MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

Tonight Will Be Fine, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise

January 23, 2010 Martha Thomases 0 Comments

On Wednesday morning, my high school friend, Carolyn, sent me this:

“Okay, I need to rant because I cannot believe what is happening and I am horrified by the voters in this country.  Do we have no collective memory?  Is the population stupid?  Am I just blind to some truth about everything I believe in like compassion, equality, freedom and something larger than the fucking bottom line?  Is Jesus really on the side of the Tea-Baggers and not me?  I just don’t get it and am getting seriously convinced I am living in some nightmarish twilight zone that our country is not going to be able to right.

“Does anyone want to join me on a boat with no radio or in a commune someplace remote?”

Later that morning, The Awl amused me with another rant inspired by the same event: the Senate election in Massachusetts.

Like so many political junkies in this country, I was following the election.  I had another reason as well:  my father had met Martha Coakley several years ago, and I was hoping to someday be able to name-drop a Senator.

As you know, my social ambition was dashed, along with the first year of the Obama presidency.  The pundits who oversee our stupid discourse could not wait to declare him a lame duck, doomed to nothing more than impotent attempts at accomplishing his legislative goals.

It’s not that simple.  Sure, the Senate is a cumbersome branch of government, giving undue influence to states with small, mostly white population.  It’s the kind of thing that makes me want to move to a Dakota, where my vote will count more, but I won’t be able to get decent Chinese food.

Progressives have a problem (and not just that people want to call us “liberals” like it’s something insulting).  We see too many sides to argue in sound-bytes.  It’s much easier to hate an Islamo-fascist than a poor Muslim exploited by political, social and economic forces beyond his control.  One can demonize a welfare queen more easily than one can solve the economic  problems of single-parent families.  Still, I’m going to go out on a limb and try to understand why some people are so angry at Obama.

First of all, may I say that he’s let me down, too?  I would have liked to see a much stronger health care bill. I would have liked to see a larger stimulus package.  I would like to see the wars over.  I would like an end to Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.  Despite these disagreements, I still think he’s an intelligent man who is trying to do the right thing.

The people who gather for the anti-Obama demonstrations (Tea Parties and others), and who opine against him in the media seem to me to be overwhelmingly middle-aged (or older), white and male.  They frequently talk about taking back the country to the way it used to be. From this, I infer that they mean a time when white men were in charge.

While I am not a white male, I get this.  Really, I do.  They were raised with certain rules, and then the rules changed.  It happened to me, too.  When I was a girl, the cultural contract (visible to you kids today on Mad Men) told me that if I was nice and agreeable and chaste but “fun,”, someday my prince would come and take care of me.  Luckily, third-wave feminism hit while I was in high school.

Today, women know they can’t count on a man to take care of them for life.  Divorce and a roller-coaster economic climate make it necessary for us to get educated, get jobs and get independent.  Men who prefer women should be docile have fewer choices.

It isn’t easy to understand that something you take for granted as the natural order is, in fact, a choice, and one that is oppressive to other people.  I can cite at least two times it has happened to me:

1) When I was about five years old, I loved Tarzan movies.  One day, I got on the bus with my mom and, seeing so many black people, exclaimed, “Look!  Natives!”

2) At an AIDS Awarness fund-raising party, the favors included a package that contained two condoms and two packets of lube.  “Isn’t that sweet,” I thought.  “They think we’re going to have sex twice.”

In both cases, I assumed that my experience was the only one.  In the first case, I only expected white people to travel around town, as opposed to coming to my house to clean it or to a restaurant to wait tables.  In the second place, I expected only one of the people in the couples who might take those party favor would have a penis.

Middle-aged straight white men are going to need to have similar realizations.  I hope they do.  It makes life more interesting when we realize we’re all in the same situation, struggling with the same crises.

I had hoped that, if there was anything good that might come from the earthquake in Haiti, it would be that.  Like the giant squid in WATCHMEN, the tragedy would be something against which we could unite.

Some of that has happened.  Here’s hoping.


Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, hopes everyone had a fine Martin Luther King Day. For those who would like to continue to be inspired, she suggests these pamphlets.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. Eddie
    January 23, 2010 - 8:43 am

    They called it “cultural relativism” when I was in college — the principle of stepping out of your own cultural assumptions as much as possible (or at least staying aware of them) so you can figure out what another culture’s rules are and how they function in that culture. Somehow that discipline, the vital skill, has, like the word “liberal,” become a dirty word.

