There will never be a permanent move to the GOP or to the Democrats — it’s more like a pendulum. However, limited government will be forced on both parties by reality (and by limited government, I include limits on foreign policy interventionism and military spending as well). It likely will be a Democrat who pushes it most effectively, like Clinton did when he worked with the GOP to make major welfare reform a reality. Sort of an "only Nixon can go to China" thing. Blair already shifted Labour away from the far left, Schroeder did that with the SPD, even though he never really got the left wing under control.
The thing is that the biggest threat to limited government isn’t from socialists or the "left," but from big business and some of the so-called "right" who would prefer to have a government-business cooperation to assure profits and avoid true competition and accountability. These groups work with both Democrats and Republicans, and often use the left as a boogey man in order to gain power. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
There will never be a permanent move to the GOP or to the Democrats — it’s more like a pendulum Were that such were the case. Our country would be in far better shape than it is today. As it is, your "pendulum", in reality, is a bit one sided. The nearly 75 years of the democrat dominated Congress, was answered by approximately a quarter of that of republican Domination.
the remainder of your comments are pure fantasy, and therefore not out of character for you. |
| |
Written By:
Bithead
URL:
http://bitsblog.florack.us
|
But Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger meant that in the last 55 years (1953-2008) 36 years were under a Republican President. Congressional domination was due to the power of incumbency and also the fact that so many Southern Democrats were conservative, yet still running as Democrats. This meant, for instance, that Reagan had a defacto majority in Congress even when Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the House.the remainder of your comments are pure fantasy, and therefore not out of character for you.
And, of course, it is typical for you to insult and ridicule without giving any substance or counter argument. In debate you lose the point if you do that. Usually it means that someone doesn’t have a counter argument, but doesn’t want to admit he is wrong. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
|
The Congress during Reagan still spent like drunken sailors. Although it may have been partial onboard with Reagan for some things, small government wasn’t one of those things. |
| |
Written By:
jpm100
URL:
http://
|
|
How much did Reagan really push for small government? How much did he really push for more ’federalism’? His presidency was the one when the government forced states to change drinking age laws to a uniform 21. You can go kill and die in a war, get married, and vote, but you can’t have a glass of wine with your dinner at the Olive Garden! I think Reagan’s heart was for smaller government, but his heart also was opposed to trading arms for hostages. Yet somehow, that’s what happened. |
| |
Written By:
Scott Erb
URL:
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
|
If it takes 8... 12... 20 years of Democratic presidents to get the right back on its feet, well, that’s a chance I’m willing to take! :)
You might also realize that the current pendulum swing in favor of the Dems is a result of "Limited" government going into the realm of incompetent and slow-reacting government ("From the people who brought you Iraq and Katrina!"), which the public sees in just as bad a light - if not worse - than excessive government. |
| |
Written By:
Oliver Willis
URL:
http://www.oliverwillis.com
|
|
With a majority of elected Republicans being nothing more than a Democrat "Lite", what’s the difference? |
| |
Written By:
Jay Evans
URL:
http://
|
"Congressional domination was due to the power of incumbency and also the fact that so many Southern Democrats were conservative, yet still running as Democrats."
Actually this is a large part of why Democrats maintained control of Congress. The one thing Presidents do consistenly is lose seats for their parties. |
| |
Written By:
Sean
URL:
http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
|
