Interesting new poll numbers...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...winds-changing

To me this just suggests that we are basically a country of moderates and aren't too crazy about extremes on either side of the aisle. I'd also say the American people are getting real tired of partisanship. So who will take the lead in this crisis? My guess is a moderate.

Perhaps the resurgency that we have discussed won't come from either political ideology, but rather it will be about the people demanding that government actually works together. After all, one of the big problems we have is an ineffective government. I don't know how constant bickering, partisanship, or hate politics could possibly solve that. But then I could be wrong too.

If this crisis does produce a gray champion (or champions), my guess is it will be a moderate. Perhaps in the end, this crisis will come down to being all about the divides in the country...economic, political, cultural, religious, etc. and we find that truly was the basis of most of our problems. The solution of crisis could just be us coming together...I don't know if that is possible, but we shall see.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Interesting new poll numbers...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...winds-changing

To me this just suggests that we are basically a country of moderates and aren't too crazy about extremes on either side of the aisle. I'd also say the American people are getting real tired of partisanship. So who will take the lead in this crisis? My guess is a moderate.

Perhaps the resurgency that we have discussed won't come from either political ideology, but rather it will be about the people demanding that government actually works together. After all, one of the big problems we have is an ineffective government. I don't know how constant bickering, partisanship, or hate politics could possibly solve that. But then I could be wrong too.

If this crisis does produce a gray champion (or champions), my guess is it will be a moderate. Perhaps in the end, this crisis will come down to being all about the divides in the country...economic, political, cultural, religious, etc. and we find that truly was the basis of most of our problems. The solution of crisis could just be us coming together...I don't know if that is possible, but we shall see.

There is a weariness with the strong Left-Right divide, but, on the other axis, there is a growing consensus for libertarian rather than authoritarian solutions. On the social front, this is likely to take root and grow. I can see decriminalization of drugs and other victimless crimes coming in the near future. It may be a total disaster on the political and economic front, where voracious private entities with vast resources can easily dominate. We may have to try something akin to a true laissez faire economy to prove that power needs to be balanced by counter power. Right now, too many people believe that the government is the oppressor. Let's see how they like dominance by forces completely outside their control.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Interesting new poll numbers...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...winds-changing

To me this just suggests that we are basically a country of moderates and aren't too crazy about extremes on either side of the aisle. I'd also say the American people are getting real tired of partisanship. So who will take the lead in this crisis? My guess is a moderate.

Perhaps the resurgency that we have discussed won't come from either political ideology, but rather it will be about the people demanding that government actually works together. After all, one of the big problems we have is an ineffective government. I don't know how constant bickering, partisanship, or hate politics could possibly solve that. But then I could be wrong too.

If this crisis does produce a gray champion (or champions), my guess is it will be a moderate. Perhaps in the end, this crisis will come down to being all about the divides in the country...economic, political, cultural, religious, etc. and we find that truly was the basis of most of our problems. The solution of crisis could just be us coming together...I don't know if that is possible, but we shall see.

Hmmm. I guess if a moderate is chosen, that leaves out progressive thinkers like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and others who actually work for the citizens, not just the elite.

What you say makes sense in terms of where we are as a country. I have heard rumors of Libertarians being able to win. But I have to say, they can favor corporations just as much as any other party.

I'm curious as to what FDR or JFK would be considered in this day and time?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Hmmm. I guess if a moderate is chosen, that leaves out progressive thinkers, like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and others who actually work for the citizens, not just the elite.

What you say makes sense in terms of where we are as a country. I have heard rumors of Libertarians being able to win. But I have to say, they can favor corporations just as much as any other party.

I'm curious as to what FDR or JFK would be considered in this day and time?

Libertarians (Big L or little l) have no need to favor anyone. Power will pull favor to it. The idea that there is an equivalence between an individual worker and his employer, a notion right out of the 19th century, seems to be gaining favor again ... all evidence to the contrary. The same can be said of the relationship of business to consumers and earned-income taxpayers to all the other kinds. The Tea Party sees the problem and recommends suicide as a viable solution. It's being considered.

Assume it will be bad, and you won't be disappointed too much.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Hmmm. I guess if a moderate is chosen, that leaves out progressive thinkers like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and others who actually work for the citizens, not just the elite.

