Okay, a puzzler for you

[TayTay]

What do these historical numbers mean? What happened in this time period? Why the shift? What does it tell us about the aftermath of war and the impermanence of power? How long did it last?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

95th Congress (1977-1979)
Majority Party: Democrat (61 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (38 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent
Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

96th Congress (1979-1981)
Majority Party: Democrat (58 seats)
Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent
Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

97th Congress (1981-1983)
Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)
Other Parties: 1 Independent
Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

98th Congress (1983-1985)
Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100

[Mass]

1. Loss of the Southern Democrats falling for Reagan's conservative

Southern strategy.

[ray of light]

3. So why did the Southern D's go to Reagan?

[ray of light]

2. Ok...here's one.

Watergate" is a general term used to describe a complex web of political scandals between 1972 and 1974. The word specifically refers to the Watergate Hotel in Washington D.C.

http://www.watergate.info/


(1977--the American citizens rebelled against a corrupt administration--one that considered themselves above the law--and the media was bulldogs going after the criminals (Richard Nixon and Co.)

Hense, upon Gerald Fords pardon of Richard Nixon, the angry citizens of the U.S. used their votes to bring in Democrats who they believed would end the war and stand up for integrity.

Same situation today EXCEPT the 1970's also taught the Republicans that they needed to hide the truth, so they slowly bought out the media and slowly brought in the Propaganda. They learned to help obstruct the message from media and instead used it for their own advantage. (i.e. Compare Clinton and Bush. LIES all of them but the media hides and spins what it can.)

[TayTay]

4. Was Watergate an interruption in a Republican era?

A lot of people think that the country was starting to trend Republican in the late 60's and early 70's. Watergate was an artificial distraction that temporarily aided the Democrats. However, the coalitions that propelled the Dems to power in the '76 elections were doomed to fall apart. A strong challenge from Reagan in '80 blew the Dem prospects away and ushered in the conservative era that we are still in.

Why was Reagan such a force. He was a midling Governor of California. (He did help pass tax legislation that has greatly diminished the school system.) Reagan was also able to get away with defaming the anti-war movement and benefitted from the developing Republican meme that anti-patriotic protesters had caused America to 'lose' the war in Vietnam. (effective strategy, btw, as politics.)

Could that happen again? We are supposed to be entering a time of an emerging Democratic majority because of shifting population trends. Could this be derailed with pretty much the same agenda the right used the last time?

[ray of light]

5. Yes, in a way it was a Republican era.

They had the war and what they saw as the failure of social programs. So when Watergate, Vietnam, and the Media showed the dark side of Republicans people used their vote in the next election as a protest vote. Thus, they turned to Democrats.

Democrats were not good fiscally though AND also you had the whole Iranian http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtmlhostage crisis under Jimmy Carter that made people decide Democrats were inefficient and 'soft' thus they turned to Reagan. Reagan had the hostages released within months of his inaugeration, thus, people felt Reagan was strong and commanding and effective.

Timeline of Presidents
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/

[TayTay]

6. And the fix might have been in to get the hostages out

when Reagan took the oath. That would have been an endeavor of George HW Bush, using his CIA contacts to pacify the Iranians. (Shades of Iran-contra to come.)

Democrats on this here posting board (DU in general not JK) are very, very negative about the war. Are we setting ourselves up for another smack-down by the Rethugs that will last a long while. Or are certain politicians prescient in beginning to lay down an agenda that supercedes the war in some ways and points to a positive agenda about the people. (You know, TayTay's rule # 1 about politics: It's not about you, it's about them: the American people.)

Are lefty freepers damaging the ability of the Democratic Party to turn the agenda into a positive discussion about the future? Will we shoot ourselves in the foot again? Can we give people a reason to vote positively FOR Dems next year? Or are we condemned to again have a phyrric victory in that we were indeed right about the war and were punished for it.

[ray of light]

7. Tay, Tay, imo, yes to your questions.

I believe the left includes so far extremes that the name invoked scares people away (socialists, communists) and those same people are extremely p.o.'d at the Dems who are not all the way with them.

However, I think we need a two-pronged attack:

1. What they do wrong (ethics, possible treason, etc)

2. WE intend to stand up for these values: helping the poor, natioanl security and environment rolled together, healthcare, economy etc...

Greed and ethics versus our HOPE and intentions without the ethic violations.

[TayTay]

9. I think so too!

That negates a lot of what DU is saying in the other forums. I truly think that Iraq will be drawn down by the mid-terms next year. It is too harmful to the Repubs not to. (A huge implosion that could have lasting damage.)

And Iraq is a negative voting influence at this point. (Hey, a lot of people get out and vote when they have been negatively motivated.) However, I think we (Dems) need positives to motivate our base in '06. We need that list of needs and how they can be addressed. (And a kick in the nuts to those who are not meeting these needs but are just giving more tax cuts to the rich.)

