quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]OK, but length of time is not as important as when they were the same. I was not saying that voters go into the booth and say, "I won't vote for the same party for the presidency and my senator, and congressman/woman" indeed most voters do the opposite and vote mostly for the same party even if they call themselves moderates. What would be more telling is after a specific party wins the presidency, looking at the next midterm and reelection elections to see if the opposition party gains or loses seats.
What resources are you using Rabbit, I no longer have access to my university's resources, (No more JSTOR for me) I'd like to do some crunching myself instead of asking you to do it.
Also I think you meant "plain wrong" not "plane wrong."
edit: While studying the last few semester I heard the following statistic stated numerous times without contest, "In the latter half of the Twentieth Century, the presidency and both houses of Congress were under single-party control in only 16 of the 50 years (1953-54; 1961-68; 1977-80; and 1991-92)"
Now my original statement was "since the era of good feeling..." so I might have to revise that.
BB, I simply used wikipedia to find the house and senate majority leaders and the Presidents over the time period in question. I didn't find data that gave the partisan break down of the house and senate over time so I really couldn't tell whether parties gained or lost seats in a particular election unless it actually changed which party had the majority.
I think the problem with looking at the last half of the 20th century (1950 - 2000) is that you have a limited data set that is dominated by other factors and you've picked rather arbitrary starting and ending points. 1950 and 2000 were not watershed time points politically.
You have to consider that the democrats controlled both houses of the legislature from 1933 - through 1981 with the exception of two years under Truman and the first 2 years of Eisenhower's presidency. When Reagan took office, the republicans were able to win a narrow majority in the senate which they held for 6 years but they were not able to win a majority in the legislature until 1995.
Saying that the two houses and the Presidency were only held by the same party for 12 of the 50 years is a bit misleading. You get a very different answer if you go from 1930 to 1990, or from 1953 to 2007. It would be more revealing to note that from 1959 to 1995, both houses and the Presidency were held by the same party whenever there was a democratic President.
I think analyzing the last half of the 20th century says more revealing things about the differences between Presidential electoral politics and legislative electoral politics than it does about peoples concern with single party rule.
I do however think that there is currently a perception that having the legislature and Presidency controlled by the same party is a bad thing and that because it has been relatively rare over the past 50 years, many people consider it exceptional.
I also never really heard anyone all that worked up about it until the republicans took control of both branches which may be because the republicans were able to act with far greater unity than the democrats ever were. For some reason, the republicans are able to leverage party loyalty much better than the democrats. I have a couple of theories that might explain that and I'm not sure which if either if true.
The democrats held a majority in congress for nearly 60 years. During that time the republicans maximized their influence when they acted as a unified block and so I think a republican culture of unity grew out of that time period.
I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority. I think that liberal tendency to question authority makes it more difficult to unite democrats in general. I can personally vouch for the fact that the far left is almost impossible to keep organized because people are so strongly against deference to any sort of central authority.
[ May 04, 2009, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority.
In my experience this is much more issues-oriented than anything else.
On security issues, for example, I agree that conservatives are often more likely to defer to authority, liberals less. Taxation, though? Not so much.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
also the rest of the world also preferred American 1 Party rule as that way foreign policy stayed consistent and wasn't skitsophrenic.
IP: Logged |
posted
Ha ha ha! Is anyone still naive enough to think there could be such a thing?
Everyone here is interested in getting reelected. Our politicians will support whatever the polls support about the time they need to win a vote. Since we've got our Senate staggered, we have someone up for reelection every two years. Start campaigning about a year ahead, and we're looking at a third of the Senate beholden to popular whim annually.
There's no way to have any sort of consistent policy on anything under those circumstances.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should hope not. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." The one thing that can be said about US foreign policy is that it is consistent... ...until well after the rest of the world* considers it to be insane.
* Including most informed Americans.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
it was brutal i think in the 1800's where every 2 years American foreign policy was derailed, it annoyed the hell out of the Great Powers.
IP: Logged |
posted
The best that could be said about the GreatPowers of that era would be "all brawn and no sane". Gotta be nimble when you're dealing with a buncha nutcases.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority.