In the current climate of our country, I think it probably does. I know that's not something that you want to hear. On the same token, followers of Glen Beck or Russ Limbaugh probably don't want to hear that most people don't agree with them either. I honestly don't think the all the independents and Millies out there who helped to push Obama over the top, were truly looking for a strong liberal. I think part of his appeal was that he seemed like the type of person who was willing reach his hand across the aisle and bridge the political divide. I must say, I was very impressed with how he handled things following his election, like holding a dinner to honor his opponent, John McCain. Or how he told congress who didn't want Lieberman to caucus with the democrats to let him and not punish him because he campaigned so heavily for McCain. I remember at the time thinking, we finally have someone in office who gets it. After the polarization of Clinton and Bush years, it was refreshing to me. I think that is the type president of a lot people were looking for when they voted him in the first place.

What you say makes sense in terms of where we are as a country. I have heard rumors of Libertarians being able to win. But I have to say, they can favor corporations just as much as any other party.

I don't think a Libertarian could actually win the presidency anymore than a Green Party or other 3rd party candidate could at this point in time. Plus I'm not sure most people in America truly see what's really going with the corporations and just how much their hands are in Washington. Again, that's not necessarily how I feel, but where I think the pulse of America is at this present time. You would have to living under rock if you didn't notice the partisan divide today. The other problem you are speaking of, doesn't necessarily resonate with most people.

I'm curious as to what FDR or JFK would be considered in this day and time?

I don't know the answer to that question. Someone like David would be better to answer that question than me. Sure everyone loves JFK. I heard on the news today that JFK is the most popular president that ever lived. I don't if that's actually true or not. I think people liked George Washington too. Perhaps the whole thing hero worship with JFK is because he was assassinated. People have romanticized him and put him on pedestal. That may not have been the case if he had lived. But I wasn't alive back then, so it's hard for truly say what the attitude was towards him prior to his death.

I do think I remember hearing the FDR wasn't really seen as an extreme liberal in his day. People just liked him because he took steps to help improve their lives and conditions of that time period. And I'm not so sure the words "liberal or conservative" had the same negative connotations as they do today. Those are really loaded words in our world today.

It's not really up to you and me to determine what way the country will move. If only I had the power to make everyone see things the way I do...What I sense more than anything from what the younger people (especially the millies) are saying is, "We don't like all this partisanship and we don't like all this divide." The shooting of the congresswomen may have more historical impact than we even realize at this moment...

So here is one scenario. Moderation takes over in American politics. Solutions to our problems come from people working together, listening to each other and through give and take...This leads to our 1T. Our next 1T is all about political correctness. Anyone who tries to rock the boat one way or other is seen as a radical. Everyone thinks we have created the perfect world because we are all playing nice. This is not to say that our lives are better than they are today. (Remember, it's Gilded Age 2). The next 1T will eventually usher in our new prophets and they will have something to say about all this.

There has been a (disturbing) thought that has been in my head for a few weeks: if Sarah Palin actually won (which she would likely not make it to the convention) it would put the world against the US with the US being on the wrong side of history.

Originally Posted by disgruntledxer

There has been a (disturbing) thought that has been in my head for a few weeks: if Sarah Palin actually won (which she would likely not make it to the convention) it would put the world against the US with the US being on the wrong side of history.

Simply answer, "Yes, I believe so."...But I at this point, I don't think she has a chance in hell of winning.

Originally Posted by disgruntledxer

There has been a (disturbing) thought that has been in my head for a few weeks: if Sarah Palin actually won (which she would likely not make it to the convention) it would put the world against the US with the US being on the wrong side of history.

I see little chance of Palin winning the Republican primary and less (i.e., NO chance) of winning a general election. Palin will continue to tease her base while raking in the money. I expect the Republicans to nominate some young Governor.

Originally Posted by ASB65

In the current climate of our country, I think it probably does. I know that's not something that you want to hear. On the same token, followers of Glen Beck or Russ Limbaugh probably don't want to hear that most people don't agree with them either. I honestly don't think the all the independents and Millies out there who helped to push Obama over the top, were truly looking for a strong liberal. I think part of his appeal was that he seemed like the type of person who was willing reach his hand across the aisle and bridge the political divide. I must say, I was very impressed with how he handled things following his election, like holding a dinner to honor his opponent, John McCain. Or how he told congress who didn't want Lieberman to caucus with the democrats to let him and not punish him because he campaigned so heavily for McCain. I remember at the time thinking, we finally have someone in office who gets it. After the polarization of Clinton and Bush years, it was refreshing to me. I think that is the type president of a lot people were looking for when they voted him in the first place.

