[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It doesn't have to pass. They know that he will veto it. They just want to pass it so that they can put the message out there, to the national as well as the international community, that Dubya doesn't speak for everyone, and we (congress) don't agree with what he's doing and are trying to stop it.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that actually makes a whole lot of sense!
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It's called a borderline autocracy, that hopefully will end in about a year.[/QUOTE]
Caspar....Representative Democracy has always been a delicate balance between aristocracy, tyranny and anarchy. It is not about to change with a new president....and it never will. Democracy is about balance.
And Bob, that's why they do it. Another factor of a representative democracy of the elected is not how much you have accomplished, but how much you plan to accomplish and how dedicated you are to working towards those goals once the re-election runs around. Politics is perception...always has been, always will be
Caspar....Representative Democracy has always been a delicate balance between aristocracy, tyranny and anarchy. It is not about to change with a new president....and it never will. Democracy is about balance.
And Bob, that's why they do it. Another factor of a representative democracy of the elected is not how much you have accomplished, but how much you plan to accomplish and how dedicated you are to working towards those goals once the re-election runs around. Politics is perception...always has been, always will be
However, shortly after the French Revolution that STARTED it, it degenerated from *perception* to *deception*, which is how it remains to this day.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]However, shortly after the French Revolution that STARTED it, it degenerated from *perception* to *deception*, which is how it remains to this day.[/QUOTE]
Representative democracy in the United States predates the French Revolution. No clue what you mean by "STARTED it."
And people who claim that our government is in tatters and needs fixing rarely look at the longterm history of the US. Six years of single party rule, or "autocracy" as some might claim, is nothing compared to other eras in our history. We rebounded then, we'll rebound again. Rumors of our government's demise, to paraphrase Twain, have been greatly exaggerated.
Representative democracy in the United States predates the French Revolution. No clue what you mean by "STARTED it."
And people who claim that our government is in tatters and needs fixing rarely look at the longterm history of the US. Six years of single party rule, or "autocracy" as some might claim, is nothing compared to other eras in our history. We rebounded then, we'll rebound again. Rumors of our government's demise, to paraphrase Twain, have been greatly exaggerated.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]However, shortly after the French Revolution that STARTED it, it degenerated from *perception* to *deception*, which is how it remains to this day.[/QUOTE]
Representative democracy in the United States predates the French Revolution. No clue what you mean by "STARTED it."
And people who claim that our government is in tatters and needs fixing rarely look at the longterm history of the US. Six years of single party rule, or "autocracy" as some might claim, is nothing compared to other eras in our history. We rebounded then, we'll rebound again. Rumors of our government's demise, to paraphrase Twain, have been greatly exaggerated. [/QUOTE]
Worldwide liberal politics started after the 1848 revolutions, which turned most of Europe into liberal democracy's (easternmost Europe (from Prussia eastwards) generally had failed revolutions and remained autocratic); these were influenced by the Romantic movement and its aims for political nationalism (not to be confused with the later social nationalism, which was the far-right nazi-style nazionalism) and...guess what? The French Revolution.
While you are right that the American liberal constitution is older than the French Revolution (seeing how it was mostly based on the political system found in the 17th and 18th century Dutch Republic (the later Kingdom Of The Netherlands, which is sadly what it is today), the US too, was shaped greatly by the Revolutions of 1848, and these have drawn the United States into the development of its system:
"The Third Party System is a term generally used by historians and political scientists to cover a period in American political history from about 1854 to the mid 1890s (see Second Party System, Fourth Party System), with major developments revolving around the issues of nationalism, modernization, and race." I quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Party_System).
As you can see, this is rather a French Revolutionist policy, which then developed through the Fourth and Fifth (New Deal) Party system on.
Now this development involved the compromise of the South falling under Democratic control and the federal government under Republican. This happened when the Democratic party split in two over the concept of slavery, with the Northern Democrats being anti-slavery (the ancestors of the modern Democrats), and the Southern Democrats being pro. The Whig party then fell apart and the Republicans were formed, originally as an anti-slavery party of the North, and intent on liberalism.
However, in the last two decades of the 19th century, the Republicans started siding with the monopolists more and more, and were installing more and more systems of protectionism. The Northern Democrats and the liberalist Republicans then formed the modern Democratic party against them, now finding allies in the rest of the population apart from the monopolists and the elite. The Republican party has since been mostly an authoritarian party, and the Democratic party a liberal one.
