a Republican-Democrat issue, but one that cut across party lines. Yes, those for the war tended to demonize those against, and vice versa, but I don’t remember ever hearing anything along the lines of “You dirty, chicken-liver Democrats” or “You war-mongering Republicans.” It simply was NOT a political party division. It was polarization over an issue, not over party affiliation.</p>

<p>Today, however, I am constantly hearing one party denouncing the other, with all Democrats or all Republicans lumped together in one category. That does NOT tend to lead to unity, but to a division likely to last even after the Iraq war ends.</p>

36

<p>FS, best of luck and good times.</p>

37

<p>NO, FS, do not leave us! I think the resorting to personal insults, religion-bashing, grammar and writing corrections, etc. on the part of some posters is very telling. In fact, it gets my heart racing, which is not good for my health. You’ve got the youth and stamina to take them on–we need you!</p>

38

<p>considering that FS is the one to grammar correct quite a bit, she would have to take on herself</p>

39

<p>FountainSiren: I, for one, will miss your posts very much.</p>

<p>I think the party polarization started with Monica. The impeachment brought out the worst in both sides (although I think the outcome of impeachment without removal was appropriate) and was then compounded by the closeness of the 2000 election and the perception on both sides that the election was (or was trying to be) stolen. So I guess I agree that polarization (at least along party lines) is greater now.</p>

40

<p>P.S. I believe that the polarization in the late '60’s was much <em>deeper</em>. Much of what is going on today is just politics. Some democrats are deeply angry (Cindy Sheehan, etc.), but actually I think far fewer are as angry as some on this board would like to make out. The democrats have to play to that far-left wing, which is kind of sad, because they’ve lost some voters for good that way.</p>