So here is one scenario. Moderation takes over in American politics. Solutions to our problems come from people working together, listening to each other and through give and take...This leads to our 1T. Our next 1T is all about political correctness. Anyone who tries to rock the boat one way or other is seen as a radical. Everyone thinks we have created the perfect world because we are all playing nice. This is not to say that our lives are better than they are today. (Remember, it's Gilded Age 2). The next 1T will eventually usher in our new prophets and they will have something to say about all this.

As I read your post, I had to rethink my statement. The politicians that I mentioned are probably progressive, not liberal. They have the qualities that you express as a means to moderation. The opposite of the neo-conservatives that you mentioned, might fall more cleanly into the catagory of anarchists (sp?) Progressives don't want to over throw the government, they want the government to work for the good of its people, not corporations.

The politicians I mentioned, and a number of progressives, have a vision of taxpayer money going for health care for all, quality education for social uplift, support for families during illness, unemployment benefits and all of the other qualities of a caring and strong country. Unfortunately, it appears that both sides of our two party system are stuck in the idea and myth, that military might is a sign of strength. So there goes all that money for the military industrial complex and down the drain goes all of the social uplift.

The Nordic countries are an example of the kind of politics that can be a reality with the moderation and idea sharing that you wrote about. Theirs is a mix of capitalism and socialism. It's not an either or system that we so routinely argue about in this country. To create a compassionate system, is an ethical idea. Those ethical ideas are what most progressives deem as valuable.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Hmmm. I guess if a moderate is chosen, that leaves out progressive thinkers like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich and others who actually work for the citizens, not just the elite.

What you say makes sense in terms of where we are as a country. I have heard rumors of Libertarians being able to win. But I have to say, they can favor corporations just as much as any other party.

I'm curious as to what FDR or JFK would be considered in this day and time?

I watched an excellent one-hour HBO show on JFK last night. (Actually it was produced in 1988.) No talking heads and all the narration was by JFK himself, from interviews. Incredible news footage and home movies, which the Kennedys were obviously really into. Both he and FDR made lots of statements that would have them branded as socialists and communists today. JFK, for instance, in 1952, talked about the need not only to continue the government's low-income housing program, but to add a middle-income housing program. He also said, like FDR, that real freedom meant economic security. Etc.

Those were all standard GI positions, rejected only by a few fringe figures like. . Barry Goldwater. . .really. . .at that time. And I recently heard a good chunk of FDR's economic Bill of Rights speech from 1944 that made it clear where they came from. The veterans, he said, would deserve no less than a good job, adequate leisure, recreational opportunities, etc. Yes, it was a different world, and yes, I miss it.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I watched an excellent one-hour HBO show on JFK last night. (Actually it was produced in 1988.) No talking heads and all the narration was by JFK himself, from interviews. Incredible news footage and home movies, which the Kennedys were obviously really into. Both he and FDR made lots of statements that would have them branded as socialists and communists today. JFK, for instance, in 1952, talked about the need not only to continue the government's low-income housing program, but to add a middle-income housing program. He also said, like FDR, that real freedom meant economic security. Etc.

Those were all standard GI positions, rejected only by a few fringe figures like. . Barry Goldwater. . .really. . .at that time. And I recently heard a good chunk of FDR's economic Bill of Rights speech from 1944 that made it clear where they came from. The veterans, he said, would deserve no less than a good job, adequate leisure, recreational opportunities, etc. Yes, it was a different world, and yes, I miss it.

Thanks for your perspective. This helps me understand the good ole days.

By the way, I miss that world too.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Thanks for your perspective. This helps me understand the good ole days.

By the way, I miss that world too.

Watch Good Night and Good Luck, a wonderful recreation by an Xer. Or Twelve Angry Men.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I watched an excellent one-hour HBO show on JFK last night. (Actually it was produced in 1988.) No talking heads and all the narration was by JFK himself, from interviews. Incredible news footage and home movies, which the Kennedys were obviously really into. Both he and FDR made lots of statements that would have them branded as socialists and communists today. JFK, for instance, in 1952, talked about the need not only to continue the government's low-income housing program, but to add a middle-income housing program. He also said, like FDR, that real freedom meant economic security. Etc.