[ginnyinWI]

8. another factor in Reagan's success--

1980 was the year they really started mobilizing the religious right. Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the whole crew. Pamphlets were handed out in churches on Sunday. They started connecting Christianity with the GOP and ignoring the side of the New Testament that didn't fit the agenda.

I suppose this was fueled by a conservative backlash against the 60s and 70s. So much happened so quickly in those decades socially, that people got scared and retreated.

[jillan]

10. It was discussed on aar recently that things were going so well during

the Clinton years that dems forgot to pay attention to what the rrw was doing. This could be an unfortunate truth.

And this took me by surprise, I was recently watching one of my all time favorite movies AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT with Michael Douglas, filmed during the Clinton years, Douglas definetly plays a dem President. Anyway they were making references in that movie to the religious right - you know the story, he wasn't married and fell in love with an environmental lobbyist, and she sleeps with him....all down the hall from his teenage daughter....what will the religious right say about that. Hmmm. I know this is a lighter side of what is being discussed in this thread, but I wasn't aware that this movement was going on during the 90's. And to hear that now, my jaw fell to the floor. Were any of you aware of the religious movement in the 90s?

[TayTay]

11. It started in the 70's.

Yup, all the way back to the 70's. At one point in time, Pres. Carter took well over 60% of the Fundamentalist Christian vote. (He brought the subject up in the famous Playboy interview in which he admitted that he had, "Lust in his heart." Sigh!)

This movement is the latest manifestation of a permanent sub-culture in America that goes back to the Puritan days. (I can give you books that claim that the American Revolution was a reactionary development that sought to disassociate from the British because they were too secular. Samuel Adams, a leading Boston Sons of Liberty member was a very conservative Christian. There are several biographies that state that his intent in getting America to declare Independence was that that would result in a religious state that would return to the purity of the original Puritans. Sigh! Didn't work out that way for poor Sam. On the other hand, he does have a nice beer named after him.)

that was geeky, wasn't it? Sigh! I have this life long love of both history and politics and sometimes it gets a bit, ahm, thick.

[jillan]

12. When did the religious vote switch from D to R?

[TayTay]

20. Late 70's, early 80's.

It was a slow evolution. The Fundamentalists (and not all of them, but a significant number) came to believe that the Repubs better represented their view of personal responsibility as a way to moral goodness. This also began to be applied to fiscal goodness.

Again, not all. There are a large number of Fundalmentalist ministers who are Dem. But the huge movement away from the Dems happened in the late 70's. Reagan benefitted from this enormously.

[Island Blue]

14. The "Moral Majority" was founded by Jerry Falwell in 1979

(Just in time for the Reagan "Revolution".) I think this movement drew in a lot of folks, especially many southerners, who have been voting in lock-step with Jerry and friends ever since. (That's also about the time that Pat Robertson's media empire began to really grow, although he began to build it much earlier.)

I think during the Reagan years these folks were happy as pigs in mud. Bill Clinton and the misuse of his penis however really wigged them out and I think they became very organized and very focused. (Actually I think the leaders of this movement used Clinton's transgression to rally the sheeple - I doubt the leadership really cares what Big Dawg did from a moralistic point of view because IMO they themselves have no morals.)

Also about this time, Lee Atwater and others were brilliant at tying race, religion and fear into a nice shinny package that caught the attention of a lot of people who were raised to follow, not to think for themselves.

And another thing (on edit): I think a lot of folks were (and are) attracted to the religious right because they are repenting for "sins" of young adulthood (a la George W. Bush). This in no way can be discounted - I've witnessed it waaaaaay to many time first hand. Once a preacher (or political leader) convinces someone that they are sinners and that the only way to redemption is to believe a certain thing and to vote a certain way, they've got it made. (What was the original question? Sorry if I went off on a tangent.)

[sandnsea]

15. Here's a great rundown

Starting with the Birchers, Goldwater, and then going on from there to show where the money came from, the key players, and the methods they used. It's basically a direct mail operation. I think that's why the internet scares them, we are doing with the internet what they did with direct mail.

http://www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/religious/3.html

[ginnyinWI]

16. Another thing that started about that same time

was the development of the mega-church. Huge churches with everything you need: youth programs with fully equipped gymnasium, child daycare, social groups for every age group, built-in social life from soup to nuts. It's very provacative--people get sucked in for the sheer fun of it--all of the perks. It was a great way to make business contacts.too. (Men's Breakfast, anyone?) Religion was almost an afterthought. We have one near us that we used to attend back when we were religous right ourselves. That's how I know about the pamphleting by the Christian Coalition. And they have money--tons and tons of money, make no mistake. One telling thing they omit, though, is any sort of community outreach--you know, helping the poor, for example. If it existed I was never aware of it. The answer to anybody's problem was to just come and join the church.

[jillan]

18. I live in a fairly new section in the suburbs, and there are Megachurches

literally popping up on every corner.