    Oh, and thank you for reminding me. Now I recall from my dim past that there are couples who have sex with only one penis between them. But I’ve never understood how they actually “do it.”

  2. Mark Badger
    January 23, 2010 - 11:16 am

    Geez it’s all my fault???

    The lady is the one who made 17 campaign stops in six weeks, the lady is the one refused Obama/Organizing for America help 6 weeks ago because they had it in the bag. Brown got McCain’s votes. She ended up getting about half the Obama votes and had no on the ground face to face community organizing going on until the last week, dumping the whole organization that stuck a black guy in the very, very, White House. You can’t blame us for this one honey.

    Congress, the last eight years, the state of the Union, the SCOTUS, The reaction to her losing, yeah, there basically all our fault. But her losing is her fault.

    Sarcasm and pissyness aside, blaming the Teabaggers isn’t right either, I really think it’s the fault of bad organizing , What I like about Organizing for America is their putting efforts into organizing now.

  3. R. Maheras
    January 23, 2010 - 2:04 pm

    You say want to understand why voters turned on Obama and the Democrats, yet all the reasons you cite are given through a partisan lense. They are incidental, partisan reasons and ignore reality.

    The reason the voters turned on the Democrats and Obama in one year are largely the same reasons voters turned on the Republicans and Bush over eight years. But the reason the free-fall in support happened so remarkably fast for the Democrats is because their hypocrisy and abuse of power became evident at a much faster rate. Voters are also mad that the Democrats seem to have forgotten about fixing our economic mess — one of the major reasons they were granted such overwhelming power in 2008 in the first place.

    The Democrats ran on a platform that basically stated: We are not like Bush and the Republicans. We will listen to you, and we will be open and honest. We won’t have the secrecy, the cronyism, and the abuses you saw under the Republicans. We are the light; we are the way.

    Unfortunately, none of that has been true.

    In all the years I have been following politics, I have never seen such a blatant abuse of power co-conspired by both the executive and legislative branches as was evident with the crafting of this healthcare refore initiative. What started out as a noble endeavor has been transformed into a Frankenstein Monster, and the feeble defense, “Well, it’s better than nothing,” is absolute horseshit.

    That whole horrific debacle has honest independents and moderates aghast. That, along with no noticeable fixes on the horizon for the economy (specifically, the jobs situation) is why the newest U.S. senator from Massachusetts is a Republican.

  4. Martha Thomases
    January 23, 2010 - 2:51 pm

    R said: In all the years I have been following politics, I have never seen such a blatant abuse of power co-conspired by both the executive and legislative branches as was evident with the crafting of this healthcare refore initiative. What started out as a noble endeavor has been transformed into a Frankenstein Monster, and the feeble defense, “Well, it’s better than nothing,” is absolute horseshit.

    Gee, that’s not partisan at all.

    @Mark: I blame the media. For some reason, when the Democrats have the majority, they need to be bi-partisan. They have to have a super-majority. They need 60 votes in the Senate. The Republicans, however, do not.

    But, yes, it is your fault.

  5. pennie
    January 23, 2010 - 5:55 pm

    Martha, I believe that given the state of affairs when Obama won election juxtaposed against his campaign promises along with the general impatience that comes with seeing your life dissipate in the quicksand of foreclosure, joblessness, medical bills and dispair…people want–and millions need–a quick fix.

    Realistically, given Beltway realities, there was no way Obama could conjure those fast fixes himself. So people are reacting, lashing out. Can’t blame ’em.

    Like you Martha, I believe Obama’s intentions are in the right place. So too paved is the road to hell.

    I’m hardly an apologist. I’m trying to understand and read the tea leaves. I lived in MA for 13 years as an adult. It’s a funny state (then again, aren’t the other 49…). As noted elsewhere, how many MA Governors in the last 25 years have been elephants? Yeah, that.

    Could Obama have put all jobless back to work? Hardly. But, as far too many know, that is no salve if you’re among that lot. Or have them in your family and count them as friends and neighbors.

    Coakley croaked. She has her own ineptitude to stare at. She can blame Obama’s ripped coattails but it was hers to blow. And blow it good she did.

    Obama’s strategy of seating all political persuasions at his table is a failed one. I always thought that. He needs to come out swinging.
    And the donkeys need to stop braying.
    Get up, stand up.