I thought later about JFK and his historic speech when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but you what you can do for country." Then I fast forwarded about 8 or 9 years later and wondered how that would have played at the protest rallies against the draft. I understand that Kennedy was beloved by most Americans, but would he have stood the test of time? Would he have been liberal enough for the awakening boomers? We just really don't know what decisions he would have made down the road. Perhaps Vietnam would have blood on his hands and he would shouldered the blame.

The right hated Bill Clinton, but in retrospect I think he was pretty moderate. And remember NAFTA was passed during his term. To me, that was a big, big mistake and the only people who truly benefited from it were the corporations. He did more to destroy the lives of the common man than any president I can think of recent history with the passage of that legislation. Prior to the past presidential election, Hillary Clinton was seen as controversial by the right the same way Sarah Palin is seen as controversial by the left today. Hillary Clinton doesn't seem very extreme at all anymore.

I too, heard FDR's bill of rights recently. That would be considered downright socialist by today's standard but I don't think most people thought of him as an extreme liberal during his time. It all has to do with the mood of the country at the time and their perceptions.

Right now I believe the general population is looking for someone who is as moderate as they come. Straight down the middle. They may find that person, but in the end history may look back on that president as weak. Hard to say.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Right now I believe the general population is looking for someone who is as moderate as they come. Straight down the middle. They may find that person, but in the end history may look back on that president as weak. Hard to say.

One of my favorite activists was Dorothy Day. Her wisdom came from understanding that our leaders aren't terrble people, they just work for a dirty rotten system. That system, so to speak, has gotten worse and has gained volumn and power over the years. And we think that by electing yet another person within that system, they will change course. Being in the political climate of today is like being sucked up into a tornado. The force is extremely powerful, and to stay in the game, one has to play the game. The problem is, the game is now rigged in favor of the elite.

Our voting has become like the movie Groundhog Day, we see the same or similar dysfunction time and time again. Our candidates may have different faces but the same old agenda remains, to stay within the dictated margins.

At times I think this train is too far down the track for things to change. Then I remember that systems are not forever. Empires fail. Rome's did, and so will ours, unless we can change the dirty rotten system. Mainly, expose the corporations behind the control levers and the politicains that are connected to those currents.

Originally Posted by Deb C

One of my favorite activists was Dorothy Day. Her wisdom came from understanding that our leaders aren't terrble people, they just work for a dirty rotten system. That system, so to speak, has gotten worse and has gained volumn and power over the years. And we think that by electing yet another person within that system, they will change course. Being in the political climate of today is like being sucked up into a tornado. The force is extremely powerful, and to stay in the game, one has to play the game. The problem is, the game is now rigged in favor of the elite.

Our voting has become like the movie Groundhog Day, we see the same or similar dysfunction time and time again. Our candidates may have different faces but the same old agenda remains, to stay within the dictated margins.

At times I think this train is too far down the track for things to change. Then I remember that systems are not forever. Empires fail. Rome's did, and so will ours, unless we can change the dirty rotten system. Mainly, expose the corporations behind the control levers and the politicains that are connected to those currents.

I recently saw a documentary called Collapse. Perhaps you have seen it. It's basically an interview with a man named Michael Ruppert. The movie is an interview with him. During his interview he mainly focuses on our dependency with oil but also talks about all the corruption in government and how he has spent most of his life trying to expose it. He does mention President Obama. In his opinion, Obama is a decent man who is just as much a victim of the system as the rest of us are. This may very well the situation with a lot presidents. They know their hands are tied.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Interesting new poll numbers...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...winds-changing

To me this just suggests that we are basically a country of moderates and aren't too crazy about extremes on either side of the aisle. I'd also say the American people are getting real tired of partisanship. So who will take the lead in this crisis? My guess is a moderate.

Perhaps the resurgency that we have discussed won't come from either political ideology, but rather it will be about the people demanding that government actually works together. After all, one of the big problems we have is an ineffective government. I don't know how constant bickering, partisanship, or hate politics could possibly solve that. But then I could be wrong too.

