quote:Originally posted by Topher: Every country that's had a revolution has a red, white, and blue flag. Although Russia adopted its RWB flag a little late.
Um... we (UK) didn't. 1688 doesn't really count as a proper revolution after all. And it's debatable the degree to which the American War of Independance can be called a revolution.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, it's strange. The American Revolution was more of a civil war, and the English Civil War was more of a revolution.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, it certainly was a political revolution as evidenced by the Constitution that was adopted a few years after the end of combat.
And I think we're still working on the revolutionary social/cultural aspects of the whole experiment in freedom/democracy thing.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Hope everyone is doing well (if feeling especially angry with Republicans lately). I thought I would add a few comments from reading the string.
Grokca: actually there is a Conservative Party in the United States, but they are confined, to my best knowledge, to the state of New York. It is a reaction against the Republican Party of that state which was dominated for so long by the "Rockafeller Republicans." (Well, still kind of is with Pataki and Bloomberg.) This variety of Republican tends toward a brand of mercantilism, i.e., governmental support of corporations and a much higher degree of comfort with intervention in social issues. The most famous Conservative Party member was Christopher Buckley, who served one term in the U.S. Senate in the late Sixties/early Seventies. He is also the brother of the founder of The National Review, William F. Buckley, Jr.
Wraith: I was wondering the same thing about Australia watching the Olympics. I was hoping some of you all might have known.
TSN: one think I consistently heard through school starting in elementary school was that the Revolution was a "conservative revolution." The idea was that the deeper tradition in English constitutionalism was that commoners would have a hand in the governance and monitoring of the executive (i.e., the king) before economic policy was approved. From an ocean away, it was next to impossible for Americans to exert the kind of citizen control over government that had been developing since the English Parliament of 1265.
Nim: I would say there is no real chance of open conflict between the parties in America. The Civil War was uniquely geographical in its dynamics and I don't see the same contiguity necessary for pieces of the country to start breaking off. Without getting too deep into the issue, that war was a result of different economics systems working better in different locations in the nation. The core features of those systems were on a collision course. That why it was states fighting each other, and not populations.
Jay: yes, the North was a mixture of parties. However, from what I remember, the South was almost exclusively Democratic. (There were still some Whigs left from John Tyler's administration.) I'm not even sure that Lincoln appeared on the ballot in most of those states.
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well I heard on the news that the New York assembly thingie took place, but I heard no mention of those "anti" gestures touted in the beginning of this internet message thread. All the newsbit said was that the spin doctors are trying to tone down Bush's conservative side, to appeal to the other voters, and that anti-abortion and gay marriage speakers were not to bother coming.
If this is a last attempt at trying to win over voters for the coming election, I suspect it's "too little too late".
-------------------- "I'm nigh-invulnerable when I'm blasting!" Mel Gibson, X-Men
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Though it requires the near-demonic Realplayer, I would recommend the following two radio programs, one about the Democratic Convention and the other the Republican Convention, from 1996, which is in some ways so long ago that listening to quirky documentaries from that time is like digging through your grandparents' garage, but aside from generating the eerie sense of having outlived yourself, they are neat insights into what goes on at American national political conventions.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"All the newsbit said was that the spin doctors are trying to tone down Bush's conservative side..."
The GOP is pulling out all the stops for this one, though, with Schwarzenegger and I-don't-know-what-other Republican bigshots all slated to make an appearance hailing Bush in every way they can think of as if he was The Holy Planetary Overlord or something and the only one fit to lead the Free World and the only one capable of restoring the glory of the US of A and blablablabla. And people probably buy into that self-promotional crap, too.
It's like any other personality cult, just a dangerously large and well-funded one.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, uh, disagreement with this particular Overlord aside, that is sort of what these conventions are for, regardless of party.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Well, yes, but it's just the intensity of the thing that seems so off-the-scale this year, even for the Republican party.
(I haven't had much exposure to previous R-convention coverage, but even the one from 2000, when they had the Lewinsky scandal to feast upon, wasn't, to my recollection at least, THIS ferocious.)
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
For anyone that still thinks there's some "libera; bias" to the media, turn on CNN. All they can report for the past 48 hours is how far behind Kerris, how there's *rumors* that SOMEONE in his campaign said they *probably* SHOULD restructure the campaign IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A CHANCE AT WINNING!
You'd think Kerry threw in the towel from their attitudes.
Just shows that the press are vultures and that all liberal pretense aside, they'll pounce on anyone they can hype as "weak" to make ratings.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
So, here�s how I see the Republican National Convention going so far...
Wrap yourself as tight as you can in the memory of 9/11. In fact, hold your convention in New York just days before the 3rd anniversary of those attacks.
No one will notice or think it�s crass or inappropriate or anything.