In my experience this is much more issues-oriented than anything else.
On security issues, for example, I agree that conservatives are often more likely to defer to authority, liberals less. Taxation, though? Not so much.
I should clarify. By "authority" I did not mean experts in the field. What I meant by "authority" was a figure with political power. Conservatives are much more likely to show deference to their leader than are liberals. When placed on a team, conservatives are more likely to vest decision making authority in the team leader and then to follow that leader. Liberal teams are more likely to work based on consensus and expect a team leader to build consensus rather than give orders.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should clarify. By "authority" I did not mean experts in the field. What I meant by "authority" was a figure with political power. Conservatives are much more likely to show deference to their leader than are liberals. When placed on a team, conservatives are more likely to vest decision making authority in the team leader and then to follow that leader. Liberal teams are more likely to work based on consensus and expect a team leader to build consensus rather than give orders.
I understood what you meant, but I still stand by my statement.
On security issues, conservatives are in my experience more likely to show deference to their leaders than are liberals. However, this is not the case across the board in my experience. Taxation being an excellent examples. Conservatives aren't very likely at all to show 'deference' to a political leader on issues of taxation, even when they agree with the tax structure and spending.
I believe it's more an issue-related trust in authority, and if in a liberal team there existed a dynamic, charismatic, and capable figure who was also liberal? Deference will be given to him or her as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is true, the fact that we didn't see "teabagging" parties and Fox News tantrums during the administration of President Bush is a bit curious.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:On security issues, conservatives are in my experience more likely to show deference to their leaders than are liberals. However, this is not the case across the board in my experience. Taxation being an excellent examples. Conservatives aren't very likely at all to show 'deference' to a political leader on issues of taxation, even when they agree with the tax structure and spending.
Well then we disagree. Look at how the republicans voted in block against Obama's stimulus package with nearly everyone standing behind their leaders. It's true that they didn't unite behind Bush's stimulus proposals, but at this point they'd pretty much rejected Bush as their leader and were doing their best to distance themselves from him.
Clinton was very charismatic. He had most of the world eating out of his hand but he couldn't get his own party to back him on just about anything. Obama is unquestionably charismatic and he is still having to work very hard to get democrats to follow his lead. In comparison, the republicans seemed to gulp down any and everything G.W. Bush proposed for the first 5 or 6 years of his term. And G.W. Bush isn't even particularly charismatic.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that is true, the fact that we didn't see "teabagging" parties and Fox News tantrums during the administration of President Bush is a bit curious.
Actually there was quite a bit of bitching during the Bush Administration, at least from the conservatives I know. But for most of the Bush Administration, the economy wasn't really a substantial issue for voters on either side. It was doing either well or at least well enough. Security and social issues were the biggies.
quote:Well then we disagree. Look at how the republicans voted in block against Obama's stimulus package with nearly everyone standing behind their leaders. It's true that they didn't unite behind Bush's stimulus proposals, but at this point they'd pretty much rejected Bush as their leader and were doing their best to distance themselves from him.
It wasn't especially hard for Republicans to 'vote in block' against Obama's stimulus package, because that stimulus package is at the least pretty contrary to Republican ideals. President Obama's stimulus package is extraordinary in many ways.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually there was quite a bit of bitching during the Bush Administration, at least from the conservatives I know.
I'm not talking about bitching, complaining is cheap. I'm talking about votes, most specifically about votes in congress and how easily the majority party is able to maintain control without crossing the aisle. The question raised was about single party rule and the influence it has on checks and balances. My observation is that single party rule is more worrisome to me when the single party is republican because republicans seem to be able to better enforce conformity to the aims of the party leaders.
When did G.W. Bush ever have a serious opposition to his budget proposals from within his own party? When did republicans in the house or senate fail to back his tax agenda? When did republicans in the senate question his choice of appointees? When did the republicans in congress oppose his environmental proposals?
The only item I can think of that the republican congress didn't simply rubber stamp for G.W. Bush was his proposal for Social Security reform and that was largely because Bush couldn't get the AARP on board and they are too important as part of the republican base for anyone to ignore.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority.