If this crisis does produce a gray champion (or champions), my guess is it will be a moderate. Perhaps in the end, this crisis will come down to being all about the divides in the country...economic, political, cultural, religious, etc. and we find that truly was the basis of most of our problems. The solution of crisis could just be us coming together...I don't know if that is possible, but we shall see.

You didn't mention "region". The South has more than its share of scummy right-wing politicians who see no cause to avoid offensive rhetoric. The likes of Saxby Chambliss, Rick Perry, James DeMint, David Vitter and Robert Bentley suggests that a crude fanaticism and insensitivity is no impediment to gaining high political office. If the American South -- and I am not talking about border areas -- were a political entity as was tried between 1861 and 1865 it would be a laughing stock of the world.

Part of the regeneracy will be the smoothing-over of such regional divides. Sure, it is possible to govern without the South, but it will have to participate.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

You didn't mention "region". The South has more than its share of scummy right-wing politicians who see no cause to avoid offensive rhetoric. The likes of Saxby Chambliss, Rick Perry, James DeMint, David Vitter and Robert Bentley suggests that a crude fanaticism and insensitivity is no impediment to gaining high political office. If the American South -- and I am not talking about border areas -- were a political entity as was tried between 1861 and 1865 it would be a laughing stock of the world.

Part of the regeneracy will be the smoothing-over of such regional divides. Sure, it is possible to govern without the South, but it will have to participate.

It is clear that you would not approve of Bentleys politics, but scummy is a strong slur. Do you know anything about the man? I have not seen anything scummy about Bentley.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Interesting new poll numbers...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...winds-changing

To me this just suggests that we are basically a country of moderates and aren't too crazy about extremes on either side of the aisle. I'd also say the American people are getting real tired of partisanship. So who will take the lead in this crisis? My guess is a moderate.

Perhaps the resurgency that we have discussed won't come from either political ideology, but rather it will be about the people demanding that government actually works together. After all, one of the big problems we have is an ineffective government. I don't know how constant bickering, partisanship, or hate politics could possibly solve that. But then I could be wrong too.

If this crisis does produce a gray champion (or champions), my guess is it will be a moderate. Perhaps in the end, this crisis will come down to being all about the divides in the country...economic, political, cultural, religious, etc. and we find that truly was the basis of most of our problems. The solution of crisis could just be us coming together...I don't know if that is possible, but we shall see.

I think the poll suggests that some people are now seeing the Republicans for what they really are. It also might suggest that some people voted for them out of frustration rather than because they agreed with them.

The shift, however, is not all that great to draw too many conclusions. I was glad to see Palin slip. She was leading before the Arizona events. If she has fallen back since, it is probably because of what she said and posted, rather than people linking her directly to the shooting. Her gaffes are catching up with her, and she shows no signs of increasing intelligence in her speech. I also note though that Obama is right now polling much better against Republicans than he did in November.

Neither moderation or extremism is a reliable way of navigating a 4T. Moderates just postpone the solutions that are needed. The pre-civil war era and early depression are excellent examples of this. Extremists might propose solutions that the people aren't ready for, or contribute to solutions that are more violent or drastic than needed. I say this even though I may be an "extremist" in some ways.

But a 4T means sooner or later that timid or moderate solutions don't cut it. The problems are too great for half-assed, surface-level approaches. The nation's survival is at stake. Problems must be faced. That means some fairly drastic changes are made, or the nation perishes. Moderates may be those who refuse to see this. Conservatives at least may see the stark reality of the situation; they are just usually on the side of going backward-- of preserving the power of those who have it already. There comes a time for people to choose. Sitting on the fence will only mean that the fence dissappears beneath you.

There may be some ideas that people can take from both sides. But just doing this to compromise, to stave off decisions and facing moral choices, is what will NOT work. The "compromise" generation learned that in old age. Obama may have temporarily made things work better by giving in to the right-wing tax-for-the-rich blackmail (agree to it, or we block everything, they said). Obama himself knows that this issue will have to be faced. The rich cannot get off paying so little in taxes forever if our nation is to be financially viable. Tactical maneuvers might work temporarily, but the same ones might not work in the future.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I thought later about JFK and his historic speech when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but you what you can do for country." Then I fast forwarded about 8 or 9 years later and wondered how that would have played at the protest rallies against the draft. I understand that Kennedy was beloved by most Americans, but would he have stood the test of time? Would he have been liberal enough for the awakening boomers? We just really don't know what decisions he would have made down the road. Perhaps Vietnam would have blood on his hands and he would shouldered the blame.