  6. R. Maheras
    January 23, 2010 - 9:51 pm

    Martha wrote: “Gee, that’s not partisan at all.”

    Sarcasm aside, you’re right. It’s not.

    It’s like the old song from The Who says: “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.”

    What surprisese me is how many Democrats looked the other way regarding the whole sleazy mess, and then were apparently shocked — shocked — that moderates and independents were so pissed off that there have been three major upsets (one of brobdingnagian proportions) at the polls in as many months.

  7. R. Maheras
    January 23, 2010 - 10:16 pm

    pennie wrote: “Realistically, given Beltway realities, there was no way Obama could conjure those fast fixes himself. So people are reacting, lashing out. Can’t blame ‘em.”

    That’s not what happened, from my point of view. Last February, Obama and Congress feverishly worked to compile and pass a (pork-filled) $1 trillion stimulus bill to help stem unemployment and bolster the economy.

    After that, both took their eyes off the recession ball and started working on other issues — most notably, healthcare reform. As a matter of fact, they’ve spent the lion’s share of the past eight months working on healthcare reform — virtually without any Republican inclusion, I might add — and all they’ve got to show for it is the current patchwork monstrosity that almost NO ONE is happy with.

    In the meantime, unemployment went up and the economy is still stalled, and the only saving grace for those who are still unemployed (such as my best friend) is that Obama extended unemployment benefits again. But my friend knows, as do a lot of other unemployed people, that those beneits won’t last forever, and that they are only a temporary bandage.

    So when I ask my friend, who is a liberal from way back, which he would rather have, a job or some patchwork healthcare reform plan passed, you know damn well what his answer is.

  8. pennie
    January 24, 2010 - 6:41 am

    R: I’m not going to quote your response to mine directly above this but simply say I agree with your words, but as another facet. I don’t see your explanation as the sole reason for Obama’s problems.

    I don’t see any one simple reason. From public evidence, it appears that Obama’s focus on health care stemmed from his desire to actually achieve this much needed reform. He also wanted to make it the centerpiece of his administration’s accomplishments–a feat no other had attained. Instead, he has created a grand fiasco, caving to nearly every lobby–something he strongly pledged to prevent during his candidacy.
    So the method and result makes him look like that the words in the Who song you cite.

    Was the stimulus bill filled with pork? Yeah. Was it flawed?
    Yeah. But you won’t see me flay him for that. For those of us unemployed then, it was a life-saver. For me, definitely.
    I’m guessing your unemployed best friend would have called it a no-brainer if he had to choose the passed Stimulus Bill over none at all if it was blocked due to the provisions placed to placate some to obtain their vote. But isn’t that type of thing a way of life inside the Beltway?

    So, early on, Obama got a fast lesson in practical politics and learned he was going to have to compromise like crazy. The result: a crazy-quilt health care bill that no one likes except Big Pharma. No bill is better than this bill. But, politically, he can’t go there. He would appear even more incompetent that some call him now.

    If Obama maintains his current methodology, he’s headed for a a bad fall in the interims and worse in two years. So this week he shifted gears doing what he should have a long time ago–getting up and standing up. He just brought David Plouffe back. Clearly, this very bright man recognizes the change he advocates needs to start real close to home.

    You can’t please everybody. As idealistic as it might be, you can’t create a general agreement. You can’t achieve the successes with the issues he advocated with everyone at the same table.

    So he might as well dig in and press hard for those issues you ran on. He had a clear majority in November 2008. Replace this wishy-washy flailing, with a tough, committed front-line advocate,

    R, you may not care for some of those causes, but at least there would be a president with balls instead of one who appears spayed. I’m looking for tough-minded leadership from him, not the amiable meandering we’ve lately seen.
    Still, Dylan’s line rings true: “Don’t follow leaders, watch your parking meters.”

  9. R. Maheras
    January 24, 2010 - 12:03 pm

    My big gripe with the Carter administration was it seemed, if not wishy-washy, supremely unfocused — almost ADD-like. Further, Carter himself seemed ineffectual, and unable to make anything substantial happen even when he zeroed in on a priority.

    I’m hoping against hope that this administration isn’t a case of deja vu all over again.