~~~~
I will refrain from going into the fact that the present government is a fine example of the former, and that the Republican Party since Nixon has been a web of lies, errors of judgement and dirt, such as the support of terrorists (S. America, Middle East) by Reagan and Bush Sr.
Representative democracy in the United States predates the French Revolution. No clue what you mean by "STARTED it."
And people who claim that our government is in tatters and needs fixing rarely look at the longterm history of the US. Six years of single party rule, or "autocracy" as some might claim, is nothing compared to other eras in our history. We rebounded then, we'll rebound again. Rumors of our government's demise, to paraphrase Twain, have been greatly exaggerated. [/QUOTE]
Worldwide liberal politics started after the 1848 revolutions, which turned most of Europe into liberal democracy's (easternmost Europe (from Prussia eastwards) generally had failed revolutions and remained autocratic); these were influenced by the Romantic movement and its aims for political nationalism (not to be confused with the later social nationalism, which was the far-right nazi-style nazionalism) and...guess what? The French Revolution.
While you are right that the American liberal constitution is older than the French Revolution (seeing how it was mostly based on the political system found in the 17th and 18th century Dutch Republic (the later Kingdom Of The Netherlands, which is sadly what it is today), the US too, was shaped greatly by the Revolutions of 1848, and these have drawn the United States into the development of its system:
"The Third Party System is a term generally used by historians and political scientists to cover a period in American political history from about 1854 to the mid 1890s (see Second Party System, Fourth Party System), with major developments revolving around the issues of nationalism, modernization, and race." I quote from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Party_System).
As you can see, this is rather a French Revolutionist policy, which then developed through the Fourth and Fifth (New Deal) Party system on.
Now this development involved the compromise of the South falling under Democratic control and the federal government under Republican. This happened when the Democratic party split in two over the concept of slavery, with the Northern Democrats being anti-slavery (the ancestors of the modern Democrats), and the Southern Democrats being pro. The Whig party then fell apart and the Republicans were formed, originally as an anti-slavery party of the North, and intent on liberalism.
However, in the last two decades of the 19th century, the Republicans started siding with the monopolists more and more, and were installing more and more systems of protectionism. The Northern Democrats and the liberalist Republicans then formed the modern Democratic party against them, now finding allies in the rest of the population apart from the monopolists and the elite. The Republican party has since been mostly an authoritarian party, and the Democratic party a liberal one.
~~~~
I will refrain from going into the fact that the present government is a fine example of the former, and that the Republican Party since Nixon has been a web of lies, errors of judgement and dirt, such as the support of terrorists (S. America, Middle East) by Reagan and Bush Sr.
Though I think there are points to quibble with in that post (like forgetting to include the importance of American Exceptionalism, Turner's Frontier Thesis, etc) I'll limit my comments to one point.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, in the last two decades of the 19th century, the Republicans started siding with the monopolists more and more, and were installing more and more systems of protectionism. The Northern Democrats and the liberalist Republicans then formed the modern Democratic party against them, now finding allies in the rest of the population apart from the monopolists and the elite. The Republican party has since been mostly an authoritarian party, and the Democratic party a liberal one.[/QUOTE]
You moved from the 1890s to present day without acknowledging the changes of the 20th century. You've assumed that the economic and social developments of the post-Civil War era carry through to today, but that ignores the changes in liberalism from the 1930s to the 1960s, the effects of internationalism and the end of isolationism, and the Cold War, among others.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
However, in the last two decades of the 19th century, the Republicans started siding with the monopolists more and more, and were installing more and more systems of protectionism. The Northern Democrats and the liberalist Republicans then formed the modern Democratic party against them, now finding allies in the rest of the population apart from the monopolists and the elite. The Republican party has since been mostly an authoritarian party, and the Democratic party a liberal one.[/QUOTE]
You moved from the 1890s to present day without acknowledging the changes of the 20th century. You've assumed that the economic and social developments of the post-Civil War era carry through to today, but that ignores the changes in liberalism from the 1930s to the 1960s, the effects of internationalism and the end of isolationism, and the Cold War, among others.
The Republican Party hardly did anything of international proportion between the '30s and the '60s. Oh, apart from trying to remain neutral in the face of Fascism (starting with the Spanish Civil War).