No, wrong again Amy

Kennedy had already hinted in Oct 1963 that the Vietnamese need to shoulder what is "their war." That was broadcast on national TV and rebroadcast countless times. Kennedy was too smart and too cautious to think he could go whole hog and throw 500,000 troops into a hopeless war in Asia. Only a blockhead egomaniac like LBJ does that. Part of the reason Kennedy was popular and LBJ was not, was also that he was more likeable than LBJ. The country would have been much different in the late 1960s and today had he lived. We might have moved into an American Golden Age, instead of drifting toward decline or even civil war as we have been since he died.

The right hated Bill Clinton, but in retrospect I think he was pretty moderate. And remember NAFTA was passed during his term. To me, that was a big, big mistake and the only people who truly benefited from it were the corporations. He did more to destroy the lives of the common man than any president I can think of recent history with the passage of that legislation. Prior to the past presidential election, Hillary Clinton was seen as controversial by the right the same way Sarah Palin is seen as controversial by the left today. Hillary Clinton doesn't seem very extreme at all anymore.

You have good points there.

I too, heard FDR's bill of rights recently. That would be considered downright socialist by today's standard but I don't think most people thought of him as an extreme liberal during his time. It all has to do with the mood of the country at the time and their perceptions.

Right now I believe the general population is looking for someone who is as moderate as they come. Straight down the middle. They may find that person, but in the end history may look back on that president as weak. Hard to say.

The American people are divided about what they want. We live in a divided country. Moderates will be cut in half and fed to the wolves. A weak president will not lead us through the Crisis; (s)he will be thrown out in favor of someone who can lead before the 4T is over. We can hope (s)he will be a wise leader. In my opinion, in today's political climate, wisdom is left of center.

Bet on it: by 2025 the nation will be ready for action in a big way.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I thought later about JFK and his historic speech when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but you what you can do for country." Then I fast forwarded about 8 or 9 years later and wondered how that would have played at the protest rallies against the draft. I understand that Kennedy was beloved by most Americans, but would he have stood the test of time? Would he have been liberal enough for the awakening boomers? We just really don't know what decisions he would have made down the road. Perhaps Vietnam would have blood on his hands and he would shouldered the blame.

The right hated Bill Clinton, but in retrospect I think he was pretty moderate. And remember NAFTA was passed during his term. To me, that was a big, big mistake and the only people who truly benefited from it were the corporations. He did more to destroy the lives of the common man than any president I can think of recent history with the passage of that legislation. Prior to the past presidential election, Hillary Clinton was seen as controversial by the right the same way Sarah Palin is seen as controversial by the left today. Hillary Clinton doesn't seem very extreme at all anymore.

I too, heard FDR's bill of rights recently. That would be considered downright socialist by today's standard but I don't think most people thought of him as an extreme liberal during his time. It all has to do with the mood of the country at the time and their perceptions.

Right now I believe the general population is looking for someone who is as moderate as they come. Straight down the middle. They may find that person, but in the end history may look back on that president as weak. Hard to say.

It was Bill and Neil who convinced me that the mood of the early 1960s could not have lasted in any event. But without Vietnam--a war JFK repeatedly refused to begin when asked to do so by all his advisers--the change might have been much less cataclysmic. It also might have been very different if RFK had become President, although I am not at all sure he could have in 1968. The real threat to the world of the early 1960s, however, was from the Right, not the Left, and I'm inclined to believe we would be roughly where we are now in any case.

Amy, your description of the person people want today sounds exactly like US Grant. Right down to the later view of him!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

It was Bill and Neil who convinced me that the mood of the early 1960s could not have lasted in any event. But without Vietnam--a war JFK repeatedly refused to begin when asked to do so by all his advisers--the change might have been much less cataclysmic. It also might have been very different if RFK had become President, although I am not at all sure he could have in 1968. The real threat to the world of the early 1960s, however, was from the Right, not the Left, and I'm inclined to believe we would be roughly where we are now in any case.

Amy, your description of the person people want today sounds exactly like US Grant. Right down to the later view of him!