In my experience this is much more issues-oriented than anything else.
On security issues, for example, I agree that conservatives are often more likely to defer to authority, liberals less. Taxation, though? Not so much.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When did G.W. Bush ever have a serious opposition to his budget proposals from within his own party? When did republicans in the house or senate fail to back his tax agenda? When did republicans in the senate question his choice of appointees? When did the republicans in congress oppose his environmental proposals?
As far as the tax agenda goes, yes, the GOP was the party of small government until bush pointed the herd in the other direction, and the new 'conservatism' was engaged upon largely without question.
In terms of the choice of appointees thing went, the serious conservatives and archconservatives joined the rest of the country in expressing massive rejection of his attempt to appoint harriet meiers.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When did G.W. Bush ever have a serious opposition to his budget proposals from within his own party? When did republicans in the house or senate fail to back his tax agenda? When did republicans in the senate question his choice of appointees? When did the republicans in congress oppose his environmental proposals?
My personal opinion is that had we not been in the 'War on Terror' throughout most of Dubya's presidency, there would've been many fewer toes on the party line. It ties into what I said earlier about conservatives and security issues.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In terms of the choice of appointees thing went, the serious conservatives and archconservatives joined the rest of the country in expressing massive rejection of his attempt to appoint harriet meiers.
Yes she was definitely exceptional in that regard. Of course she was both unqualified from a scholarly view point and unqualified from the far right ideological view point making her a truly exceptionally bad candidate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I guess it doesn't make much of a counterargument against Conservative deference because she was clearly an outlier example, with nearly universal inapplicability to the post. GWB may just as well have tried to appoint Elmo.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not.
I'm sure there are plenty of valid examples where conservative have bucked the party leadership, but I never intended to claim there weren't. My point wasn't that conservatives always defer to their leader and liberals never defer to the leader. It was solely that conservatives are generally more likely to defer to their leaders than liberals.
Perhaps I see it that way because I've spent too much time in Utah and Utah republicans are overwhelmingly LDS and Mormons have a very strong respect for and deference to appointed leaders.
On the far left spectrum, I've done a lot of work with greens, socialist and anarchists and they have exactly the opposite problem. Far left groups are so strongly biased against central leadership that they are constantly tearing themselves apart.
I picked the ends of the spectrum I'm familiar with and interpolated between the two and concluded that there is a general tendency for conservatives to give more respect to authority figures. Perhaps this is something that doesn't exist e except among Mormon conservatives but I don't think Mormons are that much of an outlier among conservatives in general. Perhaps the far left groups aren't really part of a liberal spectrum they just attract a lot of people with anti-social tendencies. Its possible I picked two outlier groups data points, but I don't really think so. My experience watching national politics does suggest that although there are certainly exceptions conservatives generally have more respect for authority figures than liberals.
[ May 06, 2009, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam, I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not.
No sarcasm. I'm saying straight up that my use of harriet meiers as a counterargument against conservative deference doesn't work because it's an outlier example.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, looks like Senator Specter is getting screwed by the Democratic leadership. According to a voice vote yesterday, he's lost his seniority. He's claiming he was promised he'd keep it, Reid's spokesman denies.
I guess if the Democratic leadership sticks to that, it might not be a very painful decision. He can hardly go back to the Republicans now, after his talk of big-tent politics and whatnot.
Though as my father was saying, savvy Republicans could turn this into a coup if they approached him and invited him back, no harm no foul (publicly), and with promises to take it easy in the primaries.
That actually would be a pretty decent gesture of 'big tent' politics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would never happen. Pat Toomey will be a primary challenger regardless of what Steele or McConnell say.
They can offer not to give any funds to Toomey, or to support Specter in the primary, but he'll still be there, and I think regardless he's going to have his hands full.
Frankly I think Specter is going to face a primary fight from Democrat Joe Sestak as well, so regardless of what he does he's going to be in trouble, and his chances of making it to the general and then winning the general aren't guaranteed regardless of party.