1 - That doesn't answer my question
2 - You forget about the 1950s and Eisenhower
3 - My original comment still stands
2 - You forget about the 1950s and Eisenhower
3 - My original comment still stands
Thank you, Zeni
Caspar, you give the French Revolution too much credit. Just in case you forgot, Americans remained OUT of that revolution even before The Terror started, because we were too busy trying to make sure things were going to survive at home. The French Revolution had a huge impact on Europe....but almost none on the US.
And for the record...nothing of international importance from the 30's to the 60's? Give me a break.
Caspar, you give the French Revolution too much credit. Just in case you forgot, Americans remained OUT of that revolution even before The Terror started, because we were too busy trying to make sure things were going to survive at home. The French Revolution had a huge impact on Europe....but almost none on the US.
And for the record...nothing of international importance from the 30's to the 60's? Give me a break.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Thank you, Zeni
Caspar, you give the French Revolution too much credit. Just in case you forgot, Americans remained OUT of that revolution even before The Terror started, because we were too busy trying to make sure things were going to survive at home. The French Revolution had a huge impact on Europe....but almost none on the US.
And for the record...nothing of international importance from the 30's to the 60's? Give me a break. [/QUOTE]
Don't misread what I said. The REPUBLICAN PARTY did nothing of international importance between the '30s and '60s. Or would you call Hoover and Eisenhower groundbreaking?
As for the impact of the French Revolution (in which you were indeed not involved; rather dubious seeing how they aided you in the Revolutionary War); read up on the above "Third".
Caspar, you give the French Revolution too much credit. Just in case you forgot, Americans remained OUT of that revolution even before The Terror started, because we were too busy trying to make sure things were going to survive at home. The French Revolution had a huge impact on Europe....but almost none on the US.
And for the record...nothing of international importance from the 30's to the 60's? Give me a break. [/QUOTE]
Don't misread what I said. The REPUBLICAN PARTY did nothing of international importance between the '30s and '60s. Or would you call Hoover and Eisenhower groundbreaking?
As for the impact of the French Revolution (in which you were indeed not involved; rather dubious seeing how they aided you in the Revolutionary War); read up on the above "Third".
There have been many historians in the US who spent their time arguing that American Democracy was a byproduct of a unique American Experience, and not the outcome of Europe in 1848, which you then say was a byproduct of the French Revolution. Was the 1848 (and by default French Revolution) influential in America? Probably. Was it solely responsible like you imply? No. The fact that the US predates the French Revolution (not to mention the 1848 Revolutions) should immediately show you that other factors in our development were at hand. Try googling "Jeffersonian Yeoman Farmer" to get an idea. (And as for the US not supporting the French Revolution as "dubious" - you need to learn more about the American Revolution to understand why that happened)
Also, pick your terms - either use "groundbreaking" or "international importance" - though it doesn't matter that much because contrary to what you argue, the Republican Party did both during that period. If you cannot see the importance to Eisenhower Administration, for instance, then you have not studied 1950s America very closely.
The fact remains that US history will not, cannot, and does not fit into the small ideological box you want to squeeze it into.
Also, pick your terms - either use "groundbreaking" or "international importance" - though it doesn't matter that much because contrary to what you argue, the Republican Party did both during that period. If you cannot see the importance to Eisenhower Administration, for instance, then you have not studied 1950s America very closely.
The fact remains that US history will not, cannot, and does not fit into the small ideological box you want to squeeze it into.
Caspar,
the reason the US didn't get involved in the French Revolution was simply this: We were trying to stay allies with Britain, as we knew we likely wouldn't surivive another war without them. Just because basically the only reason we got aid from France was so that they could "stick it to the British" we wanted to remain neutral so we wouldn't piss off Britain any farther. That's the reason we remained neutral...it had nothing to do with us not supporting them or their ideals. In fact, there were rumblings around Washington of thinking about sending economic aid, but then The Terror broke out, and the US government doesn't fun terrorists (which, let's face it, is what the government of the Terror was).
As for the Republicans not doing anything of "international importance" during the 30's through the 60's....I've got some things I think you should consider.
1) Eisenhower signed the cease fire that ended the Korean War in July 1953. We can argue up and down about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but before you start let me say that "international importance" is a neutral term...it doesn't mean anything good or bad, just something important. So if you don't agree with it, that doesn't mean it wasn't important.
2) Eisenhower created the US as a nuclear power (again, may be good or bad, but it's important)
3) Eisenhower created NASA (I shouldn't have to point out that this is important)
4) Eisenhower sent Federal troops to Little Rock after the governor refused to desegregate the schools. The troops sent by Eisenhower escorted nine black children into a previously all white school...this is very influential in the Civil Rights Movement
5) Nixon was the first US President to visit China in a number of years, improving relations with the country and the US.