    One of my biggest fears with Obama the president was his lack of experience — particularly in running any kind of large organization. Initially, with his derth of executive leadership skills, I thought it was crucial when he took the reins of the largest buracracy on the planet that he surrounded himself with the most capable and effective leadership appointees and staff available.

    Up to this point, that apparently hasn’t happened.

    Obama still has three years to re-assess why he and his administration has stumbled, and thus make the necessary adjustments. But his (and Gibbs’) responses since the Massachusetts Meltdown does not seem to indicate that the change we all want to believe in is forthcoming. It appears the White House is either in denial, or they truly do not understand what the recent elections signify.

  10. Alan Coil
    January 24, 2010 - 3:09 pm

    It took 8 years of criminal negligence to get us to this point, and some would condemn Obama because he hasn’t fixed it in 1.

    At least he’s fucking trying.

  11. Linda Gold
    January 24, 2010 - 3:42 pm

    Thanks Alan for neatly summing the whole thing up.

  12. pennie
    January 24, 2010 - 5:27 pm

    Just finished this fine essay by Frank Rich in today’s NYT. Sums it up for me far better than I can write.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24Rich.html?em

  13. pennie
    January 24, 2010 - 5:31 pm

    Martha wrote, “Does anyone want to join me on a boat with no radio or in a commune someplace remote?”

    yes.

  14. R. Maheras
    January 24, 2010 - 6:36 pm

    “Eight years of criminal negligence?”

    Geez, can’t you and the Republicans just get along? No wonder nothing gets accomplished these days.

    “At least he’s trying?”

    This isn’t T-Ball for cryin’ out loud. Our FUTURE is in the hands of Congress and this administration.

    “No, honey, I don’t want to sue the surgeon for taking out the wrong organ. At least he’s trying.”

    “Oh, dear, we’re going to lose our house because the bank gave us a loan we couldn’t really afford. Oh, well, at least they tried.”

    “Gee, we all lost our jobs because the CEO’s business plan failed. That’s the way it goes, I guess. At least she was trying.”

    She-ooot! With all of the layers of apologists out there whispering in their ears, no wonder this administration got blind-sided by voter anger.

  15. Alan Coil
    January 24, 2010 - 11:18 pm

    “Piss off,” he explained.

  16. R. Maheras
    January 26, 2010 - 6:57 pm

    Yeah, I’m just so unreasonable, so biased, and just so… so WRONG.

    Hell, even op-ed columnists like Bob Herbert in the “New York Times” seem to agree with most of what I’m saying.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26herbert.html?hpw

  17. MOTU
    January 28, 2010 - 1:19 am

    I’m late to the party. Had a headache…HUGE headache.

    I was determined NOT to watch the State of The Union address tonight. Why? I was afraid if someone shouted down Obama I would just lose it. I went for drinks with a friend and playing in the bar ( without sound) was the State Of The Union address. I assumed I’d be OK with that…then the Republican response came on…

    OH MY GOD.

    Instead of one guy sitting in an armchair or standing in front of a podium reading a teleprompter ( which is the norm) – whoever was giving the GOP response was set up to look like he was delivering ANOTHER State Of The Union address. He was in a large room filled with people and behind him stood his support system. In a very real way this was NOT a response-this was ANOTHER State Of The Union address. The only difference is this guy was speaking to HIS America. The GOP’S America.

    There was no sound but it was clear whatever this guy said he was not talking to everyone he was giving the GOP’s State Of The Union Address. I must say it was a brilliant move. The effect was fantastic.

    It was clearly a smart play. The GOP is good at that kind of shit-but here’s the rub..there’s a growing feeling among people that we are a divided nation. Some of that division is between the races. I’ve never like the GOP but I’ve never felt they were openly racist but clearly from what they DON’T object to (Obama as a monkey. Healthcare = death camps, etc) now I see the far right as racist.

    Not ONE member of The GOP voted for the first Latino Supreme Court Justice.

    NOT ONE.

    If Latinos don’t remember that-if the massive amount of Latinos don’t see that as a fucking punch in the face when they go to the polls…

    Someone tell me how that does not at least look racist?

    With all due respect to R. Maheras-Obama inherited this economy from an asshole. His liberal agenda was a surprise to NO ONE. The GOP has spun his every move as something terrible. He was elected by more than 10 million votes and he’s just doing what he SAID he was going to do.

    I don’t blame ( but I do hate ) The GOP. I blame the voters who forget this is what they voted for.