The GOP could invite him back, but to what end? He'll still vote the same way, so they don't really get any legislative power back, and he'd have to face Toomey in the primary. Regardless of his position in the Democratic party, he was never going to be Chairman anyway with another Democrat above him, and he likely only has one more term in him anyway.
He'll stay where he is, though he'll be less likely to bend to whatever Reid asks of him as a result.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would never happen. Pat Toomey will be a primary challenger regardless of what Steele or McConnell say.
Well, if the GOP decides to quash or at least not lend support to Toomey, that certainly changes the status quo.
quote: The GOP could invite him back, but to what end? He'll still vote the same way, so they don't really get any legislative power back, and he'd have to face Toomey in the primary. Regardless of his position in the Democratic party, he was never going to be Chairman anyway with another Democrat above him, and he likely only has one more term in him anyway.
Note that I'm not suggesting it's likely, however the benefit I was speculating on was PR.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The republicans WANT specter in the democratic party, though.
Any democratic candidate who can at least stand up straight and possess at least a 300 word vocabulary will beat Toomey. With Specter there, at least Toomey is losing to a "Democrat," as opposed to a Democrat.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specter never intended to vote with the majority on any substantive matter anyways. He proved that by voting with the Republicans on the budget. And after he spat in their faces, Senate Democrats paid him back by unanimously voting to make him a junior member.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specter never intended to vote with the majority on any substantive matter anyways. He proved that by voting with the Republicans on the budget. And after he spat in their faces, Senate Democrats paid him back by unanimously voting to strip him of his seniority.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder why Democrats and the rest of the media are so obessed with making sure everyone hates Limbaugh? Why don't the have the same obession with someone like Maddow? or Olbermann? Rall? Jesse Jackson? or even following the gaffe machine Biden?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I wonder why Democrats and the rest of the media are so obessed with making sure everyone hates Limbaugh? Why don't the have the same obession with someone like Maddow? or Olbermann? Rall? Jesse Jackson? or even following the gaffe machine Biden?
Except that they do. I've heard Olbermann specifically criticized for having too many "I just can't hold this in anymore" moments. Jesse Jackson was recognized as a poor spokesman for liberalism a long time ago, and the press has no problem pointing out Biden's gaffes.
What really bothers people like me is that Limbaugh is objectively a poor spokesman for conservatism. He's an excessively angry, thrice divorced, addicted to pain killers, corpulent, sexist, who deigns to talk about social values. Republicans keep balking at calling a spade a spade. A Republican party that tells Limbaugh he is not wanted or desired is a Republican party that can get its' moorings back. But every time they manage to summon the courage to call some of his remarks, "inflammatory" or "rude" Rush blasts them for not being "real Republicans" and then they lose their integrity by apologizing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: He's an excessively angry, thrice divorced, addicted to pain killers, corpulent, sexist, who deigns to talk about social values.
This is the best brief description of Rush Limbaugh I can recall reading, BB.
Amen.
I liked Powell's statement.
quote:"I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without," Powell said.
quote:"Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?"
Certainly Rush is not the only nasty voice out their appealling to people's lesser instincts, but he is certainly the most widely heard and one of the loudest. By all reports, his show draws a minimum of 13 million listeners every week. He has an enormous fan club, he sells T-shirts promoting water boarding. If you add all the followers of everyone on DK's list together I can't imagine they add up to half as many followers as Rush has. Evidently hate mongering pays and Limbaugh is simply better at it than the others.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... He's an excessively angry, thrice divorced, addicted to pain killers, corpulent, sexist, who deigns to talk about social values.
He sounds like an evil hypocritical House! Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Thanks, I debated whether to add 'racist' and 'college dropout' to the list but I'm not certain he's a racist, and dropping out of college is not categorically bad.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
My brother has the most awesome artwork ever but I can't show it due to copyright issues basically its Spongbob squarepants acting all googily eyed and happy when squidward is waterboarding him as spongebob is restrained to a table.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Colin Powell becomes the next prominent Republican to take a shot at Limbaugh.
Please please please don't apologize for your remarks Mr. Powell!