6) He built the modern republican party (again, good or bad, but it's important)
These are all I can think of in one sitting. Remember, Caspar, good or bad, these things are all significant, whether you agree with them or not.
the reason the US didn't get involved in the French Revolution was simply this: We were trying to stay allies with Britain, as we knew we likely wouldn't surivive another war without them. Just because basically the only reason we got aid from France was so that they could "stick it to the British" we wanted to remain neutral so we wouldn't piss off Britain any farther. That's the reason we remained neutral...it had nothing to do with us not supporting them or their ideals. In fact, there were rumblings around Washington of thinking about sending economic aid, but then The Terror broke out, and the US government doesn't fun terrorists (which, let's face it, is what the government of the Terror was).
As for the Republicans not doing anything of "international importance" during the 30's through the 60's....I've got some things I think you should consider.
1) Eisenhower signed the cease fire that ended the Korean War in July 1953. We can argue up and down about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but before you start let me say that "international importance" is a neutral term...it doesn't mean anything good or bad, just something important. So if you don't agree with it, that doesn't mean it wasn't important.
2) Eisenhower created the US as a nuclear power (again, may be good or bad, but it's important)
3) Eisenhower created NASA (I shouldn't have to point out that this is important)
4) Eisenhower sent Federal troops to Little Rock after the governor refused to desegregate the schools. The troops sent by Eisenhower escorted nine black children into a previously all white school...this is very influential in the Civil Rights Movement
5) Nixon was the first US President to visit China in a number of years, improving relations with the country and the US.
6) He built the modern republican party (again, good or bad, but it's important)
These are all I can think of in one sitting. Remember, Caspar, good or bad, these things are all significant, whether you agree with them or not.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Caspar,
6) [Nixon] built the modern republican party (again, good or bad, but it's important)
[/QUOTE]
It should also be pointed out that a certain Democratic governor heavily influenced Nixon's thinking in the early-1970s. But that doesn't really play into Caspar's overall thesis too well.
6) [Nixon] built the modern republican party (again, good or bad, but it's important)
[/QUOTE]
It should also be pointed out that a certain Democratic governor heavily influenced Nixon's thinking in the early-1970s. But that doesn't really play into Caspar's overall thesis too well.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]CMU HistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Caspar,
6) [Nixon] built the modern republican party (again, good or bad, but it's important)
[/QUOTE]
It should also be pointed out that a certain Democratic governor heavily influenced Nixon's thinking in the early-1970s. But that doesn't really play into Caspar's overall thesis too well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I knew this, but like you said...there is enough proof here to disprove his argument on several levels, even if you take out 6.
6) [Nixon] built the modern republican party (again, good or bad, but it's important)
[/QUOTE]
It should also be pointed out that a certain Democratic governor heavily influenced Nixon's thinking in the early-1970s. But that doesn't really play into Caspar's overall thesis too well.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I knew this, but like you said...there is enough proof here to disprove his argument on several levels, even if you take out 6.
Perhaps I'm just presenting my own ignorance of history, as I surely cannot compete with Zeni or CMU, but I'll add my two cents.
Criticizing or lauding a party for past achievements, and implying they might have anything to do with the present, is rather silly. Yes, it's obvious that TQ has a deep-seated hatred for the Republican Party. However, it's just as silly as hating the Boston Red Sox because you're from the Bronx, or vice versa. Especially nowadays since the difference between the two parties is minimal at best (much like the differences between the Yanks and the Sox, the two wealthiest teams in baseball).
Times change, people change, issues change, and stances change. The 2007 Miami Dolphins are not the same as the 1972 Miami Dolphins in anything other than name. The same can be said about Democrats and Republicans.
Criticizing or lauding a party for past achievements, and implying they might have anything to do with the present, is rather silly. Yes, it's obvious that TQ has a deep-seated hatred for the Republican Party. However, it's just as silly as hating the Boston Red Sox because you're from the Bronx, or vice versa. Especially nowadays since the difference between the two parties is minimal at best (much like the differences between the Yanks and the Sox, the two wealthiest teams in baseball).
Times change, people change, issues change, and stances change. The 2007 Miami Dolphins are not the same as the 1972 Miami Dolphins in anything other than name. The same can be said about Democrats and Republicans.