You and Eric are right that I really don't know a lot about the politics of the early 1960's. I admit it, I don't. I wasn't even born yet. For me (and perhaps a lot the people who were born after JFK) he is like this mystical figure who has been raised to the level of sainthood, and I just don't understand it. I just can't recall anyone in politics in my lifetime who was not flawed in one way or other. So I find it hard to believe that such a person can even exist. I just assume people must be romanticizing him because he couldn't have been all that perfect. It just seems to me that the longer they stay in office, the more damage they do or the truth comes out about how untrustworthy they really are. That's why I question if JKF had not been killed and spent 8 years in the White House, if we would still view him the way we do.

Originally Posted by ASB65

You and Eric are right that I really don't know a lot about the politics of the early 1960's. I admit it, I don't. I wasn't even born yet. For me (and perhaps a lot the people who were born after JFK) he is like this mystical figure who has been raised to the level of sainthood, and I just don't understand it. I just can't recall anyone in politics in my lifetime who was not flawed in one way or other. So I find it hard to believe that such a person can even exist. I just assume people must be romanticizing him because he couldn't have been all that perfect. It just seems to me that the longer they stay in office, the more damage they do or the truth comes out about how untrustworthy they really are. That's why I question if JKF had not been killed and spent 8 years in the White House, if we would still view him the way we do.

JFK was far from being a saint. Ask his wife.

Originally Posted by ASB65

In the current climate of our country, I think it probably does. I know that's not something that you want to hear. On the same token, followers of Glen Beck or Russ Limbaugh probably don't want to hear that most people don't agree with them either. I honestly don't think the all the independents and Millies out there who helped to push Obama over the top, were truly looking for a strong liberal. I think part of his appeal was that he seemed like the type of person who was willing reach his hand across the aisle and bridge the political divide. I must say, I was very impressed with how he handled things following his election, like holding a dinner to honor his opponent, John McCain. Or how he told congress who didn't want Lieberman to caucus with the democrats to let him and not punish him because he campaigned so heavily for McCain. I remember at the time thinking, we finally have someone in office who gets it. After the polarization of Clinton and Bush years, it was refreshing to me. I think that is the type president of a lot people were looking for when they voted him in the first place.




I don't think a Libertarian could actually win the presidency anymore than a Green Party or other 3rd party candidate could at this point in time. Plus I'm not sure most people in America truly see what's really going with the corporations and just how much their hands are in Washington. Again, that's not necessarily how I feel, but where I think the pulse of America is at this present time. You would have to living under rock if you didn't notice the partisan divide today. The other problem you are speaking of, doesn't necessarily resonate with most people.




I don't know the answer to that question. Someone like David would be better to answer that question than me. Sure everyone loves JFK. I heard on the news today that JFK is the most popular president that ever lived. I don't if that's actually true or not. I think people liked George Washington too. Perhaps the whole thing hero worship with JFK is because he was assassinated. People have romanticized him and put him on pedestal. That may not have been the case if he had lived. But I wasn't alive back then, so it's hard for truly say what the attitude was towards him prior to his death.

I do think I remember hearing the FDR wasn't really seen as an extreme liberal in his day. People just liked him because he took steps to help improve their lives and conditions of that time period. And I'm not so sure the words "liberal or conservative" had the same negative connotations as they do today. Those are really loaded words in our world today.

It's not really up to you and me to determine what way the country will move. If only I had the power to make everyone see things the way I do...What I sense more than anything from what the younger people (especially the millies) are saying is, "We don't like all this partisanship and we don't like all this divide." The shooting of the congresswomen may have more historical impact than we even realize at this moment...

So here is one scenario. Moderation takes over in American politics. Solutions to our problems come from people working together, listening to each other and through give and take...This leads to our 1T. Our next 1T is all about political correctness. Anyone who tries to rock the boat one way or other is seen as a radical. Everyone thinks we have created the perfect world because we are all playing nice. This is not to say that our lives are better than they are today. (Remember, it's Gilded Age 2). The next 1T will eventually usher in our new prophets and they will have something to say about all this.

Back then I hear there were conservative and liberal wings in both parties.

~Chas'88

I'm still waiting for Nehemiah Scudder to run - and win - in 2012. Or whoever like him is on the scene.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I'm still waiting for Nehemiah Scudder to run - and win - in 2012. Or whoever like him is on the scene.

Yikes! Science fiction could become a reality in this political and economic climate. :0