There are already 2, and on Sundays at 11 am, the police are directing traffic.

[sandnsea]

24. I am totally unfamiliar with this

I was watching that woman that comes on very late at night, can't remember her name, in one of those massive churches. It occurred to me that this is something I am just completely unfamiliar with. I've been in rural America since 1980. People were standing up and clapping and yelling. Is that what they're like? How can there be anything personable about it? I would think you'd just get lost in there. I'm accustoned to churches with about 100 people on Sunday, when I used to go. It just kind of hit me, this was a whole cultural movement that happened and the media really didn't pay attention until just recently. That's A LOT of votes, you know? Especially when you couple those churches with those "vote your values" bus tours. Maybe this really is where we lost the election.

[sandnsea]

13. Does it mean boomers grew up???

And the Democratic Party didn't?? In the sense that it never quite got down to business on crime, taxes and defense. Maybe people do become more conservative as they start raising families and social justice becomes a sort of naive illusion.

I don't know, if you go back to the civil war, you'd get even more depressed. It seems to me Democrats never get elected President unless the Republicans screw up really really big. I'm glad FDR took the opportunity to big things when he had the chance, as did LBJ.

The Gilded Age seems to be the ideal time for conservatives which isn't terribly good news for the rest of us.

[ginnyinWI]

17. hmm, that makes me ask about JFK

How is it that Kennedy won his election--Eisenhower didn't screw up, did he? Maybe because Nixon was so unappealing! Especially being on tv for that debate. I guess that hurt tricky Dick a lot. But it was a close election, I remember.

[sandnsea]

19. I was only 3

So I don't know first hand or anything. But from what I understand, the economy was sluggish and taxes were still high from WWII. I don't know how people felt about him and his Cold War position, but JFK was strong there too. And his charisma, good looks, and being a Catholic had to help bring out the vote. One could look at Bush 1 in 30 years and not understand the dynamics of that election and how tired working people were of living with a crappy economy since the 70's really. That whole Reagan economic boom was as much bogus bullshit as the Bush economy. So they might look at a 10% unemployment rate and say "what was the big deal?" But that was really only the tip of the iceberg, it didn't reflect the frustration and hopelessness. I don't know how people felt in the 60's, but maybe there was some of that underlying frustration too. Or maybe people just loved JFK!!

[ginnyinWI]

22. yeah, I was only eight in 1960

All I knew then is that our classrooms were bursting at the seams with all the kids in the baby boom. I can remember classes in elementary school as big as 36 kids! And no aides, either, just one teacher.

Judging from his innaugural speech, John Kennedy was very hawkish on national security--young, tough, and determined. The kind of thing people wanted during the cold war.

[TayTay]

21. People were coming off of the relative prosperity of the '50's.

Relative because the fifties were not great if you were AA or female or a minority. Sigh!) Kennedy actually went to the right of Nixon in his campaigning. (He whacked Nixon on the 'missile gap' and convinced the nation that he would keep the country safe and that Nixon was a real gamble.

I don't think Eisenhower ever really liked Nixon and that Nixon was forced on him. I think that lack of support came out. Plus, in the debates, Nixon looked awful. (TV campaigning was still very new and Nixon didn't prepare as candidates would today.) Kennedy also campaigned on a tax cut to bring the highest brackets down. (Something RW still yacks about today, though it's no where near the same thing.)

Kennedy was a vet and a good-looking and young guy with a good looking wife and a young family. He seemed to be a classy guy. He appealed to the large generation that had fought in WWII. He was one of them.

Apostasy for a Bostonian, but I like Kerry better than JFK. (And Teddy better than his brothers.) JFK was a good guy, but he was not the mega-liberal that he became in retrospect. (Mass joke: When Kennedy published Profiles in Courage he was undergoing extensive hospitalizations on his back and missed a ton of votes in the Senate. The wags around here opined, "Hey John, a little less courage and a little more profile, please.") Kennedy grew in the Presidency. He was masterful at handling the Cuban Missile Crisis. (The seminal moment of his brief Presidency, IMHO.) He was pushed by events into backing the Civil Rights movement and began to move cautiously to support it. (In all honesty, I think Mr Kerry was a better Senator and showed more courage in his protests of the Vietnam War than JFK showed in his pre-presidency life. Again, IMHO.)

[sandnsea]

23. I only know what I read

Certainly the 50's weren't a depression, but I've read the economy was in a malaise along with some pesky inflation. Not a boom like the 60's. I don't know, I wasn't there.

I'll always love JFK for a really really silly reason. He paid attention to his kids. Yeah I know now they were photo-ops, but when I was 5 years old and the PRESIDENT took time to play with his kids, WOW. Somehow it made me feel like I was important too, even though I was only 5 years old. So as an adult I can say I would be alot happier with a Kerry Presidency than I would have been with Kennedy, that little kid inside still adores JFK.