    That’s what’s wrong with the people in this damn country ( a country which I love )-we forget what we believe in and give in to fear and stupidity. The GOP are masters of fear and they sure are stupid so they will once again rule the day soon.

    Then the world will hate us again. The rich will get richer. The poor will get poorer. The races will move further apart and I’ll just stop giving a fuck.

  18. Martha Thomases
    January 28, 2010 - 8:44 am

    @MOTU: The GOP response was given in the same room where Jefferson Davis was inaugurated.

  19. Mike Gold
    January 28, 2010 - 9:12 am

    “The GOP response was given in the same room where Jefferson Davis was inaugurated.”

    Really? No shit? A-fuckin’mazing! That’s just beyond the pale. You know, the Reichstag got burnt down. It’s goddamn well time those southern Republican bastards realize they LOST THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES and they aren’t getting their slaves back.

  20. R. Maheras
    January 28, 2010 - 9:51 am

    MOTU wrote: “I blame the voters who forget this is what they voted for.”

    I don’t think anyone in Massachusetts forgot anything. In 2008, like millions of people across the country, I think the people of Massachusetts were hoping Obama and a Democratic Congress (and its rare super-majority) would fix the economy.

    Initially, it looked like those in Washington would do so. They passed a stimulus bill in record time. Yeah, it was filled with pork, but I don’t think the average voter cared — as long as it worked.

    Well, a whole freakin’ year has passed, and only a fraction of the money has been spent, relatively few jobs have been created from it, and those jobs it saved to date represent only a narrow portion of the job market.

    Unemployment actually increased by about 20 percent after the bill was passed, from less than eight percent to more than 10 percent. But the most frustrating thing to most of the unemployed is aside from the temporary fix of extending unemployment benefits, the administration and Congress basically turned away from the jobs problem early last year and spent more than eight months focusing almost solely on healthcare reform.

    As I mentioned previously, my best friend, who’s in his late 50s, was laid off during the early days of the recession 18 months ago, and he’s still trying to get work. He’s a liberal from way back, but in the past few months he’s been expressing a great amount of frustration with Obama and Congress because he feels like a forgotten man. And he’s abso-fricking-lutely right!

    THAT’S why the Massachusetts, Virginia and New Jersey voters rebelled. Even with as much power as voters could possibly give them, the Democrats are, for the most part, just dicking around when it comes to fixing the economy — which is what most voters consider Washington’s top priority.

    So voters grabbed the Democrats by the throat and said, “Look stupid, we want jobs and a strong economy first and foremost. All the other stuff is secondary.”

    This voter rebellion isn’t because of Republican sniping. That’s a partisan cop-out. This rebellion is because the Obama administration and the Democratic-run Congress apparently forgot the basic tenets of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

    In response, independents and moderates sent a message to Washington: We don’t give a rat’s behind about party affiliation. Fix the economy or we’ll kick you and find someone who can.

  21. Reg
    January 28, 2010 - 9:51 am

    @ Martha & Mike…

    Yeah.. I caught that reference too…and had the same reaction.

    @$$wipes.

  22. R. Maheras
    January 28, 2010 - 10:23 am

    Mike Gold wrote: “It’s goddamn well time those southern Republican bastards realize they LOST THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES”

    OK, Mike. Since you brought up the Civil War, I’m calling you on that remark.

    During the Civil War, all of those “southern Republican bastards” were Democrats. And such was the case until the end of the Carter administration in 1980.

    It was Republican president, Lincoln, and millions of Union soldiers from Republican states (360,000 who gave their lives during the war) who freed the slaves.

    Revisionism… bah, humbug!

  23. Martha Thomases
    January 28, 2010 - 11:34 am

    Actually, R, the big change between Republicans and Democrats over Civil Rights happened, not during the Carter administration, but during the 1960s, and the Johnson Administration. That’s when many Democrats – the so-called Dixiecrats – switched parties.

    IMO, the stimulus bill, as passed, didn’t go far enough. In trying to be bipartisan and attract Republican support, nearly a third of the cost comes from tax cuts, It was the Republicans who insisted that those tax cuts would create jobs. Liberal economists (including Paul Krugman) pointed this out at the time.

  24. Alan Coil
    January 28, 2010 - 12:03 pm

    Unemployment is a lagging indicator. It almost always continues to go up after the recession has ended. It often takes 1-2 years after the recession has ended before unemployment goes down.

