Not Your Father's Democratic Party

[Annie]

Roger Simon has an interesting post. My parents last presidential democratic votes were for John F. Kennedy. But having grown up in Chicago, they both noticed and talked about how different democrats 'used to be':

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2004/07/over_there.php

July 30, 2004: "Over There"

During Vietnam, I used to argue frequently and bitterly with my father. A Stevenson Democrat but a World War II vet, he didn't want to believe the USA was wrong about Vietnam or, worse, on the wrong side (as I did). Eventually, he came around, in part I'm sure because almost everyone he knew agreed with me. But I was never certain his conversion was real.

Norman Simon died over 18 years ago; he would have been 90 this summer. So I never had a chance to discuss the aftermath of Vietnam with him (the millions estimated murdered by the communist regime, etc.) and the beginnings of my own revisionist thinking. Or maybe I didn't want to. But I was wondering last night what my father would have made of his party's convention and the speech of its nominee - the bizarre spectacle of a man parading his war bravery when he allegedly opposed that war. I also missed my father tremendously; miss him more now than I have in years. He was a radiologist and worked at one time for the Atomic Energy Commission, helping to prepare for the horrific possibility of nuclear attack. (He treated the Hiroshima ladies.) I thought his view of things was too simple then, not sufficiently nuanced in modern parlance, yet he was one of the smartest people I ever met, inventor of operations to cure cancer of the cervix and an expert in Pre-Columbian art. I have a strong suspicion he would have seen at the convention what I did - his Democratic Party morphing into the Isolationist Party, while pretending it hadn't. So I guess I'm writing all this to apologize to him. I can't say for sure I was entirely wrong about Vietnam, but I'm willing to entertain the idea (how's that for nuance?)

 

[krisy]

Nice post,Kathianne. We were just talking at my brother's house last night about Kerry and politics(the whole family is Conservative) and my bro was talking about how different the Dems were back then. To extreme to the left now. Even Kennedy wanted lower taxes. There are more issues now too. Abortion,stem cell research,and of course terrorism. I can't picture my granadma and grandpa or too many people of that era being too supportive of these issues. Back then if you were pregnant you had the baby,no questions. If you were a teen,chances are the baby was given up,but not aborted. Terrorism,I know has been around in some form for a while,but of course not too the level it is now. I think the two parties were a little closer together at one time. I am speaking more in terms of WW2 era as well. I know back then things seemed complicated,but compared to now-geese!

 

[tpahl]

I know the democrats have changed, but I think it is only fair to note that the Republicans have changed even more. No longer do they support cutting spending levels. No longer are they in support of state rights. No longer do they support reducing the scope of the federal government. No longer is their solution less government. No longer to they fight to elliminate gun restrictions. All of these things most republican voters support but republican politicians are opposed to.

Travis

 

[Annie]

I know the democrats have changed, but I think it is only fair to note that the Republicans have changed even more. No longer do they support cutting spending levels. No longer are they in support of state rights. No longer do they support reducing the scope of the federal government. No longer is their solution less government. No longer to they fight to elliminate gun restrictions. All of these things most republican voters support but republican politicians are opposed to.

Travis

That's not exactly true. Reality has a way of making concessions necessary, today the greatest threat is terrorism. Take a look at new posts. Removing our forces is not a viable option.

 

[tpahl]

That's not exactly true. Reality has a way of making concessions necessary, today the greatest threat is terrorism. Take a look at new posts. Removing our forces is not a viable option.

How did terrorism make Bush have to change and support an assualt weapons ban? How did terrorism force bush to increase the dept of educations budget by 60%? How did terrorism lead bush to create a new government program for prescription drugs as a solution to the problem of rising costs rather than remove government restrictions? How did terrorism force Bush to create protectionist steel tarrifs?

I understand 9/11 changed things, but Bush, the republican congress, and to some degree republican supporters like yourself are too often crying terrorism as an excuse for everything they do. Terrorism would be a valid excuse for an increase in military spending and miltary deployment, as well as the PATRIOT act. A person/party that truly understand and beleived that less government is the answer not the solution would still not pass anything resembling the PATRIOT act or increase military spending in reaction to 9/11 but at least it is a reasonable excuse.

To cry terrorism as the excuse for all the other liberal solutions that Bush has given us in the last 4 years looks likes desperation to beleive in a party that stopped beleiving in what you beleive a long time ago.

Travis

 

[Annie]

How did terrorism make Bush have to change and support an assualt weapons ban? How did terrorism force bush to increase the dept of educations budget by 60%? How did terrorism lead bush to create a new government program for prescription drugs as a solution to the problem of rising costs rather than remove government restrictions? How did terrorism force Bush to create protectionist steel tarrifs?

I understand 9/11 changed things, but Bush, the republican congress, and to some degree republican supporters like yourself are too often crying terrorism as an excuse for everything they do. Terrorism would be a valid excuse for an increase in military spending and miltary deployment, as well as the PATRIOT act. A person/party that truly understand and beleived that less government is the answer not the solution would still not pass anything resembling the PATRIOT act or increase military spending in reaction to 9/11 but at least it is a reasonable excuse.

To cry terrorism as the excuse for all the other liberal solutions that Bush has given us in the last 4 years looks likes desperation to beleive in a party that stopped beleiving in what you beleive a long time ago.

Travis

It wasn't 'just' terrorism. As I clearly stated, compromises are made to get the necessary votes for what one needs to get through. Believe it or not, that is how things get done.

One is not elected and able to tell everyone sit down and listen to me! We have a plethora of constituencies in this country. Not everyone agrees with our ideas.

 

[tpahl]

It wasn't 'just' terrorism. As I clearly stated, compromises are made to get the necessary votes for what one needs to get through. Believe it or not, that is how things get done.

One is not elected and able to tell everyone sit down and listen to me! We have a plethora of constituencies in this country. Not everyone agrees with our ideas.

You had a republican controlled congress. And a republican president. Republicans have promised smaller government, yet they comprimsed for a government that grew more than it did when there was a democrat in the white house.

Bush should not be making compromises. Our system was not designed for these two branches to be working together, but rather against each other. If legislature gives him a bill that would increase government and he had promised to decrease government, he should veto it.

Badnarik has promised to veto every bill that comes to him that increases the size of government. Congress COULD override the veto by 2/3rds vote. Is 2/3rds of congress controlled by democrats? No. not now and not in the foreseeable future. So unless democrats control 2/3rds of congress OR republicans vote for bigger government, just having a small government president should be enough to stop the increase in government power and size.

Travis