Lib-a-blog

The Party Cycle

2005-02-11T09:53:00.000-08:00

I alluded to the cycle (natural or otherwise) that political parties find themselves in particular periods of time. I wanted to further look into this and so I consulted the Congressional website to review this trend. I am less interested in Presidential elections because less face it - personality can go a far way in our politically undereducated society. Since, I don't think one party could be said to have more personality all the individual elections happening simultaneously across the country can show the "true" national trend. I've set up a small table from antebellum times to the present. I've categorized them by sight only....(see link)

1859-1875 Strongly Republican
1875-1895 Mod. Strong Democrat
1895-1911 Strong Republican
1911- 1919 Strong Democratic
1921- 1935 VERY Strong Republican
1937- 1995 Strong Democrat
1995- Pres. Mod. Strong Republican

One thing I noticed, is besides the 1937-95 period most of these seem to run on 10-20 year cycles. Good news is that the recent republican cycle is 10 years+ and counting. In addition, with the constant bad news coming out of Iraq, Iran, and Korea, it is going to be hard to hold the voters goodwill. Bush was given a second chance, historically in times of war people don't like switch ships. After eight years the only thing people are going to care about is results. Period. In the end Bush's bold policies may help end the Republican grip on power.

Note: The latest polls show that Bush's approval rating is tanking (even with the moderately successful Iraqi elections). In the same article, a guy was quoted as saying "I voted Republican, but it looks like things are going downhill." I hope these feeling continue to grow.

Here's the link to look at the party breakdown yourself...
http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/partyDiv.html

Short one - Dean DNC Hell Yeah!

2005-02-10T20:00:00.000-08:00

There is a lot of talk about Howard Dean being the (presumably) inevitable next DNC chief. Well I say Hell Yeah! Many nay sayers and Republicans are applauding the decision as the next hit in a series of death blows against the Democratic party. Well, I say maybe it is time for the Dems to die, IF that means we need to become Republicans to survive. What I see is a natural trend like that which befell the Republicans at previous times. People have decided that security (= police state), moral values (= complete intolerance), and general national and international policies should toe the completely "straight" line. If being a Democrat means we must support curtailing women's rights, stop promoting gay rights (our generations biggest civil rights challenge), support outlandish and ignorant cowboy'ish foreign policy, and curtail civil liberties then we are better off without. What we need to concern ourselves with is those middle of the roaders having a party to come home to when they are fed up with policies that just don't work. Dean is the perfect person to do that, and he may even be a shrewd enough leader to win a few elections on the way.

Rock on Dean!

Culture of torture

2005-02-04T09:37:00.000-08:00

I was struck when I heard about the combination of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General that we have a serious cultural problem. In the wake of 9-11 nearly everyone was thinking about methods of retrieving information from suspected terrorists. The mania has seemed to subsided, at least slightly since them. Yet, Gonzales was a part of some very creative legal briefs on torture of terror suspects as well as the Geneva convention. Clearly, Bush had decided that at least the possibility of adding more tools to the interrogators arsenal was a worthy goal. At the same time, I have heard numerous callers to mostly conservative talk radio shows extolling torturing detainees.

The people I feel bad for are the soldiers who were convicted (or are waiting for the inevitable) in the Abu Gharib scandal. They were caught in the same vortex of retribution and foolish notions of torture that the people in America and even the President were, at the least considering, but more likely encouraging. Were the soldiers wrong? Hell yes. Was the President and Gonzales wrong? Hell Yes. Are the people in America who are "at any cost" conservatives wrong? Ditto.

The difference was placement and situation. Bush and Gonzales were tossing torture around - conceptually they are pro torture, the real question for them was finding a palatable way to sell it. What if a younger Bush was on the ground in Iraq, would he have condoned torture? I can't answer that - but I have my suspicions.