Heh. Colin Powell is nearly as much persona non grata in today's Republican Party as Specter is. He endorsed Obama, remember?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Powell could come back into public life pretty easily if he wanted to. I really don't get the sense that at this point in his life he covets the limelight. Given the kind of people who are getting the limelight these days, especially on the right, one can hardly blame him.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh: Thanks, I debated whether to add 'racist' and 'college dropout' to the list but I'm not certain he's a racist, and dropping out of college is not categorically bad.
Well, I can't say I'm certain...but if I could read his mind, let's just say I'd be flabbergasted if it turned out he wasn't a racist.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh: Thanks, I debated whether to add 'racist' and 'college dropout' to the list but I'm not certain he's a racist, and dropping out of college is not categorically bad.
Well, I can't say I'm certain...but if I could read his mind, let's just say I'd be flabbergasted if it turned out he wasn't a racist.
quote: Evidently hate mongering pays and Limbaugh is simply better at it than the others.
Unless he is better at it because he doesn't use hate-mongering. Rush's show is more about being positive and doing things yourself and not what the government should be doing for you. It's easy to take 15 hours of programming a week, pull out maybe 20 seconds, to make a claim of hate mongering.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: *laugh* Oh, yeah. He's like Oprah for NASCAR dads, I'm sure.
What a clever line...I wonder where you read it? You don't listen so you don't know. Not that you would do something to go against your already unchanging unfailing intellect, but try listening for awhile (that means more than 2 minutes) and see if you think Rush is a hate mongering negative person or if his show is about something else. I await your snarky post in return. I can't wait for the terrific tidbit of condescension, it's all you ever do! (Note how I can reduce you to something you are not by utilizing the same techniques you use to characterize Rush)
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many minutes do I have to listen to Rush before I'm allowed to form an opinion of whether he's positive or not? Is there a particularly positive bit I should be tuning in for, maybe at the 1:07 mark? Let me know when he's giving away the free cars.
quote:Note how I can reduce you to something you are not by utilizing the same techniques you use to characterize Rush
Ah, dude. Somehow you still manage to completely miss the point. But keep on truckin'.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
DarkKnight, I have listened to Limbaugh, and hell, I voted for Dubya twice. So my credibility as a non-hater-of-conservatives, I think, has to be at least a little valid.
And I think he's a hate-monger. It's true, not every hour of his show is filled with frothing invective. But then, it doesn't have to be for him to still be an angry hate-monger.
Here's what I remember hearing from the Rush Limbaugh show on all the occasions I've listened: lots of preaching to the choir (that's the majority), slightly less but still lots of major condescension (a close second), frequent personal insult, straw men, and slippery slope reasoning, punctuated by both feel-good stories and the hate-filled invective.
What makes Limbaugh a hate-monger is that he embraces, in a whopping big hearty bear hug, all the hateful things he says. He cops to his personal insults with all their hints of racism and sexism with a big sh@#-eating grin.
He's a stain on conservative politics, who tragically isn't going away anytime soon. Which is strange (some might say hypocritical) given his stance on crime.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: My brother has the most awesome artwork ever but I can't show it due to copyright issues basically its Spongbob squarepants acting all googily eyed and happy when squidward is waterboarding him as spongebob is restrained to a table.
Um, given the quantity of deviantArt that's just a rehash of pop culture characters, I think you are perfectly safe showing someone a work that clearly counts as parody.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: *laugh* Oh, yeah. He's like Oprah for NASCAR dads, I'm sure.
What a clever line...I wonder where you read it? You don't listen so you don't know. Not that you would do something to go against your already unchanging unfailing intellect, but try listening for awhile (that means more than 2 minutes) and see if you think Rush is a hate mongering negative person or if his show is about something else. I await your snarky post in return.
I listened to rush every broadcast day for seven months in a row. His business strategy and his mode of punditry is to seed hate. More importantly, he pontificates through mockery, ignorant disdain, disregard for the facts, and mammoth self-righteousness.
Any more tricks besides the 'listen to him first' line?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'd like to do some crunching myself instead of asking you to do it.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