    Obama had no control over the level of unemployment.

  25. Alan Coil
    January 28, 2010 - 12:06 pm

    Russ, your best friend will never work again. Old people are not wanted in the corporate world. They train slowly, they won’t produce as much as a younger person, and the cost of their insurance is much higher.

    Again, I repeat, 8 years of that bastard Bush the Lesser, and some are expecting Obama to fix it all in 1…with the entirety of the Republican party fighting against him.

  26. Alan Coil
    January 28, 2010 - 12:08 pm

    First thing I noticed about the rebuttal was the people behind the Stepford Man — 1 black woman, 1 Asian man, and a serviceman. As if the Republican party gave a shit about any of the three.

  27. R. Maheras
    January 28, 2010 - 12:11 pm

    Well, the South voted as a solid bloc for Carter, who didn’t carry any Midwestern and Western states, and that’s why I feel the defection of the southern states to the Republican side didn’t truly solidify until the 1980 election. I don’t count 1972 because McGovern only carried one state, which means even most Democrats couldn’t stand him.

    You can’t blame the Republicans for the weaknesses of the stimulus bill. The Democrats had a supermajority, and, especially under the circumstances at the time, with everyone running scared about a possible looming depression, the Democrats we’re calling all the shots.

    In my opinion, the failure was not so much with how the bill was crafted anyway — it’s that there was no follow-up action by the Democrats when it became obvious that the bill was not generating anywhere near the number of jobs the administration and Congress anticipated. They took their eye off the ball to focus almost exclusively on healthcare reform, and that was a big mistake.

  28. R. Maheras
    January 28, 2010 - 12:18 pm

    Alan Coil wrote: “Unemployment is a lagging indicator. It almost always continues to go up after the recession has ended. It often takes 1-2 years after the recession has ended before unemployment goes down.

    Obama had no control over the level of unemployment.”

    In a normal economy, that may be the case, but the stimulus bill was sold to the American people as something that would jumpstart a recovery and stem the tide of job losses. That was the justification for its enormous price tag.

    Obama was one of its leading hucksters, so when it did not deliver what was promised, he, deservedly, got part of the blame.

  29. R. Maheras
    January 28, 2010 - 12:51 pm

    Alan Coil wrote: “Russ, your best friend will never work again. Old people are not wanted in the corporate world. They train slowly, they won’t produce as much as a younger person, and the cost of their insurance is much higher.”

    My friend, who is also a published author, is smart and savvy, and he does not blame “corporate America” for his problems. Most of his previous “day” jobs were not corporate jobs — he worked for small businesses in sales positions and as a home refinancer. But the problem is, many small businesses — which provide the majority of jobs in this country — have cut back on staffs or gone belly up during this recession.

    And we talked about the possibility of age discrimination. He believes, and I agree, that it’s probably a significant factor in some jobs he’s applied for. Personally, since 1998, I’ve been a job hunter four times (actually five, but that’s a whole other story). But each time it’s been tougher and tougher to to find a position. During those job-hunting forays there were a number of occasions where I was certain I was not considered for a position solely because of my age. For legal reasons, employers are usually very careful about tipping off their age predjudice, but sometimes during an interview (if it even gets that far), just the way a question is phrased, or the way they react when they see my gray hair, I can tell I’m doomed.

    Still, if the economy is doing well, one can often overcome such bias because jobs are just so plentiful.

    That’s not the case now, of course, and if Obama and Congress can’t figure out some way to significantly increase the number of jobs in this country, they are all going to JOIN the ranks of the unemployed come the 2010 and 2012 elections.

    The unemployed have no sympathy and patience for the whiners in Washington — particularly those who point fingers and play the blame game.

    And as a non-affiliated voter, I really can’t say I blame them.

  30. Mike Gold
    January 28, 2010 - 2:56 pm

    R.M: I accept your call-out!

    Actually, I didn’t say anything about the Civil War. I said the War Between The States. There’s a difference. What we had wasn’t a civil war; the south lawfully split off from the Union. Lincoln went to war to “save the union,” not the Constitution. Generally speaking, I’m opposed to that war because the south acted within the law by leaving. Slavery wasn’t the point, and it’s not why we went to war. Besides, the Confederate States would have been forced to abandon slavery in short order anyway as the industrial revolution took hold and their trading partners (even those in New York City, who were pro-southern-slavery) found slavery to be distasteful.