And if someone asks what about how to fund education, remind them that everything changed that day in 2001 and that George W. Bush is a war president who makes decisions.
Say you�re going to be optimistic and then don�t be...use the old tried and true bait and switch tactic. You�re getting good at it.
In fact, be downright angry at the podium.
Wild-eyed is even better!
Republicans need learn how to embrace their inner John Kerry hatred. How dare he challenge Mr. Bush in this election?!?!
Attack John Kerry.
Attack, attack, attack.
Only wimps run on their record.
Avoid discussing policy.
In fact, avoid even the slightest hint of policy discussion. If someone asks about an actual policy, remind the questioner of 9/11 and the president�s steely resolve.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Jay - The problem with this race is that the Republicans are going to have a big problem running their campaign on their policies (because they are idiotic) or personalities (GWB doesn't have one) so you have to stick to the only thing they have, scaring the shit out of dumb America.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
OK, because Jay was nice enough to post his comments in numbered paragraphs (ever think about a career as a paralegal?) I thought I would make some passing comments.
1. It depends on how you think it should be remembered. I don't remember who first said it, but I think it's telling that when Democrats thought about it at their convention, a hush of respect came over the room. When Zell Miller talked about it at the Republican convention, there were hollers of defiance. It's a question of personality. Different strokes for different folks (even if I think some strokes are better than others). (BTW, I wish Gary Coleman would keep pursuing politics. He would make a great person to have in an executive branch...) I for one think that the war on Islamofascism is the most important issue of this election. Because I think it should be prosecuted with vigor, I have no problem it being brought up as a reason to vote for the incumbant. Both parties have done it before, e.g., FDR and Lincoln.
1.a. Depending on what you think the proper role of the national government is vis-a-vis the states, opinions tend to run one way or the other on the issue of education. Just because Bush doesn't want to finance schools using national funds doesn't mean he wants to see kids intellectually malnourished. He believes it is an issue of the states, which is traditionally where it has been lodged. If you have a problem with funding, (I hate to sound trite, but I really don't know another way to do this, but) take it up with your local school board. Or better yet (at the risk of going off topic), vote for candidates that would enact laws for vouchers or charter schools.
2. and 3. (Together.) These are actually one in the same issue. Let me give you the key passage from Jonathan Last's piece from earlier today on the Weekley Standard online:
quote: THE BULK of tonight's prime-time speeches were attacks against Kerry. What does that mean? It means that Republicans are running a campaign of contrast--they are running on ideological division--at least tonight. How to square this with Monday night's outreach to Democrats and undecideds?
Part of the answer is that Republicans want to have it both ways: They want to reach out, and go very, very negative on their opponent. There is some precedent for this. In 1988 George H.W. Bush ran a campaign which said, essentially, (1) I'm kinder and gentler and, (2) Dukakis is a nut. This mixed message worked for Bush 41. Still, the mixed message is not what a strong incumbent typically strives for.
So what is Team Bush trying to do? Their message is unified on a basic level. The one universally coherent message this week is that Republicans believe the only topic which matters is the war on terrorism. If that is your strategy, then both tacks--the trumpeting of Bush's record and the attacking of Kerry's--are part of the same whole.
3.a. Just wait until we see some confrontation on Kerry's testimony in 1971 to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his voting record as the junior senator from Massachusetts. It's going to get a lot more negative before it's over. They're not wimps for not bringing it up yet, only saving their best arguments for last (not unlike a good high school essay).
4. This is a phenomenon I've seen elsewhere. No one who actually knows anything about how politics work think that policy is supposed to be the centerpiece of conventions. (Hell, I recall reading an extended essay on William McKinley talking about how his administration's policies were determined months before his election.) The idea that conventions are where we hammer out our differences died in the nineteenth century (with a very few notable exceptions). These days, a lot of policy (I don't know enough to say most) has been given to the experts at think tanks. On the right you have the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institute, and the Heritage Foundation. On the left you have ones like the Brookings Institution and the Ford Foundation. This doesn't answer the question of whether it ought to be that way, but realistically, I don't see an alternative that is possible. Conventions have become sales pitches. And, to make a final point, isn't that the first priority of politics? Selling your policies as best for the people?
4.a. I'll give everyone the same answer I gave my brother (who is nuts about science and policy): some issues are just more important than others. (Warning: peroration approaching.) I disagree with Bush a lot of issues, but none of those is going to matter a damn bit if we get blown to smitherines because Kerry is willing to soft pedal Iran and not prevent a regime that honest-to-God thinks we are the Great Satan from getting enriched uranium it can give to any organization who agrees we should be fried to a crisp because of who we are.
I would be genuinely surprised if this changed anyone's mind, but I thought I would do my part.
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