    The Democrats and the Republicans more-or-less switched sides between 1854 and 1948. The Republican Party of Lincoln was a very liberal party and the Democrats were the conservatives.

    That started to change quite profoundly in 1948 with the defection of Strom Thurmond’s conservative Dixiecrats. Saint Ronnie sealed the deal in 1980; but by then liberal Republicans like Chuck Percy and John Lindsay were personna non grata and, in Lindsay’s case, chased out of the party. The Repubs were well ensconced in right wing philosophy well before Reagan, although this process wasn’t complete until the latter Bush took office in 2001.

    Let me make one thing perfectly clear: when I said “It’s goddamn well time those southern Republican bastards realize they LOST THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES and they aren’t getting their slaves back,” I was referring to the current crop of southern Republican bastards and not the crop of southern bastards in 1861 who were, in fact, both Democrats and sore losers.

    And none of ’em are getting their slaves back. The closest they can get is keeping minimum wage as low as possible.

  31. R. Maheras
    January 28, 2010 - 4:39 pm

    Fair enough… I see your point.

  32. R. Maheras
    January 28, 2010 - 4:55 pm

    Mike Gold wrote: “The Democrats and the Republicans more-or-less switched sides between 1854 and 1948.”

    As I said in my response to Martha, I think it was substantially later than that — around 1980.

    Hell, Mike, you have at least one prominent southern Democrat in Congress right now who used to be an “Exalted Cyclops” in the KKK! So the switch couldn’t have been as long ago as you opine.

  33. Mike Gold
    January 29, 2010 - 8:05 am

    Russ, the Dixiecrat revolution of 1948 is a matter of history. That’s when the southern Democrats left the party, initially to support their third-party (Fourth party? That election was REAL interesting) candidate, Strom Thurmond. When that bid failed — and both the Dixiecrats and the Progressives failed to stop Truman’s reelection — these folks went to the Republican party and started their take-over.

    Of course, as time progressed their agenda evolved and they eventually dropped their segregationist positions. The neo-cons started to become a real force within the Republican party in the 1968 election which gave us Dick Nixon by a narrow margin. They hit their goal with the election of Saint Ronnie in 1980, but didn’t take the Congress until 1994.

  34. Martha Thomases
    January 29, 2010 - 8:28 am

    @Mike: Don’t bother trying to use history to change his mind. As Stephen Colbert said, “The facts have a liberal bias.”

  35. R. Maheras
    January 29, 2010 - 9:37 am

    Nice quip, Martha, but in reality, the facts — based on how the South voted in presidential elections from the Civil War to the present — do not back up Mike’s assertion.

    Mike said “The Democrats and the Republicans more-or-less switched sides between 1854 and 1948,” but the results from presidential elections during that period just do not back him up.

    In addition, while the Dixiecrat Revolution of 1948 did, indeed, signal a revolt by the southern states against the Democratic Party, the revolt didn’t solidify until about 1980. And to infer that the southern states defected to the Republicans after 1948 is just plain wrong. The South struggled mightily to create an independent party — in fits and starts — until finally throwing in with the Republicans for good after the Carter debacle of 1980.

    If one considers Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina to be the core of the southern voting bloc, here’s how the presidential elections during the past 100 years for that bloc shake out:

    1912 – Democratic
    1916 – Democratic
    1920 – Democratic
    1924 – Democratic
    1928 – Democratic
    1932 – Democratic
    1936 – Democratic
    1940 – Democratic
    1944 – Democratic
    1948 – Dixiecrat: LA, AL, MS, SC; Democratic: GA, NC
    1952 – Democratic
    1956 – Democratic: MS, AL, GA, NC, SC; Republican: LA
    1960 – Democratic: LA, GA, NC, SC; Independent: MS, AL
    1964 – Republican: LA, MS, AL, GA, SC; Democratic: NC
    1968 – Independent
    1972 – Republican
    1976 – Democratic
    1980 – Republican: LA, MS, AL, SC, NC; Democratic: GA
    1984 – Republican
    1988 – Republican
    1992 – Republican: MS, AL, SC, NC; Democratic: LA, GA
    1996 – Republican: MS, AL, GA, SC, NC; Democratic: LA
    2000 – Republican
    2004 – Republican
    2008 – Republican: LA, MS, AL, GA, SC; Democratic: NC

    So, while the South started to separate from the Democrats in 1948 (certainly not any time before that), the shift hadn’t solidified until about 1980.

    Them’s the fact, Ma’am!

  36. Mike Gold
    January 29, 2010 - 11:28 am

    Russ, we agree that the process started in 1948, although we might disagree as to the extent and we MIGHT disagree as to what constitutes a southern state (Texas? Sometimes I think they’re in another country. Oklahoma behaves like a southern state. Kansas, as well.) But that aside, we agree that the next big push was the 1980 election.

    And at that point we diverge, although from the overall picture not significantly. You say it was solidified at that time. I think that it wasn’t solidified until the Republicans took the Congress in 1994 and then won back the White House while holding onto the Congress in 2000. SCOTUS aside (an unreliable bunch of eggheads for everybody), you can’t get much more solidified than holding both the Executive and the Legislative branches in government.

    I think we also agree that the biggest fault of the system is that, by restricting it to only two parties, it ain’t on the legit (as we used to say back home). That’s why the four-party election in 1948 fascinates me so much.

  37. R. Maheras
    January 29, 2010 - 12:52 pm

    I guess we agree more than we disagree then. We should be in Congress. Maybe more stuff would get accomplished.

    Yeah, the 1948 election WAS pretty interesting, as was the 1968 and 1992 elections. If Perot had not shown his impulsive side by quitting the ’92 race (AS THE FRONTRUNNER!) and then changing his mind a few weeks later, he very well may have won the election as an independent. As it is, Perot STILL got almost 19 percent of the vote — nearly eight times higher than Thurmond got in 1948, and substantially more than Wallace’s 13 percent in 1968.

  38. Mike Gold
    January 29, 2010 - 1:09 pm

    Perot would have been interesting, but he seems to have a problem maintaining a thought. Brings to mind Dennis Miller’s endorsement of Perot: “Oh, he’s a crazy little fuck.”

    Woulda made a great bumper sticker.

  39. R. Maheras
    January 29, 2010 - 2:21 pm

    The ’92 race got me thinking. Bush the Elder got hosed for the exact same reason Obama’s been generating voter ire: Seemingly not doing enough about the economy during a recession.

    I remember even writing to the White House complaining about that very same issue in early 1992 because my wife was having a helluva time finding any kind of work in Delaware, where I was stationed at the time (I think I still have Bush’s automated response letter to me somewhere in my files).

    The parallels between Bush the Elder and Obama in this regards are the same. Both saw their approval ratings go from stellar to sobering in a year’s time.

    Bush the Elder, of course, got his high ratings in 1991 during the afterglow following his big success as commander-in-chief during Desert Shield/Storm. Yet, a year later, he was only able to garner 37 percent of the vote in the three-way race with Clinton and Perot. Why the steep fall? Simple: He was in denial about the recession and seemed aloof about the whole thing.

    For any president, success usually boils down to ITES — “It’s the economy, stupid!”

  40. R. Maheras
    January 29, 2010 - 2:25 pm

    Oh, yeah. Needless to say, I voted for Perot in 1992.

  41. Mike Gold
    January 29, 2010 - 2:56 pm

    Actually, Obama’s ratings are higher than Reagan’s were at this point in his first administration. Don’t mean squat; Bush Junior had the all-time crown before he Humpty Dumptied.

    I agree about the Scapegoat-In-Chief concept, but both Bush-1 and Obama carry a lot of baggage. Bush-1 made a big whoop out of not raising taxes, until he raised taxes. He probably had to, the way things were, but still people take that sort of thing badly after a promise. He didn’t play well with the neo-cons or the growing religious right. And he puked at the feet of the Japanese prime minister. Obama, although one year in, hasn’t shown us any leadership: he should have been kicking ass and taking names. A bit more LBJ. He’s still got time, but not enough time to avoid my column this coming Monday.

    Hee-hee.

  42. Mike Gold
    January 29, 2010 - 2:56 pm

    And I want to thank Martha for giving this discussion a nice home. Although I can use some donuts.

  43. Martha Thomases
    January 29, 2010 - 5:09 pm

    @Mike: My pleasure, sweetie. Although, after you read my column tomorrow, you will want steak.

Comments are closed.